DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
DR. DAVID STUART LAMBERT
Practice Location: Brampton, Mississauga
Practice Area: General Practice
Hearing Information: Contested (sexual abuse allegation), Agreed Statement of Facts (other allegations),
Joint Submission on Penalty
On November 2, 2011, the Discipline Committee
found that Dr. Lambert committed an act of professional misconduct, in that he sexually abused a patient.
The Committee also found that Dr. Lambert committed acts of professional misconduct, in that he:
a) ontravened a term, condition or limitation on his
c
certificate of registration by:
i) reating or offering to treat female patients;
t
ii)
seeing patients outside the context of services
listed on OHIP’s Schedule of Benefits; and
iii)
having dealings with his patients in respect of the
sale of skin care products.
b) ad a conflict of interest, in that he recommended
h
cosmetic products in which he held a personal commercial interest to his patients.
c) contravened a regulation made under the Medicine
Act, 1991, specifically paragraph 16(d) of Ontario
Regulation 114/94.
d) ngaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofese
sional conduct.
Dr. Lambert denied that he sexually abused a patient.
Dr. Lambert admitted the other allegations.
In the course of an investigation into Dr. Lambert’s
practice, the College retained the services of several
private investigators, including Ms. X, who contacted
Dr. Lambert to inquire about cosmetic procedures he
advertised on his website. Dr. Lambert consulted with
her regarding the procedures and agreed to meet Ms.
X to administer the procedures at which time Ms. X
became his patient. During the course of their scheduled appointment, Dr. Lambert intentionally touched
the breast of Ms. X, thus committing sexual abuse of a
patient.
44
DIALOGUE • Issue 2, 2014
Reasons for Penalty
The Committee was presented with a joint submission
on penalty.
The Committee agreed with the joint submission
proposed by counsel for the College and counsel for Dr.
Lambert. The Committee agreed that revocation of Dr.
Lambert’s certificate of registration is the only penalty
which could adequately address the protection of the
public, maintenance of public confidence in the integrity of the profession, and issues of specific and general
deterrence.
In coming to this conclusion, the Committee considered all the evidence before it, including that pertaining
to Dr. Lambert’s history with the College, extensive
clinical recor