Ms. Judy Welikovitch

In a professional discipline matter, the registrant sought reconsideration after failing to deliver written submissions on penalty and costs by the agreed deadline.

The Panel held it was functus once it had released its final decision and found no authority in the governing legislation or committee rules to reopen the matter.

In any event, it would not have exercised any such discretion because counsel ignored follow-up communications, sought no extension, and offered no adequate explanation for the delay.

The request to reconsider the released penalty and costs decision was refused.

In a professional discipline penalty and costs decision, the panel addressed the mandatory consequences of a finding that a registrant sexually abused a patient by engaging in sexual intercourse.

Applying the mandatory penalty provisions, the panel held that revocation and a reprimand were required.

The panel also ordered reimbursement to the College for therapy and counselling funding already accessed by the patient and found this to be an appropriate case for a substantial costs order because the member’s conduct unnecessarily prolonged the hearing and increased expense.

The College recovered two-thirds of its actual costs, and the patient-identity publication restriction remained in place.

Following a finding that the member sexually abused a patient by engaging in intercourse, the College brought a written motion for an immediate interim suspension pending penalty and for an expedited penalty hearing.

The member did not oppose the relief sought.

The panel held that s. 51(4.2) of the Health Professions Procedural Code required an immediate suspension where the sexual abuse involved intercourse and left no discretion.

The motion was granted and the penalty hearing was directed to proceed on an expedited basis.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found that a dentist committed professional misconduct by engaging in sexual relations with a patient who was not his spouse within the meaning of the governing health professions legislation.

The panel rejected the respondent’s position that a same-day proxy Islamic divorce and private Islamic marriage rendered the patient his spouse, finding the evidence unreliable and, in any event, insufficient for recognition under Canadian law.

The panel also found a boundary violation where the respondent co-signed a patient’s mortgage and became a co-mortgagee on the property.

The allegations were proven on a balance of probabilities, including sexual abuse of a patient and disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical conduct.