Im, Charles Chul Soo (CPSO#: 56787)

Current Status: Revoked: Discipline Committee as of 22 Oct 2009

CPSO Registration Class: None as of 22 Oct 2009

Indicates a concern or additional information

Summary

Former Name: No Former Name

Gender: Male

Languages Spoken: English

Education:University of Toronto, 1986

Practice Information

Primary Location of Practice
Practice Address Not Available

Registration History

Action Issue Date
First certificate of registration issued: Postgraduate Education Certificate Effective: 16 Jun 1986
Transfer of class of registration to: Independent Practice Certificate Effective: 12 Aug 1987
Transfer of class of certificate to: Restricted certificate Effective: 26 Jul 1993
Terms and conditions imposed on certificate Effective: 26 Jul 1993
Terms and conditions amended Effective: 12 May 2000
Terms and conditions amended Effective: 12 Oct 2001
Terms and conditions amended Effective: 01 Apr 2004
Suspension of registration imposed: Executive Committee Effective: 04 Nov 2004
Revoked: Discipline Committee. Effective: 22 Oct 2009

Previous Discipline Hearings

Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 22 Oct 2009
Summary:

 On October 22, 2009, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Im committed an act of professional 
 misconduct, in that he has been found guilty of an offence that is relevant to his suitability to 
 practise.

In December 2005, Dr. Im was found guilty of the criminal offence of sexual assault for 
 rubbing his groin against a patient during an eye examination in July 2004. Dr. Im received a six 
 month conditional sentence, followed by three years of probation. 

The Discipline Committee 
 ordered and directed that:

1.	The Registrar revoke Dr. Im's certificate of registration, 
 effective immediately.

2.	Dr. Im appear before the panel to be reprimanded.

3.	Dr. Im pay to the 
 College costs in the amount of $3,650 within one year of the date of the Order. 

4. 	The results 
 of this proceeding be included in the register.

Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: No Appeal
Hearing Date(s): Oct 22, 2009


Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 11 Jul 2001
Summary:

 On July 11, 2000, the Discipline Committee found Dr. Im guilty of conduct relevant to the practice 
 of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded as 
 disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional with respect to adequately maintaining appropriate 
 professional boundaries, specifically in the physical/spatial area. Furthermore, Dr. Im failed to 
 communicate verbally, clearly and cogently with patients.

On October 12, 2001 the Discipline 
 Committee ordered the following penalty:

1.	That Dr. Im be reprimanded, the fact of the reprimand 
 to be recorded on the Register;
2.	That Dr. Im(s certificate of Registration be suspended for 16 
 months, effective June 9, 	2000, 6 months of which suspension to be suspended in the event of 
 completion of the 	Physician(s Boundaries Course;
3.	That a condition be imposed on Dr. Im(s 
 certificate of registration that he not conduct an 	examination on a female patient except in the 
 presence of a female monitor who is at least 	21 years of age and is acceptable to the Registrar 
 or, in the alternative, except with the use 	of a video surveillance system acceptable to the 
 Registrar.  The monitoring period shall 	last for 2 years;
4.	Dr. Im shall pay the College costs 
 in the amount of $6,000, to be paid within one year 	pursuant to an installment plan acceptable to 
 the Registrar.

Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: No Appeal
Hearing Date(s): Aug 22, 2000


Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 21 Jan 1993
Summary:

In January 1993, Dr. Im pleaded guilty to a charge of professional misconduct, as defined in s. 61(3)(a) of the Health 
Disciplines Act, 1990, as amended, in that he had been found guilty of an offence relevant to his suitability to practice.   
Dr. Im further pleaded guilty to a charge of incompetence, as defined in s. 61(4) of the Health Disciplines Act, 1990, as 
amended, in that he displayed in his professional care of a patient a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or disregard for 
the welfare of the patient of a nature or to an extent that demontrates he is unfit to continue in practice.    The Discipline 
Committee accepted Dr. Im s plea of guilty to these charges and found him guilty of professional misconduct and 
incompetence.    Consequently, the Committee imposed the following penalty: 
 
   1. Dr. Im was to be reprimanded, with the fact of the reprimand to be recorded on the Register. 
 
   2. Dr. Im's current suspension of his licence to practice was to be continued until he met the following terms: 
 
      (i)   the Registrar was to receive confirmation, deemed acceptable by him, that Dr. Im had obtained 
            appropriate training in and was capable of performing refractive optometric examinations; 
 
      (ii)  the Registrar was to receive confirmation, deemed acceptable by him, that Dr. Im had obtained a 
            position wherein he would limit himself to the practice of refractive optometry, such confirmation to 
            include an acknowledgement that Dr. Im's employer/supervisor had been informed of the facts of the 
            current proceedings and the criminal conviction, and was prepared to forward quarterly reports to the 
            Registrar pertaining to Dr. Im's performance; and 
 
      (iii) the Registrar was to receive confirmation, deemed acceptable by him, that a suitable individual with 
            full knowledge of the current discipline proceedings had undertaken to be present whenever Dr. Im 
            conducted a refractive examination on a female patient for a period of three months following his 
            return to limited practice; this individual was to agree to provide monthly reports to the Registrar 
            confirming his continuing presence in these clinical situations and the appropriateness of the 
            examinations performed by Dr. Im. 
 
Upon satisfaction of these conditions, the suspension of Dr. Im's licence to practice was itself to be suspended, but his 
licence was to be restricted to the provision of refractive optometric examinations in a controlled setting deemed 
satisfactory by the Registrar.    The Committee also ruled that it be a condition of this restricted licence that he continue in 
ongoing therapy with his treating psychiatrist, or an alternate therapist recommended by his treating psychiatrist and 
acceptable to the Registrar.    The treating psychiatrist or his alternate was to provide quarterly reports to the Registrar on 
Dr. Im's ongoing therapy.    Dr. Im was to re-apply to this Committee should he seek any alteration in the restrictions on 
his licence to practice.  Should any of the aforementioned reports to the Registrar be deemed unsatisfactory by him, the 
suspension of Dr. Im's licence was to be reimposed. 

Appeal: No Appeal
Hearing Date(s): 21 Jan 1993