DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
Confidentiality Agreement
On November 24, 2003, Dr. Brooks signed a Confi-
dentiality Agreement with the Hospital, confirming
that except where he was legally authorized or required
to do so, he would not inspect or receive paper or
electronic patient-related information from Health Re-
cords or from notes, charts, and other material related
to patient care. The Hospital’s policy stated that it was
a breach of confidentiality to access patient or health
information when not required to provide care to a
patient or in the performance of duties.
REASONS FOR PENALTY
The Committee was provided with evidence of Dr.
Brooks’ suspension of privileges at his hospital for
three months, together with enhanced monitoring
of his access to medical records. The hospital also
required Dr. Brooks to present at quarterly meetings
on the topic of privacy to the medical staff for one
year after reinstatement. The hospital also required
Dr. Brooks to lead hospital-wide Grand Rounds on
the topic of patient privacy.
The Committee also received evidence of Dr.
Brooks’ completion of an online course on privacy
and confidentiality, as well as his completion of a
preceptorship in ethics and privacy with the vice-
president of medical professionalism of the Canadian
Medical Association. A report from the Canadian
Medical Association’s vice president stated that Dr.
Brooks readily acknowledged his mistakes and errors
What does this mean?
We provide definitions for the legal terminology used in the discipline process
Admission
The physician admits that the facts
alleged amount to professional mis-
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
penalty unless it would be contrary to
the public interest and bring the ad-
ministration of justice into disrepute.
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; and a lack
of insight by the physician into his or
her own misconduct.
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 3, 2017 DIALOGUE
51