08/22/2026
ACADEMY FOOT AND ORTHOTIC CLINICS | COMMENTARY
Ontario Foot Care at a Crossroads
A personal history of podiatry, chiropody, regulation and the need for collaboration.
By Dr. John A. Hardy, retired chiropractor and owner of Academy Foot and Orthotic Clinics.
My background and connection to foot care.
My name is Dr. John A. Hardy.
I began practising chiropractic in 1980 and operated two successful clinics until 2015.
My wife joined my practice in 2001 as a chiropodist, and foot care has remained a central part of our family and professional lives ever since.
Our daughter first pursued a career as a commercial pilot before changing direction.
She completed four years at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, graduating with an Honours Bachelor of Science degree and an average above 85 per cent.
She later applied to both The Michener Institute in Toronto and Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane.
She was accepted to QUT and qualified as a podiatrist in Australia before returning to practise as a chiropodist in Ontario in 2016.
In my view, her experience illustrates how difficult and sometimes inconsistent Ontario’s educational and registration pathways can appear to applicants.
Today, I own Academy Foot and Orthotic Clinics.
Our team includes 10 chiropodists, five chiropody students, and a new graduate expected to join us this summer.
Demand is so strong that our clinics operate seven days a week.
At the time of writing, we have received more than 1,150 perfect five-star Google reviews—something I see as a reflection of our team’s commitment to patient care.
A divided profession.
Ontario’s foot-care system is unusual.
Podiatrists and chiropodists are regulated by the same college but practise under different statutory histories and, different scopes.
Podiatrists registered under the pre-1991 model retain certain authorities that newer practitioners registered as chiropodists do not.
The result is a small group of legacy podiatrists working alongside a much larger and growing chiropody profession.
My relationship with leaders and members of the Ontario podiatry community has often been difficult.
At times, it has felt like “sleeping with the enemy.”
That phrase is deliberately blunt, but it captures my frustration with decades of complaints, disputes over professional titles and advertising, and resistance to scope-of-practice changes for chiropodists.
When I was in second year at chiropractic college in 1978, Ontario’s Minister of Health, the Honourable Dennis Timbrell, spoke to our class.
I recall him praising chiropractic’s lobbying efforts and contrasting them with the approach taken by Ontario podiatrists.
The lesson stayed with me: professional authority comes from legislation, and legislative change requires persuading government that the change will benefit the public—not simply demanding benefits for a profession.
My first dispute over website language.
My first direct conflict arose in 2005, after I purchased a website template from the United States.
The template contained references to “podiatrists” and “doctors.”
I had owned the site for only about a week, did not yet know how to edit it properly, and did not appreciate the regulatory consequences of those words in Ontario.
Within one week of the website going live, Mr. Bruce Ramsden complained that we were using the words “podiatrist” and “doctor.”
I reviewed the websites of the few Ontario podiatrists who had one at the time and found that they were referring to themselves as doctors.
I then submitted more than 15 complaints to the College concerning the same infraction.
The College offered to withdraw the complaint against my wife if I withdrew my complaints and corrected our website.
The lawyer I consulted told me this was unprecedented and that, in all her years dealing with regulatory colleges, she had never heard of such an arrangement.
Soon afterward, Judy Cohen, who was responsible for College complaints, asked me not to identify my wife as having a B.Sc. in Podiatric Medicine because Bruce Ramsden, then president of the OPMA, did not approve and believed it could confuse prospective patients.
I kindly refused.
The X-ray dispute.
Before amendments made in the 2010s, the Healing Arts Radiation Protection Act framework was understood by us to permit a chiropodist with four years of relevant training to own and operate an X-ray machine and to order X-rays.
My wife had completed three years of chiropody training at The Michener Institute and an additional one-year Bachelor of Podiatric Medicine program at Durham in England.
I emailed Felicia Smith, then Registrar of the College of Chiropodists of Ontario. She stated that the College had no jurisdiction over HARP.
