discipline summaries
The public reprimand will serve as specific and general
deterrence. Dr. Bhupal’s practice will be reassessed in
six months by an independent assessor and Dr. Bhupal
must abide by the assessor’s recommendations. This will
serve the principle of rehabilitation of the member, as
well as providing public protection.
The Committee determined that this was an appropriate case to order costs at the rate of $4,460 for a
one-day hearing.
Order
The Discipline Committee ordered and directed that:
1. r. Bhupal appear before the panel to be reprimanded.
D
2. he Registrar impose the following terms, conditions
t
and limitations on Dr. Bhupal’s certificate of registration:
(i) ithin six months of the date of this Order,
W
Dr. Bhupal shall undergo a comprehensive
practice assessment by an assessor or assessors
appointed by the College.
(ii) r. Bhupal shall abide by any and all recomD
mendations of the assessor(s), including with
respect to any practice improvements and/
or ongoing professional development and/or
education.
(iii) r. Bhupal shall be solely responsible for all
D
fees, costs and expenses associated with his
compliance with the terms of this Order.
3. r. Bhupal pay costs to the College in the amount of
D
$4,460 within 30 days of the date of this Order.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Bhupal waived his
right to an appeal and the Committee administered the
public reprimand.
Full decisions are available online at www.cpso.on.ca.
Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’s name.
DR. CHRISTIANE FARAZLI
Practice Location: Ottawa
Practice Area: Internal Medicine
Hearing Information: Statement of Facts, Plea of No
Contest, Statement of Facts On Penalty, Joint Submission on Penalty
On July 24, 2014, the Discipline Committee found
that Dr. Farazli committed acts of professional misconduct, in that she failed to maintain the standard of
practice of the profession, she contravened the Medicine
Act, the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 or the
regulations under either of those Acts and, she engaged
in 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. The Discipline Committee also found that Dr. Farazli is incompetent. Dr.
Farazli pleaded no contest to the allegations.
This case comprises two Registrar’s investigations into
Dr. Farazli’s practice, as well as 20 patient complaints.
Dr. Farazli owned and operated an out-of-hospital
premises where she conducted colonoscopies and
gastroscopies. The premises were subject to inspection/
assessment by the College’s Out-of Hospital Premises
Inspection Program in May 2011. As a result of that
inspection, largely on the basis of serious infection
control concerns, the premises received a grade of “fail”,
which meant that Dr. Farazli could no longer perform
procedures there as of early June 2011. After receiving this information from the College, Ottawa Public
Health conducted a retrospective review, a “look-back”,
and notified t