In a decision published Feb. 10, the Collège des médecins du Québec (CMQ) ordered Shawville doctor Peter Paul Talko to stop practicing for four months, for ignoring requests from his professional order and for failing to file the appropriate paperwork for three medical assistance in dying (MAiD) cases. The cases took place while he was practicing at the Pontiac Hospital in 2023 and 2024. 

The CMQ is an oversight body for doctors across the province and the decision was handed down by a disciplinary panel of two physicians and a lawyer. The complaint against Dr. Talko was filed by Dr. Nicolas Raymond, acting on behalf of the CMQ. 

While Dr. Talko admitted to the offences and pleaded guilty, he said he did not believe the severity of the punishment matched the offence and plans to appeal the decision. The suspension does not come into effect until later in March, and Dr. Talko told THE EQUITY he is working with the Canadian Medical Protective Association to appeal the decision. 

Dr. Talko was previously cited by the CMQ in 2025 for the excessive clutter in his office, for which he was fined $5,000. 

Offences

According to the College’s decision, Dr. Talko failed to notify and submit documentation to the commission on end of life care in relation to three patients, two who received MAiD and one who requested MAiD. Doctors are required to notify the commission within 10 days of administering MAiD. Within 30 days of receiving a request for MAiD but not administering it, they must notify the commission of their rationale for not proceeding. In the case mentioned, Dr. Talko said MAiD was not administered because the patient had passed away before it could be. 

Dr. Raymond received a report about the lack of documentation in Sept. 2024. The report stated that Dr. Geneviève Gagnon, head of professional services for regional health authority CISSSO, had reminded Dr. Talko in June and July 2024 to submit the required documentation. Dr. Gagnon filed a report with the CMQ on July 24, 2024, noting Dr. Talko’s failure to notify the commission regarding these three cases.  

Dr. Raymond emailed Dr. Talko on Sept. 10, 2024, requesting comment on the allegations against him. He received a notice on Oct. 1, 2024 that Dr. Talko had received the request but not opened the email, and sent a followup request, which was also ignored. On Oct. 30, Dr. Raymond sent a final warning to Dr. Talko in-person via a bailiff, indicating that failure to respond within 10 days would result in a disciplinary complaint for obstructing his work. 

On Feb. 18, 2025, Dr. Raymond contacted Dr. Gagnon, who confirmed the following day that the documents had still not been filed. Dr. Raymond requested and received the complete medical files from the three patients concerned in Mar. 2025, and followed up with Dr. Gagnon on May 10, 2025. She replied on May 26 that the documents had still not been filed and she had been unable to reach Dr. Talko. On May 30, Dr. Raymond filed a disciplinary complaint. 

Dr. Raymond recommended that Dr. Talko receive a suspension of four months for ignoring his requests for information, highlighting the grave nature of obstructing the CMQ’s work. He also asked for a suspension of one month for each of the instances of not submitting documents, to be served concurrently (at the same time). 

In his defence, Dr. Talko stated that the MAiD was administered in a hospital setting, arguing the relevant information was in the medical files, and that the quality of the medical procedures were upheld. He admitted the documentation software is difficult for him to use and apologized, noting that he stopped administering MAiD in 2024. 

“He acknowledges that it is his responsibility to do so, while mentioning that he considers these administrative formalities to be optional,” the CMQ’s decision notes. 

Dr. Talko stated that a suspension would be “devastating” for his patients, and it would be a disproportionate punishment in the circumstances. He requested fines of an unspecified amount as an alternative to suspension. 

He pointed out that the medical care he provided (or didn’t provide, in the case where he didn’t administer MAiD) was not being questioned. 

“It doesn’t make sense [ . . .] there’s no question about the quality of the care I gave, no complaints from the patients or the family or anything, it’s just a summary on the internet, on the website, that’s it,” he told THE EQUITY, referring to the online filing system for the MAiD forms. 

He said that local patients already have a difficult time accessing all kinds of services, including MAiD, and said by suspending him for four months his patients would be worse off, adding that he is considering retiring or creating a private holistic medicine practice if the suspension is enforced. 

“It’s going to be bad for [MAiD] and it’s going to be bad for my 1,000 plus patients,” he said. “I’m close to my retirement, I’m in my late 60s, so this might be the push that gets me to retire.”

Decision

The disciplinary panel accepted Dr. Raymond’s recommendations, and suspended Dr. Talko for four months, along with three one month suspensions to be served concurrently. 

“Practicing a profession is a privilege, not a right, and entails obligations, duties, and requirements established by the professional order, which the professional must respect,” the decision notes. “Thus, every professional has a legal obligation to cooperate with their professional order so that it can fulfill its mission, namely the protection of the public [ . . . ] The respondent’s wrongful and passive conduct demonstrates that he continues to treat [Dr. Raymond’s] requests as optional, which is concerning because, by doing so, he persists in obstructing [Dr. Raymond] in the exercise of his public protection duties, blocks the investigation process concerning him, and forces the Collège to undertake several steps. This inaction by the respondent undermines public confidence in the medical profession, especially since it continues to this day. This inherently serious offence can have consequences, particularly those related to safety of the public and its perception of this exceptional care.”

The decision cites Dr. Talko’s level of experience, having practiced medicine since 1994, and holding a family medical certificate since 2010, as an aggravating factor noting “the public is entitled to expect better from an experienced physician.”

The decision goes on to add that though the relevant medical information is contained in the patient files, the timely filing of these documents with the commission provides a necessary oversight mechanism that’s vital for avoiding abuse of this kind of procedure. 

“These legal requirements are neither optional nor discretionary, contrary to the respondent’s assertions. It is his responsibility to comply with them within the prescribed time limits, and he cannot simply state that he has recorded the information in each patient’s medical file and that it is sufficient to consult it,” the decision states. “Compliance with these legal requirements is necessary to ensure the proper management of this exceptional care, to prevent abuses, and to guarantee the practices of physicians authorized to administer medical assistance in dying.”