I applied for approval of a podiatric X-ray installation, obtained approval of the drawings, and purchased a suitable unit.
I already had two X-ray machines—one in each chiropractic clinic—but they were much more powerful than podiatry units and unsuitable for podiatric imaging.
I then made what proved to be a fatal mistake: I published a blog announcing that our clinic would soon provide X-ray services.
I was unaware that Ontario podiatrists monitored my blogs so closely.
They held an emergency meeting with Registrar Felicia Smith, who made several personal visits to HARP to thwart our application.
The HARP administrator then telephoned to tell me that our approval was being revoked at the Registrar’s request.
The College notified us that my wife would face discipline for ordering X-rays and attempting to install an X-ray unit.
Chiropodists are trained in school to read and diagnose X-rays, which is the most important part of radiology.
Taking the images is straightforward; there are only three standard views: A/P, lateral and oblique.
During the investigation, the College also found an invoice billed to “Dr. Hardy”—meaning me—but charged my wife with holding herself out as a doctor.
She was convicted of ordering X-rays and holding herself out as a doctor and lost her right to practise for three months.
The College determined that the four required years of training had to be consecutive, not a three-year program followed by an additional one-year degree.
This was a precedent-setting case. The College could have given her the benefit of the doubt because we had followed the HARP guidelines, but the podiatrists were determined not to allow a chiropodist to have X-ray privileges.
The College assigned my wife a mentor—a College board member and chiropodist from Ottawa.
He was a very nice man, but I found more infractions involving the word “doctor” in his advertising than in ours. When I brought this to Registrar Felicia Smith’s attention, I was told it did not matter.
Podiatrists in Ontario already have the right to own and operate X-ray equipment.
Why would they want chiropodists to receive the same privilege after working to have the HARP regulations changed?
Their focus has remained on removing the podiatry cap, while chiropodists continue to be treated as inferior.
An unintended consequence for new podiatry graduates.
I later hired a podiatrist trained in the United States.
I hoped this would resolve our difficulties concerning X-ray services and the use of podiatry terminology.
After I announced his arrival in a blog post, he told me that he had been advised that our clinic was not considered a suitable place for him to work and that he had been offered another position in Ottawa.
He told me that the powers within the OPMA advised him that our clinic was unsuitable and offered him a position in Ottawa with Mr. David Greenberg, whose licence was later suspended for life.
I know this because the podiatrist told me directly.
He eventually opened his own clinic in Barrie but was denied X-ray privileges. Although trained as a podiatrist, he was required to practise as a chiropodist in Ontario.
It took him more than two years to obtain approval for his X-ray installation.
By changing the HARP rules to require four consecutive years of training, the podiatrists had shot themselves in the foot: new podiatry graduates registered as chiropodists encountered the same barrier.
The irony is striking.
Chiropodists were recently denied X-ray privileges while dental hygienists with two years of postgraduate education were granted them.
Great colleagues—and then they wonder why the profession cannot advance.
The continuing dispute over professional titles.
I retired from active chiropractic practice in 2015 and relinquished my registration.
I did not initially appreciate that, once I was no longer registered, I could not continue to hold myself out as a chiropractor or use “doctor” in a way that implied current professional status.
After a complaint, I received a cease-and-desist letter from the College of Chiropractors of Ontario.
To restore my registration, I rewrote the licensing examinations—a six-month process that was demanding but also an excellent professional refresher.
This led to another complaint, this time from Ontario podiatrist David Greenberg, because our website stated that doctors worked in the clinic while I was not yet re-registered.
My wife went to discipline again and lost her right to practise for four months.
I submitted a complaint about Mr. Greenberg’s clinic name, “Foot Docs,” and he was required to change it. He ultimately lost his licence to practise for life in an unrelated matter.
During my wife’s disciplinary hearing, I reviewed Ontario podiatry websites and found more than 40 members with multiple infractions involving the word “doctor.”
