DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
2012 Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee , nor was Dr . Anastasio appending copies of the Decision and Reasons and the Order to the Appendix “ C ”, as required .
Dr . Anastasio told the College Investigator that he was providing a written document to his patient that had been prepared by his lawyer . In fact , contrary to his statement to the College Investigator , Dr . Anastasio prepared the written document himself . Dr . Anastasio told the College Investigator that his lawyer had not provided him with a copy of the Decision and Reasons which he was required to give to his female patients . In fact , Dr . Anastasio had been provided with a copy of the Decision and Reasons on July 9 , 2012 , and there was nothing preventing him from providing the Decision and Reasons to his female patients in accordance with the terms of the Order . On November 28 , 2013 , Dr . Anastasio sent a letter to the College confirming that he had modified his practice to comply with the Order . A subsequent compliance visit revealed that on two occasions , Dr . Anastasio failed to attach a copy of the Order and the Decision and Reasons to the patient acknowledgement as required by the Order , although the two patients confirmed having read both the Order and the Decision and Reasons .
REASONS FOR PENALTY The Committee carefully considered the nature of the misconduct committed by Dr . Anastasio as described in the Statement of Uncontested Facts . The Committee is extremely troubled by Dr . Anastasio ’ s actions . He committed an egregious act of sexual abuse on a long-standing patient . The patient ’ s victim statement makes clear that his actions constituted a most serious breach of that trust . Dr . Anastasio manipulated this patient into attending his office after normal hours , with apparent predatory intent , on the pretext of concern for her potential for developing cancer , thereby causing her stress and anxiety . He harassed her with repeated telephone calls , further increasing her anxiety level . Dr . Anastasio ’ s actions in relation to this patient are deserving of denunciation in the strongest possible terms . Other aspects of Dr . Anastasio ’ s misconduct are equally disturbing . The evidence discloses that Dr .
Anastasio has previously been sanctioned by the Discipline Committee , following a finding of disgraceful , dishonourable or unprofessional conduct in 2012 . The misconduct in question at that time involved boundary violations and sexualized behaviour . That Committee carefully crafted an order intended to protect the public ; specific terms and conditions were imposed , including a clear procedure to be followed by Dr . Anastasio to ensure that his female patients were fully informed of the details of his professional misconduct . Dr . Anastasio not only failed to abide by the terms and conditions ordered by that Committee , but also took no responsibility for his actions , blamed others , and misled the College investigator when his failure was detected through subsequent College investigation . Dr . Anastasio ’ s actions were deceitful , dishonest , and self-serving . He demonstrated a disregard for the authority of his governing body . Of greatest concern to this Committee is that , through Dr . Anastasio ’ s refusal to abide by an order of the Discipline Committee , the primary goal of which was to protect the public , the public was again placed at risk . The misconduct committed by Dr . Anastasio in the case before this Committee dates to 2007 . The previous discipline proceedings referred to above occurred in 2012 . The chronology establishes , therefore , that the previous proceedings are not an aggravating factor with respect to penalty in this case . Nevertheless , Dr . Anastasio ’ s repeat misconduct is relevant in that it demonstrates that his actions in this case were not an isolated incident ; a pattern of sexualized behaviour towards his female patients is established , and his previous disregard for terms and conditions imposed by the Committee demonstrates ungovernability . The Committee accepts , as a mitigating factor , that Dr . Anastasio did not contest the allegations against him , thus avoiding the need for a contested hearing and sparing the complainant from having to testify .
ORDER In summary , the Discipline Committee ordered and directed that : the Registrar revoke Dr . Anastasio ’ s certificate of registration ; Dr . Anastasio receive a reprimand ; Dr . Anastasio reimburse the College for funding provided to patients under the program
64
DIALOGUE ISSUE 4 , 2017