discipline summaries
is not limited to any cosmetic surgical procedures);
(b) Dr. Yazdanfar’s practice is limited to that of a surgical assistant, as described under (a) above.
(c) Dr. Yazdanfar shall cooperate with unannounced
inspections of her practice and patient charts,
conducted at her own expense, by a College
representative(s), for the purpose of monitoring
and enforcing her compliance with these terms,
conditions and limitations; and
(d) Dr. Yazdanfar shall publish the terms, conditions
and limitations imposed on her certificate of registration in any advertisement of her clinic where
she is referred to, including on her website, and
shall post signage of these restrictions in a form
acceptable to the College in the Toronto Cosmetic
Clinic or any other clinic owned by her.
3. Dr. Yazdanfar pay to the College costs in the amount
of $4,460, within 30 days of the date of this Order.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Yazdanfar waived her
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.
68
Dialogue Issue 3, 2015
Dr. BCD
Case not proven
The Discipline Committee found that the College did
not prove that Dr. BCD engaged in sexual abuse of a
patient or disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional
conduct, and it therefore dismissed the allegations of
professional misconduct against Dr. BCD.
The allegations in this case arise from events that
occurred in 2010. Mr. X , Patient A’s former husband,
filed a complaint against Dr. BCD in February 2011,
several months after Patient A left him and subsequently began a relationship with Dr. BCD. Both
Mr. X and Patient A had been patients of Dr. BCD
and began seeing him shortly after they immigrated
to Canada and settled in City 1. They saw Dr. BCD
regularly, and Mr. X’s last appointment with Dr. BCD
was in February 2003. In 2005, the family moved to
a different city and by this time, Dr. BCD had also
moved his practice to another city. Mr. X testified that
because of the distance, both Patient A and their two
children began to see another family physician (Dr. G)
in the city in which they now lived. Mr. X also became
a patient of Dr. G.
Mr. X testified that in 2009 and 2010, although
Patient A’s family physician remained Dr. G, his wife
also began seeing Dr. BCD because she had an insurance claim arising from a motor vehicle accident and
she needed Dr. BCD to complete the paperwork for it.
The College called Patient A as its witness. She
admitted that she did not want to be giving testimony,
and was doing so only because she had received a summons. Patient A testified that she had been a patient
of Dr. BCD for many years, but from 2009 until the
end of the physician-patient relationship she went to
see him exclusively for help related to her problems
obt Z[