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