discipline summaries
Penalty and Reasons for Penalty At a contested penalty hearing the Committee heard a constitutional motion brought by Dr . Sliwin . The Discipline Committee rejected Dr . Sliwin ’ s argument that the mandatory revocation provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code were not intended to apply to “ pre-existing relationships ” and noted that in any event Dr . Sliwin had been Ms A ’ s physician even before the start of their sexual relationship . The Committee accepted that mandatory revocation as set out in the Code is an appropriate means to deal with the very real problem of sexual abuse of patients by physicians and to ensure protection of the public from such abuse . The Committee held that the mandatory revocation provisions do not violate either Section 7 ( which provides that everyone has the right to life , liberty , and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof , except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice ) or section 15 ( the equality provisions ) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms . As a result , the Committee found that the mandatory revocation provisions were constitutional and indeed applicable to Dr . Sliwin . Having found that Dr . Sliwin committed an act of professional misconduct , in that he sexually abused a patient , and having concluded that the mandatory revocation provisions under the Code are constitutional , the Committee must comply with the Code and apply the mandatory revocation provisions to Dr . Sliwin for the finding made against him . Additionally , it is mandatory on the finding made that Dr . Sliwin be ordered to appear before the panel to be reprimanded . Under Section 51 ( 2 ) 5.1 of the Code , the Committee has the discretion to make an order for future reimbursement for therapy or counselling of patients who have been sexually abused by their physician . The Committee is of the strong opinion that regardless of the evidence from the complainant that she did not consider herself to have been sexually abused , the Committee found that Dr . Sliwin sexually abused her as a patient . The complainant may seek counselling in the future , and , if so , she will be eligible for reimbursement from the funding program provided by the College , due to the finding of sexual abuse by this Committee . It is in the best interest of the public that funds be available for therapy or counselling for patients sexually abused by their physician . These costs should be borne not by the membership at large , but rather by the physician who committed an act of sexual abuse . For its finding of professional misconduct for disgraceful , dishonourable or unprofessional conduct , the Committee determines that no additional penalty order be made . In summary , the Committee ordered the following : revocation of Dr . Sliwin ’ s certificate of registration ; a reprimand ; reimbursement to the College for funding that may be provided to the complainant under the College ’ s program that provides funding for therapy or counselling for persons who , while patients , were sexually abused by members , and to post an irrevocable letter of credit or other security acceptable to the College , in the amount of $ 16,060 ; and payment to the College for $ 48,140 for hearing costs .
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 April 2 , 2015 , Dr . Sliwin appealed the decision of the Discipline Committee to the Superior Court of Justice ( Divisional Court ). On April 2 , 2015 , Dr . Sliwin made a motion to the Divisional Court to stay the order of the Discipline Committee pending the appeal . On April 8 , 2015 , the Divisional Court ordered that Dr . Sliwin ’ s revocation be stayed and that he be permitted to practise pending the appeal . The appeal was heard on June 28 , and the decision is pending .
DR . ANDRZEJ TOMASZ WOJCICKI
Practice Location : Mount Albert
Area of Practice : Internal Medicine , Complementary Medicine
Hearing Information : Agreed Statement of Facts , Admission , Joint Submission on Penalty
On February 22 , 2016 , the Discipline Committee found that Dr . Wojcicki has committed acts of professional misconduct , in that he failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession and has engaged
74
Dialogue Issue 4 , 2016