DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
Dr . Clowater has no disciplinary history with the College , which the Committee accepts as a mitigating factor . As well , in admitting to the allegations early , Dr . Clowater has saved the College the time and expense of a contested hearing and witnesses the need to testify . Dr . Clowater ’ s counsel submitted that Dr . Clowater ’ s admission showed insight , remorse and demonstrate her full acceptance of responsibility , and that these are powerful mitigating factors . The Committee disagrees . Although there was no evidence of continued misconduct after 2011 , the Committee has real concerns regarding whether Dr . Clowater has gained insight into her professional responsibilities . In the course of the events at issue , Dr . Clowater was repeatedly dishonest in her replies to the College . Rather than recognizing her professional responsibilities and acting reasonably and responsibly , she offered many excuses which were not convincing . After the ordeal , Dr . Clowater stated that “ I will never let it happen again in the future . It is way too stressful on my patients and me .” Her own words illustrate her lack of insight into her professional obligations . Other than complying with her membership requirements in the subsequent years , the Committee was left with no assurance that Dr . Clowater truly accepts responsibility for her actions . The Committee accepts , to a limited extent , that Dr . Clowater ’ s presence at the hearing demonstrates her respect for the College and its role in governing the profession . However , the laissez-faire attitude toward governance that Dr . Clowater demonstrated reveals a lack of fundamental understanding of the gravity of professional responsibility . Counsel for Dr . Clowater submitted that Dr . Clowater was dealing with a number of personal and family issues around the time of her professional misconduct , including financial problems , the death of her father , and difficulties with office management . While acknowledging these as valid issues , they are not excuses for failing to act professionally . The Committee concluded that Dr . Clowater had ample time and repeated warnings to come into compliance . The allegations against her arose solely from her own inaction and her subsequent conduct as a result of that inaction .
The aggravating factors which the Committee accepted include Dr . Clowater ’ s repeated untruths to the College as well her deception by assuring prompt payment when none was forthcoming . In addition , the Committee considered Dr . Clowater ’ s multiple inconsistent explanations offered at various times as an aggravating factor . The Committee considered the accepted principles of penalty in determining what was appropriate in this case . Of paramount importance is protection of the public . Other important principles include maintenance of public confidence in the integrity of the profession as well as the profession ’ s ability to govern itself in the public interest ; denunciation of the conduct ; specific deterrence of the member ; general deterrence of the entire membership ; and rehabilitation of the member , where relevant . The Committee was of the view that nothing short of a substantial suspension would reflect the gravity of Dr . Clowater ’ s misconduct . A suspension of three months will provide both specific and general deterrence and will clearly send a strong message to the profession that such behaviour will not be tolerated . A public reprimand also addresses specific and general deterrence . Dr . Clowater ’ s rehabilitation will be addressed by an ethics course which will provide guidance on appropriate relationships with authoritative bodies as well as on professional responsibility and integrity . After reflecting on case law , the Committee concluded that a three-month suspension falls within that range of appropriate penalty with respect to suspension duration and is the appropriate penalty in all the circumstances .
ORDER In summary , the Committee directed a three month suspension , successful completion of an ethics course , a reprimand , and payment to the College for costs of $ 5,000 . 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 .
Dr . Clowater waived her right to an appeal and the Committee administered the reprimand .
56
DIALOGUE ISSUE 3 , 2017