DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
tion, maintaining the integrity of the profession and
maintaining public confidence in the College’s ability
to govern the profession in the public interest. Coun-
sel for Dr. Wales argued that there is no difference in
impact between revocation and direct supervision,
and that if Dr. Wales practises under direct supervi-
sion, there will be no public safety issue. She submit-
ted that direct supervision accomplishes the same
goal as revocation and adds “an element of dignity to
the penalty.”
The fact that Dr. Wales had no prior appearances
before the Discipline Committee is a mitigating factor.
PENALTY AND COSTS
The Committee finds that revocation of Dr. Wales’
certificate of registration is the most appropriate
sanction. The Committee also requires that Dr. Wales
appear before it to be reprimanded and that he pay
costs to the College in the amount of $23,340 within
30 days of the date the order becomes final.
The Committee rejects Dr. Wales’ counsel’s submis-
sion that the proposed supervision order is equivalent
in effect to an order of revocation. Revocation in
this case denounces Dr. Wales’ conduct and is the
appropriate means of ensuring public protection,
maintaining the integrity of the profession and pub-
lic confidence in the College’s ability to govern the
profession in the public interest.
The section 37 Order has no bearing on the ap-
propriate penalty. The section 37 Order was made
by the ICRC before the Discipline Committee made
its findings. ICRC’s primary concern is protection of
the public pending disposition of the allegations. The
Discipline Committee must consider an appropriate
penalty after finding that the allegations have been
proven.
There was no testimony from Dr. Wales demon-
strating that he had insight into his misconduct, or
that he was truly willing to undertake training to
improve his practice.
A reprimand is also appropriate. The reprimand
should serve to express to Dr. Wales the Committee’s
disapproval of the misconduct and to send a message
to the profession that physicians must stay current
with respect to knowledge, skills and standards in
their chosen field of practice.
The Committee finds this to be an appropriate case
90
DIALOGUE ISSUE 4, 2017
in which to award costs. The Committee did not
agree with Dr. Wales’ counsel’s submission that the
costs award requested by the College penalizes Dr.
Wales for mounting a defence. The costs awarded are
not punitive. They are compensatory. The quantum
of costs ordered constitutes only partial compensa-
tion to the College for the costs incurred in the
discipline process. The Committee finds the quantum
of costs proposed by the College counsel reasonable
based on the College’s tariff.
ORDER
In summary, the Committee directed that the Reg-
istrar revoke Dr. Wales’ certificate of r