DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
DR. YADVINDER SINGH DHALIWAL
Practice Location: Mississauga
Practice Area: General Practice
Hearing Information: Agreed Statement of Facts and
Admission, Joint Submission on Penalty
On November 5, 2012, the Discipline Committee
found that Dr. Dhaliwal committed an act of professional misconduct, in that he engaged in disgraceful,
dishonourable or unprofessional conduct.
Dr. Dhaliwal admitted to the allegation.
Dr. Dhaliwal was previously found to have engaged in
disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct
by the Discipline Committee relating to loans that
he solicited and received from seven of his patients.
The finding of professional misconduct was made on
the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts and Admission entered into evidence at a hearing in 2003, which
stated that Dr. Dhaliwal still owed money to some of
the patients, but that he had paid back a couple called
Patient F and Patient G. Dr. Dhaliwal had borrowed
over $50,000 from Patients F and G in 1999, and two
cheques provided in repayment had been returned for
insufficient funds. However, the Agreed Statement of
Facts and Admission stated that “at this time, the full
amount of the loan, plus interest, has been repaid” to
Patients F and G.
In its decision, the Discipline Committee encouraged
Dr. Dhaliwal to pay restitution to other patients whom
he had not yet paid back, by providing that the suspension ordered by the Discipline Committee would be
partially suspended if he did so. The Discipline Committee did not encourage Dr. Dhaliwal to pay back
Patients F and G, because it was agreed that Dr. Dhaliwal had already done so.
Dr. Dhaliwal testified under oath at the 2003 hearing
that he had paid back Patients F and G in full. However, this was not true. In May 2003, five months before
the 2003 hearing, Dr. Dhaliwal visited the home of Patients F and G with his wife and a relative. The patients
were asked to withdraw their complaint on the stated
basis that Dr. Dhaliwal’s ability to repay the loan could
be jeopardized by the discipline proceedings against
him. The patients agreed to withdraw their complaint
42
DIALOGUE • Issue 2, 2014
in return for an offer from Dr. Dhaliwal to pay $1,000
a month until the loan was repaid in full. Patients F and
G signed a letter, as requested by the Dhaliwals, stating
they had been repaid the money and did not want to
continue with any investigation. The letter was sent to
the College.
Dr. Dhaliwal paid Patients F and G $1,000 a month as
he had agreed to do for a period of five or six months.
Thereafter the payments began to drop in frequency
and amount. In 2008, Dr. Dhaliwal paid nothing towards repayment of the loan.
In April 2009, Patient F advised a College investigator
that the letter sent to the College in 2003 stating he
and his wife had been repaid was untrue. He explained
that since that time, they had received about $10,000
in small instalments. For example, the previous month,
Patient F had attended at Dr. Dhaliwal’s practice and
received an envelope with $250 in it from the reception
desk.
After Patient F notified the College of this information, Dr. Dhaliwal’s wife contacted Patient F to advise
him that a $30,000 payment was available to him and
his wife in return for signing papers again withdrawing
their complaint with the College. Patient F attended
at Dr. Dhaliwal’s office and picked up a bank draft for
$30,000.
Reasons for Penalty
The Committee carefully considered the joint submission to ensure that it met the general principles of penalty. A penalty should serve to denounce the disgraceful,
dishonourable or unprofessional behaviour and uphold
the reputation of the profession. A penalty should serve
to protect the public and maintain the public’s confidence in the profession’s ability to self-regulate. As well,
the penalty should deter the member from a recurrence of the conduct and provide general deterrence to
the profession. To whatever extent possible, a penalty
should also serve to rehabilitate the member.
Dr. Dhaliwal has been penalized previously for the
unprofessional conduct that was the subject of the 2003
hearing. The Committee is nonetheless astonished at
Dr. Dhaliwal’s behaviour. To have testified at his hearing that he had repaid his patients, F and G, when in
fact he had not, is behaviour that cannot be tolerated.