DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
and costs order.
For the following reasons, the Committee accepted the
proposed penalty as fair, appropriate, and reasonable
under the circumstances.
The penalty should properly address the guiding principles of protection of the public, disapproval and denunciation of wrongful conduct, maintenance of public
confidence in the integrity and self-regulating capacity
of the profession, specific and general deterrence, and
the rehabilitative needs of the member, if applicable.
The facts pertaining to Dr. Cameron’s professional
misconduct were concerning to the Committee. This
was not an isolated incident of poor judgment. Dr.
Cameron demonstrated a pattern of behaviour entailing
multiple boundary violations and behavioural transgressions, in relation to three different complainants, over a
period of several months. His sexualized behaviour with
Ms. A was repetitive, intrusive, and included unwanted
touching on one occasion. This resulted in serious trauma to the complainant, the extent of which is reflected
in the statement which Ms. A made to the Court in the
context of Dr. Cameron’s criminal charges. It was clear
that Dr. Cameron’s behaviour had severe consequences.
Although his criminal charges were withdrawn, Dr.
Cameron was ordered to enter into a recognizance to
keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of
twelve months.
The Committee noted that Dr. Cameron, at the time,
had seemingly no awareness of the harm that he was
causing. He demonstrated a rather profound insensitivity to the rights and feelings of the complainants. His
lack of empathy suggested a callous and self-centred attitude which prevented him from recognizing the harm
which he was causing to others.
To Dr. Cameron’s credit, he did subsequently accept
responsibility for his misconduct, and wrote a letter
of apology to Ms. A. His acceptance of responsibility
allowed a resolution of the matter without the need for
a full hearing, and spared the complainants from having
to testify. The Committee accepted this as a mitigating factor. Aggravating factors, however, included the
repetitive nature of Dr. Cameron’s misconduct, over a
period of time, with several complainants. The Committee noted also that this is not Dr. Cameron’s first
appearance before the Discipline Committee, albeit
42
DIALOGUE • Issue 1, 2014
the facts pertaining to an earlier finding of professional
misconduct bear no resemblance to the current issues.
The Committee found that the proposed penalty
adequately addressed denunciation of these serious
behavioural transgressions, and will reinforce to Dr.
Cameron, and remind the profession at large, that
unprofessional conduct of this nature will not be tolerated. A public reprimand and a three month suspension
of Dr. Cameron’s certificate of registration are significant sanctions. The required course on boundaries and
communication issues which is proposed, if successfully completed by Dr. Cameron, will reduce the risk
of future misconduct of this nature when Dr. Cameron
returns to practice.
Order
The Committee ordered and directed that:
1. r. Cameron attend before the panel to be repriD
manded;
2. he Registrar suspend Dr. Cameron’s certificate of
t
registration for a period of three months;
3. he Registrar impose the following terms, condit
tions and limitations on Dr. Cameron’s certificate of
registration:
a. Dr. Cameron shall, at his own expense, participate
in and successfully complete a one-to-one course
in boundary issues and communications approved
by the College; and
4. r. Cameron shall pay the College its costs in the
D
amount of $3,650.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Cameron waived his
right to an appeal and the Committee administered the
public reprimand.
DR. ROB JOSEPH KAMERMANS
Practice Location: Coe Hill
Practice Area: General Practice
Hearing Information: Agreed Statement of Facts,
Admission, Joint Submission on Penalty
On February 27, 2013, the Discipline Committee
found that Dr. Kamermans committed an act of professional misconduct, in that he failed to maintain the