discipline summaries
mented by Dr. Foote’s department will serve to foster
change.
The Committee ordered a reprimand, a one-month
suspension, a course on medical ethics, and costs to
the College for $5,000.
Dr. Atef Malak Shehata Ghali
Practice Location: Ottawa
Area of Practice: Family Medicine
At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Foote waived
his right to appeal and the Committee administered the
public reprimand. Hearing Information: Admission, Agreed State-
ment of Facts, Joint Submission on Penalty
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 May 24, 2016, the Discipline Committee found
that Dr. Atef Ghali committed an act of professional
misconduct, in that he has engaged in an act or omis-
sion relevant to the practice of medicine that, having
regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be
What does this mean?
used in the discipline process
Admission
The physician admits that the facts
alleged amount to professional mis-
We provide definitions for the legal terminology
penalty unless it would be contrary to
the public interest and bring the ad-
ministration of justice into disrepute.
conduct and/or incompetence.
Plea of No Contest
The physician does not contest the
facts. The College files a statement of
facts as an exhibit at the hearing. The
Discipline Committee can accept the
facts as correct and make a finding
of professional misconduct and/or
incompetence. The physician does
not admit to the facts or findings for
the purpose of any other proceeding.
Agreed Statement of Facts
A statement of facts that are negoti-
ated and agreed to by the College and
the physician. It is filed as an exhibit
at the hearing.
Joint Submission on Penalty
A penalty that is proposed to the
Committee as an appropriate penalty
by both the College and the physi-
cian. In law, the Discipline Committee
must accept a joint submission on
Contested Hearing
The physician denies the allegations.
The College must prove the allega-
tions on a balance of probabilities
(the civil standard of proof) by calling
evidence such as witnesses. If one
or more of the allegations is proved,
a penalty hearing is scheduled. The
College and the physician may agree
and jointly propose a penalty to the
Committee or they may disagree and
a contested penalty hearing takes
place.
Aggravating, Mitigating
Circumstances
Aggravating and mitigating circum-
stances may be considered by the
Discipline Committee in determining
an appropriate penalty. Mitigating
and aggravating circumstances are
considered by the Committee, so that
the penalty imposed is proportionate
to the gravity of the physician’s con-
duct, and the degree of responsibility
of the physician. Mitigating circum-
stances tend to reduce penalties,
whereas aggravating circumstances
tend to increase penalties.
Aggravating circumstances could
include: a high degree of vulnerability
of the person(s) affected by the phy-
sician’s conduct; a prior disciplinary
history with the College; a lack of in-
sight by the physician into his or her
own misconduct; a lack of remorse
about the effects of the misconduct
on others.
Mitigating circumstances could in-
clude: a clean disciplinary record; an
admission to the facts underlying the
allegations in advance of a hearing;
cooperating with the investigation; a
demonstration of remorse or regret
about the effects of the misconduct
on others; taking remedial steps on
the physician’s own initiative prior to
a finding or an order by the College.
Issue 2, 2017 Dialogue
53