discipline summaries demonstrated to the Committee that Dr . Botros cannot be trusted to remediate in a way that would be commensurate with the College ’ s requirements for public safety . Accordingly , the Committee was not prepared to make an Order that allowed him to practise sleep medicine , conditional on his doing remedial work in sleep medicine . In fulfilling its mandate as a self-regulating body , the Discipline Committee decided at this time to impose , for an indefinite period , terms , conditions and limitations to restrict Dr . Botros from practising sleep medicine . Both counsel agree that costs should be borne by Dr . Botros . However , Dr . Botros ’ counsel argues that the costs should be for only 12 hearing days since two days were shortened , one of them because the College ’ s expert witness was not available . The Committee accepted this submission and costs were ordered against Dr . Botros in the amount of $ 53,520 , on the basis of 12 hearing days , at the tariff rate of $ 4,460 per day . The Order addresses the need to protect the public and serve the purpose of specific and general deterrence . The suspension of six months is in keeping with the seriousness of the findings regarding Dr . Botros ’ disgraceful , dishonourable and unprofessional conduct , his failure to maintain the standard of practice of the profession and his incompetence in sleep medicine . Maintaining the public trust and public safety are paramount and the penalty will serve that end . Members will be reminded that membership in the College is a privilege , not a right . Compliance with investigations is mandatory as the College fulfills its role in self-regulation . The indefinite terms , conditions and limitations on his certificate of registration protect the public and maintain the integrity of the profession . In summary , the Discipline Committee ordered a reprimand , a six-month suspension , terms and condition on Dr . Botros ’ licence including a restriction from practising sleep medicine and costs in the amount of $ 53,520 .
Order For complete details of the Order , please see the full decision at www . cpso . on . ca . Select Doctor Search and enter the Doctor ’ s Name .
On January 22 , 2016 , Dr . Botros appealed the decision of the Discipline Committee to the Divisional Court . The Discipline Committee ’ s decision remained in effect pursuant to s . 71 of the Health Professions Procedural Code . On June 16 , 2016 , Dr . Botros abandoned his appeal to Divisional Court . On November 1 , 2016 , Dr . Botros received his public reprimand .
Dr . Stanley Thomas Dobrowolski
Practice Location : London Practice Area : Psychiatry
Hearing Information : Statement of Uncontested Facts , Joint Submission on Penalty and Costs
On November 30 , 2015 , the Discipline Committee found that Dr . Dobrowolski committed acts of professional misconduct , in that he has engaged in the sexual abuse of patients ; 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 , has failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession ; and has been found guilty of offences relevant to his suitability to practise . Dr . Dobrowolski did not contest the allegations . Dr . Dobrowolski is a psychiatrist , who during the relevant time period practised psychiatry operating from an office adjoining his home . On December 20 , 2005 , as a result of an appeal of a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario , the Divisional Court made an Order , imposing terms , conditions or limitations on Dr . Dobrowolski ’ s certificate of registration . These terms , conditions or limitations were in place until October 12 , 2012 , at 12:01 a . m . when his certificate of registration was suspended on
Full decisions are available online at www . cpso . on . ca . Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor ’ s name .
Issue 4 , 2016 Dialogue 61