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 ۙ