DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
ent patients, eventually committing another act of
sexual abuse. It is hard to imagine a clearer example
of the abject failure of terms, conditions and limitations designed to protect the public, or a more blatant
disregard for the authority of the College, than has been
demonstrated by Dr. Lambert throughout this process.
The terms, conditions and limitations which had been
imposed were rendered meaningless by Dr. Lambert’s
refusal to abide by them. The Committee believes that
this historical context is important in assessing a suitable response to Dr. Lambert’s subsequent professional
misconduct in breaching the terms, conditions and
limitations which had been imposed on him. Not only
is it highly likely that future conditions would be similarly breached but, based on the nature of Dr. Lambert’s
past professional misconduct, the public would be at
high risk as a result.
In consideration of the above, the Committee concluded that Dr. Lambert is ungovernable. The Committee
was of the view that these circumstances would have
compelled the revocation of his certificate of registration, even if a finding of repeat sexual abuse had not
been made.
The Committee considered the defence submission that
Dr. Lambert’s mental condition ought to be considered
as a mitigating factor, the implication being that his
mental condition reduces the extent of his personal
responsibility with respect to the professional misconduct which he committed. The defence position is that
Dr. Lambert’s treatment at this point has not progressed
satisfactorily and that, as a result, the risk which he
presents to the public has not been reduced to the point
where he should be permitted to return to practice. It
was for this stated reason that Dr. Lambert joined with
counsel for the College in the joint position that revocation of his certificate of registration was appropriate.
The Committee was of the view that Dr. Lambert’s
mental health problems are most consistent with a
diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He clearly
meets most of the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for
this disorder, and the most problematic aspects of his
behavioural history, his attitudes and personality style,
are consistent with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder
diagnosis. The Committee found that the professional
misconduct committed by Dr. Lambert is primarily a
function of his personality. His demonstrated ungovernability flows from characteristics of entitlement, arrogance, self-absorption, externalization of responsibility,
and lack of insight; these characteristics are all personality-based. Thus, despite the fact that Narcissistic
Personality Disorder is defined as a mental disorder in
DSM-IV, it does not diminish Dr. Lambert’s personal
responsibility with respect to the acts of professional
misconduct which he committed. We do not agree
that it should propFull decisions are available online
erly be considered as a
at www.cpso.on.ca.
mitigating factor with
Select Doctor Search and enter
respect to penalty.
the doctor’s name.
The Committee did
accept, as a mitigating
factor, that Dr. Lambert eventually joined with the College in a joint submission on penalty. This contributed
to a more expeditious resolution of the penalty issue
than would otherwise have been the case.
The Committee found that the most prominent aggravating factors with respect to penalty are as follows. This
is Dr. Lambert’s third finding of professional misconduct. Previous findings have included the sexual abuse
of his patients, and he has again reoffended in a similar
fashion. He breached the terms, conditions and limitations attached to his certificate of registration at the
time of his reinstatement. He did so in a planned, deliberate, systematic and repetitive fashion, and was, in fact,
preparing to commit these breaches even prior to his
reinstatement. He has shown a lack of remorse and has
refused to accept responsibility for his transgressions,
throughout the College investigation leading to the
current proceeding. He was given a second chance to
practise medicine after earlier violating the public trust
in a most serious fashion, and he failed completely, and
immediately, to conduct himself in the responsible and
professional manner which was required. His behaviour
is a disgrace to himself and to the profession.
Order
The Committee ordered and directed that:
1. he Registrar revoke Dr. Lambert’s certificate of regist
tration, effective immediately.
DIALOGUE • Issue 2