CPSO:use of paid "AGENTS PROVOCATEURS"

• Torstar Network

Day in court. Dr. David Lambert is pictured leaving the College of Physicians and Surgeons building in Toronto. He's pleaded guilty to four counts of professional misconduct involving the licence restrictions but denies allegations he sexually abused a woman by brushing his hand across her breast. Photo by Henry Stancu/Toronto Star

In the shaky, hidden-camera video, Dr. David Lambert has no idea he is the subject of an elaborate sting.
The 59-year-old Mississauga general practitioner looks confident and relaxed, chewing gum as he chats with a woman and her friend about his line of anti-wrinkle skin creams and a $650 collagen injection he could perform right then and there.
The two women are, in fact, private investigators hired by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to catch Lambert breaching restrictions placed on his medical licence in 2009.
At a college disciplinary hearing that began yesterday, Lambert pleaded guilty to four counts of professional misconduct involving the licence restrictions.
What Lambert denies, however, is that he sexually abused one of the private eyes sent to spy on him, allegedly brushing his hand across her breast.
"This was not a poke or a nudge," said the 40-year-old, sturdy blond woman, whose name must be kept secret under a publication ban ordered by the college. "It was a swipe."
The alleged caress - the only count in dispute - will take up the bulk of Lambert's scheduled three days of hearings.
In 2002, the Mississauga physician, who has an office near the Trillium Health Centre, lost his licence after the college found he had sexually abused three female patients.
In June 2009, four months before the sting, the college reinstated his licence with limits, saying it was only fair he get a second chance.
Yesterday, Lambert admitted he has "squandered" that chance. He has been practicing in Mississauga for the past 31 years.
The sting operation video provides indisputable proof Lambert flouted his licence restrictions - he was not allowed to treat women or minors, could not sell his cosmetic products to patients and was prohibited from performing procedures not covered by OHIP, namely cosmetic ones. He is clearly seen on video filling a syringe with a dermal "filler" after discussing the procedure with the posing patients.
What the video does not show, Lambert's lawyer argues, is the alleged caress of the private eye's right breast. The doctor is accused of brushing the back of his index finger across her nipple as she handed him a patient consent form.
The alleged incident happens just outside the frame of the video shot by a second investigator on a camera hidden in a cellphone. Even in super-slow motion it is inconclusive.
"Could this have been an accidental brush by Dr. Lambert while he was grabbing the papers?" asked Carolyn Silver, one of two lawyers acting on behalf of the college.
"Absolutely no way," the private investigator said.
In an aggressive cross-examination, Lambert's lawyer, Roy Stephenson, pointed out that nowhere in the video does the woman seem to acknowledge the alleged incident, and neither does she bring it up with the other investigator when Lambert leaves the room.
The woman said she was focused on staying in character and carrying out the task she was hired to do.
"Our objective was not for Dr. Lambert to touch me. It was the last thing anybody wanted to occur," she said. "I had a job to do."
Lambert admitted "disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional" conduct when he lied to college officials three days after the incident, saying the women hired by the college were sales agents for his skin cream, not prospective patients.
"No comment," Lambert said outside the college's downtown office when asked why he ignored his licence restrictions only a few months after being reinstated.
Yesterday's appearance is actually Lambert's third before the college's disciplinary committee to face professional misconduct allegations of a sexual nature.
Some 20 years ago, he had to explain a series of sexually derogatory and demeaning remarks made to female patients. The committee found him guilty of professional misconduct and his licence was suspended for six months.
In 2000, four women came forward to allege Lambert had sexually abused them, ranging from inappropriate remarks to sexual touching and groping.
Those cases were also bolstered by hidden-camera videos shot by patients. Lambert denied many of the allegations until he became aware of the videos. He then then admitted the offences, according to the committee's 2002 decision.
Lambert's licence was revoked. In 2008, he applied for reinstatement.
With supporting evidence from psychologists and other medical experts, the committee wrote it was "in the public interest and fair to Dr. Lambert" to reinstate his licence subject to restrictions.
"Dr. Lambert was not viewed to be a predator, and has had no problems with alcohol, drugs or criminal activity."
In October 2009, after patients complained to the college Lambert was pushing his skin creams on them and college officials came across his commercial website, it sent in the private investigators.
Lambert is suspended pending the outcome of his disciplinary hearing, which resumes today.