DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
Such a blatant display of dishonesty and lack of integrity reflects poorly on Dr. Dhaliwal personally and on
the profession as a whole and must be denounced. A
physician’s dishonesty with his governing body is an
egregious offence and brings into question the member’s
governability.
A reprimand and three month suspension of Dr. Dhaliwal’s certificate of registration should serve to denounce
this misconduct, uphold the profession’s reputation and,
hopefully, specifically deter Dr. Dhaliwal from further
misconduct of this nature.
The practice of medicine in Ontario is a privilege.
Physicians are held to high ethical and moral standards.
To learn that Dr. Dhaliwal, despite having taken the
College’s ethics course, fell so woefully short of the
standard is very concerning. Dr. Dhaliwal did not make
restitution to Patients F and G until the investigation
into this present proceeding was underway in 2009.
This self-serving conduct casts doubt on any declaration
of remorse or regret on Dr. Dhaliwal’s part.
Dr. Dhaliwal’s misconduct is somewhat mitigated by his
admission to the present allegations and his cooperation
with the College, which spared Patients F and G from
having to testify. However, had Dr. Dhaliwal acted with
the appropriate honesty
and integrity at the 2003
hearing, this hearing
would not have been
necessary.
Full decisions are available online
at www.cpso.on.ca.
Select Doctor Search and enter
the doctor’s name.
The Committee is of
the view that this is an appropriate case to award costs
to the College at the tariff rate of $3,650 for a one-day
hearing, and that these costs should be borne by Dr.
Dhaliwal.
Order
The Committee ordered and directed that:
1. he Registrar suspend Dr. Dhaliwal’s certificate of
t
registration for a three-month period.
2. r. Dhaliwal appear before the panel to be repriD
manded.
3. r. Dhaliwal shall pay the College its costs of this
D
proceeding in the amount of $3,650.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Dhaliwal waived his
right to an appeal and the Committee administered the
public reprimand.
What does this mean?
We provide definitions for the legal terminology used in the discipline process
Admission
Agreed Statement of Facts
Contested Hearing
The physician admits that the facts
alleged amount to professional misconduct and/or incompetence.
A statement of facts that are negotiated and agreed to by the College
and the physician. It is filed as an
exhibit at the hearing.
The physician denies the allegations.
The College must prove the allegations on a balance of probabilities
(the civil standard of proof ) by
calling evidence such as witnesses.
If one or more of the allegations is
proved, a penalty hearing is scheduled. The College and the physician
may agree and jointly propose a
penalty to the Committee or they
may disagree and a contested penalty hearing takes place.
Plea of No Contest
The physician does not contest the
facts. The College files a statement
of facts as an exhibit at the hearing. The Discipline Committee can
accept the facts as correct and make
a finding of professional misconduct
and/or incompetence. The physician does not admit to the facts or
findings for the purpose of any other
proceeding.
Joint Submission on Penalty
A penalty that is proposed to the
Committee as an appropriate
penalty by both the College and the
physician. In law, the Discipline Committee must accept a joint submission on penalty unless it would be
contrary to the public interest and
bring the administration of justice
into disrepute.
DIALOGUE • Issue 2, 2014
43