Ontario Psychiatrist Stripped of Licence Over Fake COVID Exemptions
Ontario Psychiatrist Stripped of Licence Over Fake COVID Exemptions
Ontario Psychiatrist Stripped of Licence Over Fake COVID Exemptions
A psychiatrist from Ontario has lost her medical licence after issuing hundreds of COVID-19 exemption letters without proper justification. The province's Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal ruled that Celeste Jean Thirlwell acted in a way that was 'dishonourable and unprofessional', putting patients at risk during the Delta variant outbreak. The decision also barred her from practising medicine again, as officials saw no chance of reform in her approach. Thirlwell, who graduated from McMaster University in 2000, specialised in psychiatry and sleep disorders but had no training in immunology or public health. Despite this, she wrote 1,475 exemption letters between August and November 2021, allowing patients to avoid vaccination, mask-wearing, and testing requirements. Investigators later found that only two out of 112 reviewed patient files met the College's criteria for a valid exemption.
Each initial exemption letter cost patients $300, earning Thirlwell an estimated $427,500 over three months. The Tribunal determined that her letters relied on misinformation, unverified family medical histories, and unsupported claims. As a result, her licence was permanently revoked in February 2026, with the Tribunal stating it was unrealistic to expect any improvement in her conduct. In addition to losing her licence, Thirlwell was ordered to pay $10,370 in costs to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. The case, officially recorded as *College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Thirlwell (2026 ONPSDT 5)*, did not include further details on additional penalties, legal action, or protections for affected patients.
The revocation of Thirlwell's licence follows a finding that her actions endangered public health during a critical phase of the pandemic. She can no longer practise medicine in Ontario, and the financial penalty reflects the severity of her misconduct. The ruling serves as a formal record of her violations but does not outline further steps for patient compensation or broader public health safeguards.