At the time of the return of the matter to ICRC,
none of the elements of the SCERP had been more
than partially completed. This resulted in ICRC re-
ferring the matter to the Discipline Committee.
The Committee recognizes that following the
ICRC’s referral, Dr. Thomas has made some efforts to
comply with the April 2017 SCERP. He is scheduled
to complete all elements by June 2020. Despite this
progress, the Committee is troubled by Dr. Thomas’
lack of responsiveness to the College as his govern-
ing body. Dr. Thomas showed a lack respect for the
College’s regulatory role. This type of misconduct
compromises the College’s ability to promote and
maintain public trust in the profession. Dr. Thomas
should have understood that strict compliance by
physicians with orders made by any College commit-
tee is of utmost importance, and not doing so is a
serious act of misconduct.
The Discipline Committee ordered: a reprimand;
a one-month suspension of Dr. Thomas’ certificate
of registration; and imposed terms, conditions and
limitations on Dr. Thomas’ certificate of registration.
The Committee also ordered Dr. Thomas to pay hear-
ing costs to the College in the amount of $6,000.
The terms, conditions and limitations included a
nine-month period of clinical supervision; a reassess-
ment and monitoring of his practice.
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.
What does this mean?
We provide definitions for the legal terminology used in the discipline process
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-
DIALOGUE ISSUE 3, 2019
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.
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 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.