DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
2. r. Lambert appear before the panel to be repriD
manded;
3. r. Lambert pay costs to the College in the amount
D
of $27,375.
On December 1, 2011, Dr. Lambert appealed the portion
of the decision of the Discipline Committee pertaining to
the sexual abuse allegation to the Divisional Court. On
December 28, 2012, the Divisional Court dismissed Dr.
Lambert’s appeal for delay.
DR. MUNJAL SHIRISH PARIKH
Practice Location: North York
Practice Area: General Practice
Hearing Information: Agreed Statement of Facts and
Admission, Joint Submission on Penalty
On December 5, 2012, the Discipline Committee
found that Dr. Parikh committed an act of professional
misconduct, in that he has engaged in an act or omission relevant to the practice of medicine that, having
regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be
regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or
unprofessional.
Dr. Parikh admitted to the allegation.
Patient A was Dr. Parikh’s patient for more than 10
years. During the care provided, Dr. Parikh prescribed
medications to Patient A related to mental health issues and also provided referrals for psychiatric care for
Patient A.
After a counselling session with Patient A in 2006, during which the patient’s difficult situation was discussed,
in his examination room, without a chaperone present,
Dr. Parikh initiated a hug with Patient A. Although Dr.
Parikh indicates that it was a supportive hug, Patient A
believed that sexual intent was present.
During 2006, Dr. Parikh gave Patient A sums of cash
amounting to approximately $7,000 to assist her with
her financial difficulties. He also provided Patient A
with his cell phone number. In 2005 and 2006, Dr.
Parikh and Patient A engaged in cell phone contact.
46
DIALOGUE • Issue 2, 2014
Reasons for Penalty
Counsel for the College and counsel for the member
made a joint submission as to an appropriate penalty
and costs order.
The Committee considered aggravating and mitigating
factors. Mitigating factors included the fact that Dr.
Parikh took responsibility for his actions, saved the College the costs and time of a contested hearing, and saved
the complainant from having to testify, by admitting to
his misconduct and agreeing to the facts and to a joint
submission on penalty. Further, Dr. Parikh had been
cooperative throughout the process. Finally, Dr. Parikh
had already undertaken a rehabilitative measure on his
own accord, by taking the course on Understanding
Boundaries.
The Committee found that the serial nature of the
boundary violations in which Dr. Parikh engaged with
a vulnerable patient was an aggravating factor. First, Dr.
Parikh initiated a hug with Patient A that, according to
Dr. Parikh, was intended to be supportive, but was perceived by Patient A as having sexual intent. Second, Dr.
Parikh provided Patient A with his personal cell phone
number and, in addition to receiving calls, also made
outgoing calls to Patient A. Finally, Dr. Parikh provided
Patient A with $7,000 in cash to assist her with her
financial difficulties.
The Committee accepted the penalty and costs order
jointly proposed as being in the public interest, and
appropriate in the circumstances of this case. The Committee concluded that the proposed two-month suspension would maintain the integrity of the profession and
public confidence in the profession’s ability to regulate
itself, as well as act as a specific deterrent to Dr. Parikh
and a general deterrent to the profession at large. The
reprimand would also meet those goals as well as express
the Committee’s abhorrence of Dr. Parikh’s behaviour.
The requirement that Dr. Parikh make a female chaperone available for female patients would protect the
public against any future boundary violations. Finally,
the Committee believes that requiring Dr. Parikh to
complete ethics and boundary courses would assist with
his rehabilitation.