Dialogue Volume 13 Issue 4 2017 - Page 90

DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES tion, maintaining the integrity of the profession and maintaining public confidence in the College’s ability to govern the profession in the public interest. Coun- sel for Dr. Wales argued that there is no difference in impact between revocation and direct supervision, and that if Dr. Wales practises under direct supervi- sion, there will be no public safety issue. She submit- ted that direct supervision accomplishes the same goal as revocation and adds “an element of dignity to the penalty.” The fact that Dr. Wales had no prior appearances before the Discipline Committee is a mitigating factor. PENALTY AND COSTS The Committee finds that revocation of Dr. Wales’ certificate of registration is the most appropriate sanction. The Committee also requires that Dr. Wales appear before it to be reprimanded and that he pay costs to the College in the amount of $23,340 within 30 days of the date the order becomes final. The Committee rejects Dr. Wales’ counsel’s submis- sion that the proposed supervision order is equivalent in effect to an order of revocation. Revocation in this case denounces Dr. Wales’ conduct and is the appropriate means of ensuring public protection, maintaining the integrity of the profession and pub- lic confidence in the College’s ability to govern the profession in the public interest. The section 37 Order has no bearing on the ap- propriate penalty. The section 37 Order was made by the ICRC before the Discipline Committee made its findings. ICRC’s primary concern is protection of the public pending disposition of the allegations. The Discipline Committee must consider an appropriate penalty after finding that the allegations have been proven. There was no testimony from Dr. Wales demon- strating that he had insight into his misconduct, or that he was truly willing to undertake training to improve his practice. A reprimand is also appropriate. The reprimand should serve to express to Dr. Wales the Committee’s disapproval of the misconduct and to send a message to the profession that physicians must stay current with respect to knowledge, skills and standards in their chosen field of practice. The Committee finds this to be an appropriate case 90 DIALOGUE ISSUE 4, 2017 in which to award costs. The Committee did not agree with Dr. Wales’ counsel’s submission that the costs award requested by the College penalizes Dr. Wales for mounting a defence. The costs awarded are not punitive. They are compensatory. The quantum of costs ordered constitutes only partial compensa- tion to the College for the costs incurred in the discipline process. The Committee finds the quantum of costs proposed by the College counsel reasonable based on the College’s tariff. ORDER In summary, the Committee directed that the Reg- istrar revoke Dr. Wales’ certificate of r