The College dismissed my complaints as malicious.
My wife was prosecuted for the word “doctor” on my website when it clearly referred to me, while Ontario podiatrists were given a pass: one system for podiatrists and another for chiropodists.
Soon afterward, Mr. Peter Stavropoulos—then president of the College and involved in my wife’s prosecution—placed Google advertisements describing himself as a doctor and was listed as a doctor on RateMDs and another website.
I telephoned his clinic as a courtesy. His receptionist referred to him as “Dr. Stavropoulos,” but he refused to take my call.
I submitted a complaint, and it was dismissed.
Again, two standards for two classes of practitioners.
You have heard that you cannot fight City Hall.
The same applies to regulatory colleges.
Consider what happened to Jordan Peterson, the Ontario psychologist and world-renowned speaker, who ultimately lost his licence following five complaints from non-patients in another country.
Years observing the College.
For approximately seven years, I attended meetings of the College of Chiropodists of Ontario four times a year.
When the pandemic began, the meetings moved online. Much of the work was routine, but the experience gave me a close view of the profession’s internal divisions.
Among the issues discussed was whether clinic names could give one practice an unfair advertising advantage.
I was told that using “Academy” placed our clinic near the beginning of alphabetical listings.
A proposed committee on practice names did not ultimately produce the change some appeared to want, perhaps because many established podiatry clinics also used distinctive names.
There was also discussion of restricting ownership of clinics in which a member of one regulated profession employed members of another.
Because I was a chiropractor who employed chiropodists, I was concerned the proposal was aimed directly at our business.
My lawyer advised that such a rule would have broad consequences for multidisciplinary clinics owned by physicians, dentists and other professionals.
The proposal did not proceed.
Registrar Felicia Smith personally handed me the proposal and told me I would find it interesting.
After countless hours of meetings with other colleges, it died in the ashes, just as my lawyer predicted.
I sat near Bruce Ramsden and his group, as well as Registrar Felicia Smith.
The people who spoke with me included Jim Daley, a public member of the board, podiatrist Andrew Klayman and, of course, the chiropodists.
Jim Daley was eventually instructed not to speak with me because I was considered to be causing trouble for the College.
Ninety per cent of the meetings were boring—but the lunches were amazing.
A failed effort to improve the OPMA website.
At the beginning of the pandemic in 2019, I telephoned Windsor podiatrist James Hill, then president of the OPMA.
I offered to remove derogatory—but truthful—statements I had posted about him if he would update the OPMA website to describe the educational differences between podiatrists and chiropodists more fairly.
He said he would consider it, but no changes were made.
Ontario podiatrists later persuaded RateMDs to create a separate category for chiropodists so they would no longer be listed together—especially when a chiropodist ranked above podiatrists.
This happened while the profession should have been focused on the government’s refusal to grant additional privileges to either group.
It is another example of energy being spent searching for infractions and protecting status instead of advancing patient care.
A scholarship that ended.
For five years, I funded a $4,500 scholarship recognizing excellence across the three years of The Michener Institute’s chiropody program.
I was later told that the school would no longer accept the scholarship because of concerns arising from my wife’s disciplinary history.
I found that decision deeply disappointing.
The scholarship was intended to support students and strengthen the profession, not to advance a regulatory dispute.
What podiatry’s own reports have said.
The divisions I describe are not based only on my personal experience.
Former leaders of the Ontario Podiatric Medical Association have written openly about conflict between the professions.
2011–2012: protecting the podiatry brand.
In annual-report commentary attributed to then-president Bruce Ramsden, the OPMA described complaints made about chiropodists using terms such as “podiatry,” “podiatric” and “podiatric medicine.”
The stated purpose was to protect the podiatry brand and prevent the public from believing the two professional titles were equivalent.
A later report noted seven complaints involving five chiropodists, including concerns about advertising and use of the title “Dr.”
