DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
A’s romantic partner, Dr. Garcia placed himself in a
conflict of interest by providing Ms. A with a pre-
scription and a referral for insertion of an IUD for
birth control.
Second, during Ms. A’s hospitalization, Dr. Garcia
used his professional status as a physician in an attempt
to persuade or pressure a nurse to provide confidential
information in regard to Ms. A without her consent,
despite the fact that he, as a physician, had full knowl-
edge that he was not entitled to that information.
ORDER
The Committee ordered: a reprimand, an eight-
month suspension and terms, conditions and limita-
tions on Dr. Garcia’s certificate of registration.
The terms, conditions and limitations include: a
restriction to seeing no more than 48 patients per day,
at a rate of no more than six per hour; maintenance
of a patient log and a log for narcotics prescribing; 12
months of supervision, followed by a practice assess-
ment; and successful completion of a course in medi-
cal ethics and a course on maintaining boundaries.
The parties disagreed on costs: the College sought
$55,000 in costs and Dr. Garcia submitted he ought
to pay $36,000. The Committee ordered that Dr.
Garcia pay $49,000, in costs.
For complete details of the Order, please see the
full decision at www.cpso.on.ca. Select Find a Doctor
and enter the doctor’s name.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Garcia waived his
right to an appeal and the Committee administered the
public reprimand.
Full decisions are available online at www.cpso.on.ca.
Select Find a Doctor and enter the doctor’s name.
DR. NAGI NAZMI RIAD GHABBOUR
PRACTICE LOCATION: Toro nto
AREA OF PRACTICE: Psychiatry
HEARING INFORMATION: Admission, Agreed Statement of
Facts; Contested Penalty, Two Day Hearing
On February 21, 2017, the Discipline Committee
found that Dr. Ghabbour committed an act of pro-
fessional misconduct in that he engaged in conduct
or an act or omission relevant to the practice of
medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances,
would reasonably be regarded by members as dis-
graceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
The College investigation began after Patient A’s
mother complained to the College in May 2015, al-
leging that Dr. Ghabbour was involved in a romantic
relationship with Patient A.
Dr. Ghabbour was the treating psychiatrist for
Patient A. Patient A was married with children. In
the course of providing treatment to Patient A, Dr.
Ghabbour wrote letters and filled out reports on
her behalf to her employer and provided prescrip-
tions to Patient A to help her deal with anxiety and
depression. Dr. Ghabbour had one joint session with
Patient A and her husband.
Over the course of her therapy appointments with
Dr. Ghabbour, Patient A developed romantic feelings
for him. In a final appointment in the late spring
of the second year of treatment, as recorded in the
patient chart, Patient A confirmed that she wished
to terminate the doctor-patient relationship. Accord-
ing to Patient A and Dr. Ghabbour, following the
termination of the doctor-patient relationship, they
began to date a couple of weeks later. Their relation-
ship became sexually intimate approximately another
two weeks later, according to Patient A, and approxi-
mately one month later, according to Dr. Ghabbour.
They live together and plan to marry.
Dr. Ghabbour admitted and the Committee found
that he engaged in an act or omission relevant to the
practise of medicine that, having regard to all the cir-
cumstances, would reasonably be regarded by mem-
bers as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
ISSUE 3, 2018 DIALOGUE
37