DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
• Dr. Dimock complete a Specified Continuing Edu-
cation and Remediation Program (SCERP), con-
sisting of a period of clinical supervision focusing
on both medical care and communication.
• Dr. Dimock complete one-on-one instruction in
professionalism and communication.
• Dr. Dimock be reassessed.
In January 2016, Dr. Dimock requested a review of
the ICRC’s decision by the Health Professions Appeal
and Review Board (HPARB).
On October 5, 2016, during the HPARB review
hearing, which is open to the public, Dr. Dimock made
false and unfounded assertions to HPARB about Patient
A, including that Patient A was a terrorist, a sociopath,
a child abductor and was committing insurance fraud.
PATIENT B
Patient B saw Dr. Dimock in July 2016 for an Inde-
pendent Medical Examination (IME) at the request
of her insurance company and signed the “Claimant/
Employee Authorization Form” in advance of the
IME. Dr. Dimock’s IME report contained all the de-
tails Patient B related to him during their session, as
well as his conclusion that “there are no restrictions
to immediately beginning a slow reintroduction to
Patient B’s old workplace.” On November 4, 2016,
Patient B complained to the College that Dr. Di-
mock had promised that the detailed information she
told him during the course of the IME would remain
confidential between the two of them, and that Dr.
Dimock would only tell the insurance company what
his conclusion or diagnosis was.
In September 2016, before complaining to the Col-
lege, Patient B addressed her concern directly with
Dr. Dimock in a series of emails. Following their
email exchange, Dr. Dimock sent Patient B a request
via the social media site LinkedIn to join her Linke-
dIn network, which confused and scared Patient B.
The expert retained by the College to provide an
independent opinion concluded that the only con-
cern was the lack of judgment Dr. Dimock showed in
his responses to Patient B’s emails. The expert noted
that the responses became antagonistic and peevish.
The expert also found the LinkedIn request extremely
puzzling and somewhat concerning as Dr. Dimock
did not provide an explanation.
BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS PROFESSIONAL
COLLEAGUES
In 2014, Dr. Dimock was practising psychiatry in a
shared office setting with Colleague X and Colleague
Y, both of whom are regulated professionals.
In November 2014, Colleague X telephoned the
College about matters Colleague X and Colleague Y
discussed about Dr. Dimock’s behaviour. As a result
of Colleague X’s call to the College, Dr. Dimock was
required to undergo a psychiatric assessment to assess
his fitness to practice, which concluded that he was
not suffering from a mental condition that would ex-
pose or was likely to expose patients to risk of harm.
Following this, Dr. Dimock threatened to make a
complaint about his colleagues to their own profes-
sional regulators, and engaged in repeated rude and
threatening behaviour and communications towards
them, including yelling, slamming doors, and leaving
abusive voicemail messages.
ORDER
The Committee ordered: a four-month suspension on
Dr. Dimock’s certificate of registration; a reprimand;
successful completion of an ethics and boundaries
course; counselling in anger management or commu-
nication in difficult settings; and payment of costs to
the College in the amount of $5,500.
For complete details, 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. Dimock 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.
ISSUE 4, 2018 DIALOGUE
55