2011: “While we completely understand why Chiropodists want to attach themselves to Podiatrists’ coattails, like previous Presidents I think it is incumbent upon the OPMA to do whatever it has to do to protect the Podiatry brand in Ontario.” — Bruce Ramsden.
2012: “As a consequence, the OPMA has made a total of seven complaints pertaining to five Chiropodists whose advertising stated or implied that they were Podiatrists and were offering podiatric care.” — Bruce Ramsden
2014–2015: defending podiatry against chiropody
The 2014 commentary described government policy in the 1980s and early 1990s as having replaced podiatry with chiropody and characterized the profession as having spent decades defending its brand, scope and funding.
A 2015 report stated that the OPMA had opposed attempts to amend the Chiropody Act to allow chiropodists to call themselves podiatrists.
2015: “When the OSC attempted several times to convince the government to amend the Chiropody Act to allow them to call themselves Podiatrists, the OPMA was there to stop it.” — Kel Sherkin.
2017–2019: an acknowledgement that exclusion failed.
The most candid assessment came in reports attributed to James Hill.
The 2017 report stated that podiatry had made itself unpopular with government, focused too heavily on benefits for the profession, failed to build bridges and alienated both friends and opponents.
2017: “The profession’s leadership was out of touch… Not only had the profession not built bridges with other professionals and stakeholders, it had burnt the very few bridges that existed.” — James Hill.
“Too frequently, we have pursued a strategy of exclusion, rather than collaboration or inclusion.”
The 2018–2019 commentary went further.
It acknowledged that the profession had attempted to exclude chiropodists in the 1970s, that this strategy contributed to government choosing a chiropody model, and that podiatrists had denigrated chiropodists and resisted dialogue with chiropody organizations.
It also observed that podiatry was perceived as a profession that did not “play nicely in the sandbox” and needed alliances to compensate for its small numbers.
I could not have expressed the problem more clearly myself.
These statements support my long-held view that exclusion has weakened foot care advocacy in Ontario.
The 2008 HPRAC submission
The OPMA’s May 8, 2008 submission to the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council also described the difficulties of housing two professional groups within one College.
The submission argued that a minority profession can be overruled by the majority and that College resources are consumed by interprofessional disputes.
Whatever one’s position, that analysis accurately captures the structural tension that remains today.
Mr. James Hill was convicted of defrauding the Ontario government and OHIP of $10,000 in 2006, and his licence to practise chiropody was suspended for six months.
How did the OPMA reward him?
By later making him its president.
Understanding podiatrists and chiropodists in Ontario.
Both professions provide specialized foot care, but their training routes and legal authorities have developed differently.
Podiatry education in the United States generally follows an undergraduate degree and a four-year Doctor of Podiatric Medicine program, with postgraduate residency training.
Ontario chiropody education has historically followed a separate Canadian and British-influenced model, including the advanced diploma program at The Michener Institute.
In Ontario, chiropodists can assess and treat a broad range of foot conditions, prescribe authorized medications, and perform permitted soft-tissue, nail, tendon and related procedures within their scope.
Legacy podiatrists have additional authorities in areas such as communicating a diagnosis, bony surgery and operating X-ray equipment.
Exact scopes, controlled acts and title rules are matters of law and regulation and should be described using current official sources.
The two-tier structure dates to 1991, when Ontario stopped registering new practitioners in the podiatrist class while permitting existing podiatrists to continue.
New graduates—including those with American podiatry training—have generally entered the profession through the chiropodist class.
The number of legacy podiatrists has therefore declined as members retire, while the number of chiropodists has grown.
Ontario remains an enigma in foot care. It is the only jurisdiction in the world still using the term “chiropodist,” and the only one where two classes of foot specialists practise under different regulations while being governed by the same regulatory body.
There are now more than 800 chiropodists in Ontario and fewer than 40 registered podiatrists.
Several podiatrists have retired but maintain registration, which inflates the apparent number.
