discipline summaries
him . Counsel for the College made a submission on penalty that counsel for Dr . Krishnalingam did not oppose .
Reasons for Penalty Dr . Krishnalingam ’ s behaviour with this patient was very troubling to the Committee . Boundary violations were frequent , repetitive , and alarming . Dr . Krishnalingam subjected this patient to actions and remarks of a sexual nature which amount to not only a most serious breach of trust , but also to a complete failure of his professional responsibility towards this emotionally disturbed and vulnerable individual . The complainant , in her impact statement , stated that her experience with Dr . Krishnalingam was “ scary and hurtful .” She was evidently in a vulnerable state when she started to see him . She wrote that the experience has left her with severe depression , an inability to trust , and nightmares about what occurred . The complainant has been unable to find another psychiatrist , leaving her feeling further victimized by the system . It is clear to the Committee that this patient , already struggling with mental health problems , was further traumatized by her experience with Dr . Krishnalingam . The Committee found that Dr . Krishnalingam ’ s interaction with this patient represents a pattern of behaviour and was not merely an isolated set of circumstances . Previous concerns regarding Dr . Krishnalingam behaving similarly have surfaced regularly over a very long period of time . The Committee is aware of the limited use which can be made of previous cautions based on allegations that have not been proven in disciplinary proceedings . There is , however , precedent for the Discipline Committee considering prior complaints and cautions as an aggravating factor . While Dr . Krishnalingam did not oppose the penalty proposed by the College , he did not consent to it , either . Defence counsel submitted that Dr . Krishnalingam had resigned from the College on December 21 , 2015 , and is now retired . Defence counsel submitted that if Dr . Krishnalingam had not resigned his certificate and retired , Dr . Krishnalingam might have made a different submission at this hearing . The Committee considered all the evidence as well as the submissions of counsel . The Committee accepted the College ’ s submission that the protection of the public requires that Dr . Krishnalingam be removed from practice . The evidence discloses Dr . Krishnalingam ’ s pattern of behaviour over many years which repeatedly exposed his patients to potential and actual harm . Dr . Krishnalingam continually abused his position of trust and authority , taking advantage of his vulnerable patients by subjecting them to behaviour and remarks of a sexual nature . He has been given multiple opportunities to reform his behaviour , but he has not done so . Previous cautions and disciplinary sanctions have proven ineffective . Dr . Krishnalingam does not appear to have developed any insight , and the prognosis for favourable change at this point is poor . He has not provided the Committee with any explanation for his behaviour , and presented no evidence with respect to his rehabilitative potential . The only mitigating factor , in the view of the Committee , is that Dr . Krishnalingam entered a plea of no contest , which spared the complainant from having to testify at the hearing . In the Committee ’ s view , nothing short of revoking Dr . Krishnalingam ’ s certificate of registration would meet the goals of protecting the public , maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the profession , and adequately expressing the membership ’ s and the general public ’ s abhorrence of sexual abuse of patients by their physicians . In summary , the Discipline Committee ordered and directed that the Registrar revoke Dr . Krishnalingam ’ s certificate of registration effective immediately ; Dr . Krishnalingam appear before the panel to be reprimanded ; he reimburse the College for funding provided to patients under the program required under section 85.7 of the Code , and post an irrevocable letter of credit or other security acceptable to the College to guarantee payment of such amounts within 30 days of the date this Order becomes final , in the amount of $ 16,060 ; and Dr . Krishnalingam pay to the College costs in the amount of $ 5,000 .
At the conclusion of the hearing , Dr . Krishnalingam waived his right to an appeal and the Committee administered the public reprimand .
64
Dialogue Issue 1 , 2017