Dialogue Volume 12 Issue 3 2016 - Page 41

discipline summaries in that case also ordered that Dr. Botros be reprimanded, that certain terms, conditions and limitations be placed on his certificate of registration, and that he pay costs. This Committee concluded that there is some commonality between this case and the other Dr. Botros case in relation to Dr. Botros’ unprofessional conduct toward the College over a similar time period. The Committee therefore determined that a six-month suspension is necessary and appropriate in this case. However, having regard to the degree of commonality in the two cases in regard to Dr. Botros’ unprofessional conduct, the Committee deems it appropriate to have two months of the six-month suspension run concurrently with, and the remaining four months to run consecutively to, the suspension in the other Dr. Botros case. The Committee is of the opinion that the incremental amount the College is seeking for costs over and above the Tariff rate is modest and reasonable in this case. The College is neither seeking costs associated with the investigation, nor the legal costs associated with the prosecution of this case, which the Committee envisions would be significantly higher. Therefore, the Committee finds the costs of $24,656.10 requested by the College is reasonable and supported by the particulars of this case, and it orders Dr. Botros to pay those costs. In summary, the Committee’s Order provides that the suspension of Dr. Botros’ certificate of registration will be from April 16, 2016 (four months after the commencement of his current suspension) until the later of: (a) six months from that date and (b) the date he provides to the College proof of his compliance with the SCERP that the ICRC ordered. A public reprimand was ordered and he must pay the College costs in the amount of $24,656.10. Text of Public Reprimand Failing to adhere to an order of the College is not a trivial matter. Compliance is expected by the College and is your responsibility as a member of the profession. It is not a matter subject to your own interpretation. You have demonstrated to this Committee that you seriously misunderstand the role of the College, by portraying yourself as a victim and suggesting that the College was targeting you or acting in a prejudicial manner against you or other foreign-trained graduates. You demonstrated a lack of appreciation of the role of the College in governing the profession and protecting the public. To disavow your own actions by attempting to distance yourself from this misconduct is disingenuous at best. Your attempts to explain your actions demonstrate a lack of insight. It was a straightforward matter. You were required to comply and you did not. It was only at the last minute that you made any serious attempt to comply, and only did so in part. The Committee did not hear from you that you had gained any insight from this process, despite questions put to you to allow you to explain how you had achieved some understanding. This Committee is also seriously concerned that this was not your first time before it. Your actions have shown a disrespect for your governing body. In future, the Discipline Committee expects you to make every effort to comply with the College. Order For complete details of the Order, please see the full decision at www.cpso.on.ca . Select Doctor Search and enter the Doctor’s Name. Full decisions are available online at www.cpso.on.ca. Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’s name. Issue 3, 2016 Dialogue 41