Podiatrists are outnumbered roughly 16 to 1 by chiropodists, yet Podiatry remains the smallest health profession regulated by an Ontario health regulatory college.
There is one Canadian podiatry school, at the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières.
Ontario’s chiropody program is located at The Michener Institute in Toronto, with clinical training at the Michener Foot Clinic.
Only three Canadian provinces have American-trained podiatrists; the other seven manage without them.
OHIP and extended health benefits
Legacy podiatrists have limited OHIP coverage for certain services.
From my experience practising chiropractic when partial OHIP coverage still existed, limited public funding can create administrative burdens and confusion, particularly when extended health plans coordinate benefits differently.
This can place podiatrists at a disadvantage when patients use extended health benefits.
Many patients have chosen a chiropodist because their employer’s plan would not reimburse treatment by a podiatrist who billed OHIP.
At the College meeting of February 5, 2012, podiatrists asked the College to write to the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association about this discrimination.
Patients should telephone their employer’s extended health plan and ask whether treatment by an OHIP-billing podiatrist will be reimbursed.
Chiropodists and podiatrists are otherwise reimbursed at the same rate by Ontario extended health insurers.
Surgery, scope and necessity.
Chiropodists can perform surgery involving muscles, tendons and nails, and both professions can prescribe pharmaceuticals.
Podiatrists may perform bony surgery, although Ontario podiatrists lost the right to perform hindfoot surgery through the 1991 legislation.
My Toronto foot clinic has operated successfully for more than 25 years.
We do not want to provide bunion surgery because, in my view, it is often unnecessary and can sometimes be detrimental.
Only a handful of Ontario podiatrists perform bone surgery, and I believe many of those procedures are cosmetic, unnecessary and extremely expensive.
One Ontario podiatrist even bragged about shaving the muscles of women’s feet so they would fit more easily into high heels.
We do not need more American-trained podiatrists in Ontario.
The aging legacy podiatrists are gradually retiring, and chiropody is meeting the demand for foot care across the province.
Public protection—or professional turf protection?
Ontario’s health regulatory colleges exist to protect the public’s access to safe, competent and ethical care.
In my opinion, too much time and money have instead been spent arbitrating disputes over titles, advertising language and professional identity.
The core public-interest question should be straightforward: what education, competency assessment and safeguards are required for a practitioner to provide a service safely? If a chiropodist meets those standards, the discussion should focus on patient access and outcomes—not on protecting one profession’s brand from another.
Recent government decisions concerning scope expansion have again shown how little progress can be made when the professions approach government divided.
X-ray authority would be useful to our clinics, but our practice has continued to grow without it.
We do not seek to provide every possible procedure.
Our goal is to deliver effective, conservative foot care and refer appropriately when a patient requires services outside our scope.
Where we go from here.
I have strong views about the history of podiatry and chiropody in Ontario because the consequences have affected my family, our clinic and our patients.
I also recognize that lasting change will not come from reliving every grievance. It will come from building a modern, evidence-based model of foot care centred on the public interest.
Ontario needs a framework that:
• defines scopes of practice according to demonstrated education and competency;
• creates fair, transparent pathways for qualified practitioners trained in Canada and abroad;
• reduces unnecessary disputes over terminology while ensuring patients are never misled;
• supports access to diagnostic imaging when practitioners are properly trained and appropriate safeguards are in place; and
• encourages podiatrists, chiropodists and other foot-care professionals to collaborate rather than compete through complaints.
The profession’s own historical reports have acknowledged that exclusion and conflict damaged its credibility with government.
That lesson should guide the future.
Ontario’s patients do not benefit when foot-care professionals spend their energy fighting one another.
The future of foot care in Ontario depends on collaboration, consistent standards and a shared commitment to patients—not on preserving old divisions.
It remains my hope that podiatrists and chiropodists will eventually work together to advance both professions for the common good of the people we serve.
Page
