Dialogue Volume 11 Issue 1 2015 | Page 54

discipline summaries clinical care and the veracity of charting. Thus, it is the opinion of the Committee that while the breach of the conditions was serious and requires sanction, the breach was limited, the conditions were otherwise observed over five years and that a reprimand and costs are an appropriate penalty to protect the interests of the public. The Committee was not persuaded of either the utility or necessity of posting a sign, as requested by College Counsel. The existing conditions which remain in effect are extensive and the Committee found no evidence that there was a need to enhance them. Furthermore, the Committee agreed that such a sign might lead to misinterpretation by patients of the purpose of the monitoring. In conclusion, the Committee recognized that Dr. Lau’s breach of the conditions on his certificate of registration was serious and unprofessional. However, the Committee found that the breach was motivated by his concern for the interests of his patients and not for his own convenience or benefit. There was no subterfuge in his actions; he was not flouting or wilfully disregarding the conditions, and in all other regards he was compliant with the extensive, rigorous and exacting conditions imposed on his practice. The Committee found that Dr. Lau’s actions did not incur any risk of harm to his patients and that in the over five years that these conditions have been in force there had been no negative reports from those authorized to monitor the various components of the conditions. Further, Dr. Lau’s physician assessor believes he no l ۙ