DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
geons of Canada (the “Royal College”). The Committee
did not accept, however, that this indicated they were
not received as the subsequent two communications
which were found, albeit long after they were sent, bore
the same office address. The Committee found particularly egregious the fact that, with respect to the previous
order of the Discipline Committee, Dr. Newell failed to
notify either the College or her practice monitor of her
return to practice, resulting in an unmonitored practice
of several months’ duration.
In mitigation, the Committee heard that Dr. Newell
acted with alacrity when she realized that she no longer
had the credentials to practise as a specialist (although
her lack of compliance with her continuing education
requirements should not have come as a revelation to
her). She voluntarily notified the Royal College of her
error and her patients, lawyers, courts, etc. of the fact
that her fellowship had been rescinded, at the cost of
some personal effort and embarrassment. Likewise, she
promptly notified her practice monitor of the resumption of her practice, but only when prompted by an inquiry from the College, several months after she ought
to have done so. Further, the Committee heard that no
actual, as opposed to potential, harm resulted from her
misconduct and that the monitor found no problem
with any of the patient charts that he reviewed from the
period when her practice was unmonitored.
The fact that Dr. Newell disregarded, however inadvertently, an undertaking to the College that she would
notify both the College and her practice monitor when
she resumed her practice, when she must have known
that she was “under the microscope” was deserving, in
the opinion of the Committee, of a significant penalty,
even if taken alone. It was therefore the Committee’s
view that the three-month suspension is appropriate
and should serve notice, to Dr. Newell, to the profession and to the public that it is fundamental to the
concept of self-governance that the College should be
able to rely implicitly on undertakings made to it.
The continuance of the terms, limitations and conditions on Dr. Newell’s practice would appear to be essential for public protection.
With respect to rehabilitation, the Committee expects
that the repercussions stemming from her misconduct
and this penalty will encourage Dr. Newell to engage in
better practice management.
48
DIALOGUE • Issue 1, 2014
The reprimand represents a personal and very public
expression to Dr. Newell of the Committee’s and profession’s disappointment in her misconduct.
Lastly, the award of costs of $3,650 to the College is the
standard tariff rate for a one-day hearing and is appropriate in the circumstances.
Order
The Committee ordered and directed that:
1. e Registrar suspend Dr. Newell’s certificate of
Th
registration for a period of three months.
2. e terms, conditions and limitations currently on
Th
Dr. Newell’s certificate of registration shall remain in
full force and effect.
3. r. Newell appear before it to be reprimanded.
D
4. r. Newell pay costs to the College in the amount of
D
$3,650.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Newell waived her
right to an appeal and the Committee administered the
public reprimand.
DR. ELEAZAR HUMBERTO NORIEGA
Practice Location: Toronto
Practice Area: Pediatrics, Family Medicine
Hearing Information: Contested Hearing, (Four Days)
On February 28, 2013, the Discipline Committee
found that Dr. Noriega committed an act of professional misconduct, in that he has engaged in conduct or
an act or omission relevant to the practice of medicine
that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
Dr. Noriega denied the allegation.
In 2009, Dr. Noriega was referred to the Discipline
Committee for allegations, including sexual abuse and
sexual impropriety. On July 22, 2009, Dr. Noriega
entered into an undertaking with the College and
undertook, among other things, not to engage in any
professional encounters with female patients except
in the presence of his practice monitor. He undertook
to post a sign in his waiting room and in each of his
examination rooms notifying the public of this practice
restriction. Dr. Noriega’s practice monitor also entered