Two board members of the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) resigned in February 2026 following allegations that a Jewish candidate for president-elect, Dr. Hal Berman, was unfairly targeted during the electoral process. The controversy erupted in Toronto after the OMA applied a public warning to Dr. Berman’s campaign profile, citing a “confrontational and combative tone” in his social media activity regarding antisemitism. While the OMA maintains the screening was a standard professional review, supporters of Dr. Berman argue the move reflects a double standard that penalizes Jewish physicians for addressing discrimination.
Key Takeaways
- Dr. Hal Berman was the only candidate flagged for social media conduct during the 2026 OMA election.
- Two board members, Paul Conte and Paul Hacker, resigned in protest of the vetting process.
- The OMA used a third-party firm to screen candidates for alignment with its Code of Conduct and Civility.
What triggered the resignations within the OMA leadership?
The resignations of Paul Conte and Paul Hacker occurred on February 17, 2026, coinciding with the publication of Dr. Berman’s flagged candidate profile. In a statement shared with colleagues, Hacker clarified that his departure was rooted in a fundamental disagreement with the procedural choice to publish third-party commentary on a candidate’s “tone” or “style.” He described the move as a failure of governance oversight that compromised the integrity of the election.
Dr. Berman, a palliative care physician and former NDP candidate, had been vocal on social media about rising antisemitism and the Israel-Hamas war. He alleged that while his posts were labeled combative, other candidates who engaged in anti-Israel activism faced no such scrutiny. This perceived disparity led Dr. Lisa Salamon, President of the Jewish Medical Association of Ontario, to claim the incident carried “malicious antisemitic undertones.”
How did the OMA justify the social media screening?
The OMA defended its actions by stating that the screening is a well-established component of its vetting practice. According to the association, the review focuses on professionalism and respectful engagement rather than personal opinions. The organization contracted Promeus, an executive recruitment firm, which in turn used a specialized third party to conduct background checks on all candidates.
The Ontario Medical Association governance standards are designed to ensure that physician leaders adhere to a strict Code of Conduct and Civility. However, the lack of transparency regarding which specific posts were deemed problematic fueled Dr. Berman’s claims of election interference. Despite his requests for evidence, the OMA did not provide specific examples of the language that triggered the warning.
What does this mean for the medical community in Ontario?
The fallout from the election highlights a growing tension within professional regulatory bodies regarding the definition of “professionalism” in the digital age. Dr. Sohail Gandhi, a former OMA president, criticized the handling of the election as a sign of organizational incompetence. He warned that using third-party reviews to critique candidate style could expose the association to legal vulnerabilities and internal division.
For Jewish doctors, the incident has raised alarms about the safety of speaking out against discrimination. Dr. Berman noted that after becoming vocal about antisemitism following October 2023, he faced online attacks and safety concerns at his workplace. The OMA’s decision to flag his advocacy as “combative” suggests a narrowing path for physicians who wish to engage in political or social discourse while seeking leadership roles.
How will the OMA address future election integrity?
Although the OMA maintains that the resignations did not impact its ability to function or maintain a quorum, the procedural backlash may force a review of how third-party data is used in candidate profiles. The association eventually softened the language on Dr. Berman’s profile, changing the warning to a disclaimer suggesting members “form their own opinions.”
Moving forward, the medical community is calling for clearer guidelines on what constitutes “combative” language versus legitimate advocacy. As professional organizations navigate increasingly polarized social climates, the balance between enforcing civility and ensuring equitable treatment for all ethnic and religious groups remains a critical challenge for 2026 and beyond.
