CITATION: Maytham v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2011 ONSC 6875
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 185/11
DATE: 20111121
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
HOCKIN, DAMBROT AND HOY JJ.
BETWEEN:
DR. JAMES CONNERY MAYTHAM
Appellant
– and –
COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO
Respondent
Nina Bombier, for the Appellant
Alice Cranker, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: November 21, 2011
HOY J. (ORALLY)
[1] Dr. Maytham appeals the imposition of a four month suspension by the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.
[2] It is agreed that the standard of review on this appeal is reasonableness.
[3] Counsel for Dr. Maytham argues that the four month suspension is totally disproportionate to the conduct at issue and is therefore unreasonable.
[4] Dr. Maytham appeared before the Discipline Committee three times over a period of four years. His first attendance was in relation to the College’s concerns about, inter alia, his narcotic prescribing practices. As a result, he among other things provided an undertaking not to prescribe narcotics or controlled drugs. He breached that undertaking by prescribing controlled drugs. He did not understand the scope of the undertaking. As a result, he attended before the Discipline Committee again and entered into the further undertaking that is at issue.
[5] Dr. Maytham undertook to maintain a narcotics log to facilitate the supervision of his narcotics prescribing practices. The requirement to maintain a log arose out of the College’s concerns regarding his prescribing practices and patient safety. He failed to maintain the log as required, in some instances not recording at all that he had prescribed drugs and in some instances not recording the dosage.
[6] In our view, the length of the suspension imposed by the Discipline Committee was within the range of reasonable outcomes having regard to the decisions cited to us and to all of the circumstances, including the importance of undertakings to the College’s scheme of self regulation.
[7] The panel considered aggravating and mitigating factors, considered the need to denounce Dr. Maytham’s conduct and to provide specific and general deterrence. General deterrence in this context is directed to the profession. A review of the Decision and Reasons as a whole reveals a clear line of analysis which supports the panel’s deliberate decision to impose a significant suspension upon Dr. Maytham consistent with the stated goals of penalty orders in the professional regulatory context. There is no basis to intervene.
HOCKIN J.
[8] I have endorsed on the back of the Appeal Book, “For oral reasons, this appeal is dismissed. The suspension is upheld. Costs agreed upon in the amount of $3,000.00 by the appellant to the respondent.”
HOY J.
HOCKIN J.
DAMBROT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 21, 2011
Date of Release: December 1, 2011
CITATION: Maytham v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2011 ONSC 6875
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 185/11
DATE: 20111121
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
HOCKIN, DAMBROT AND HOY JJ.
BETWEEN:
DR. JAMES CONNERY MAYTHAM
Appellant
– and –
COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HOY J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 21, 2011
Date of Release: December 1, 2011