Dialogue Volume 10 Issue 2 2014 | Page 44

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