The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

w at er lo oc hr on ic le .c a W at er lo o C hr on ic le | T hu rs da y, M ay 27 ,2 02 1 | 8 NOTICE OF THE PASSING OF A ZONING BY-LAW 319, 337, 343 WOOLWICH STREET (Z-18-14) Take notice that the Council of the Corporation of the City of Waterloo passed By-law No. 2021-040, on May 17, 2021, under Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990. And take notice that any person or agency may appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in respect of this By-law by filingwith the Clerk of the Corporation of the City ofWaterloo not later than June 16,2021,a notice of appeal setting out the objection to the By-law and the reasons in support of the objection, accompanied by a fee of $1,100.00, made payable to the Minister of Finance, as prescribed under the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act. If you wish to appeal to the Tribunal, a copy of an appeal form is available from the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal website at: https://olt.gov.on.ca/tribunals/lpat/forms/appellant-applicant-forms/ An explanation of the purpose and effect of the By-law, describing the lands to which the By-law applies is attached. The complete By-law is available for inspection in the City of Waterloo Clerk's office during regular business hours. Dated at the City of Waterloo this 27th day of May, 2021. Julie Scott, City Clerk NOTE: i) Only individuals, corporations and public bodies may appeal a Zoning By-law to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. A Notice of Appeal may not be filed by an unincorporated association or group. However, a Notice of Appeal may be filed in the name of an individual who is a member of the association or the group. ii) No person or public body shall be added as a party to the hearing of the appeal unless, before the By-law was passed, the person or public body made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the Council or, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to add the person or public body as a party. EXPLANATORY NOTE By-law No. 2021-040 amends Zoning Bylaw 2018-050 for the lands known municipally as 319, 337, 343 Woolwich Street (the "Lands"). The purpose of the amending by-law is to rezone 319, 337, 343 Woolwich Street from "Zone Change Application" (ZC) to "Conservation" (OS3), "Residential Four" (R4) and "Residential Eight" (R8) with site specific provisions. The Residential Eight (R8) site specific provisions would include reduced interior lot line setbacks, reduced rear yard setbacks, reduced private road setbacks and permission for one townhouse building to contain 7 units. For further information regarding the above matter, please contact the City of Waterloo Integrated Planning and Public Works, 2nd Floor, Waterloo City Centre, Waterloo, Ontario, by calling Rita Szilock at 519-747-8650 or by email at rita.szilock@waterloo.ca P. 519-886-1550 TTY. 1-866-786-3941waterloo.ca A Waterloo doctor's certificate of regis- tration has been suspended for three months for co-signing prescriptions with- out consultation and providing signed, blank letterhead to an acquaintance. Dr. Mohammed Asif Hameed Khan was reprimanded by the discipline committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario at a virtual hearing on Wednes- day (May 19), based on an agreed statement of facts detailing a period of more than two years, from January 2016 to April 2018, dur- ing which time he received $31,826 for co- signing approximately 5,400 prescriptions. Dr. Khan, 55, is listed as a family physi- cian at Medical Centre 1 at The Boardwalk in Waterloo. Health Canada and the College of Phar- macists of British Columbia initially raised concerns that he was co-signing prescriptions written by naturopaths in Canada, as well as by American doctors, for American patients, stated Jessica Amey, legal counsel for the CPSO, who out- lined the details of what she referred to as a "co-signing scheme." The prescriptions were filled at two pharmacies in B.C. Dr. Khan had no rela- tionship with the patients. "He was paid $6 U.S. per prescription," Amey said. "He did not assess the patients, did not obtain assessment information from the persons who conducted the as- sessment of the patients, did not know the persons who conducted the assessment of the patients, did not know the qualifica- tions and training of the persons who con- ducted the assessments of the patients and did not follow up with the patients." According to Amey, it's important to note that a physician's responsibilities for co-signing a prescription are identical to signing one, as if they were approving a loan. Responsibilities are laid out clearly in the college's policies, she said. Dr. Khan said he maintained record of the prescriptions, along with supporting documentation provided by pharmacies, inside his former marital home, but that they were destroyed by his ex-wife. He couldn't produce any medical records for the patients upon request of the college. According to an investigation, Khan prescribed two to 12 months of medication for some patients, with no follow-up. The college was also contacted by a pharmacist in another province with con- cern relating to a prescription for a stim- ulant at the high end of the recommended dose, which arrived on Khan's letterhead, but was faxed by the patient. It was later determined that Dr. Khan gave permission to the patient - known to him personally - to write and fax prescrip- tions on his professional letterhead. The letterhead was also used in an attempt to get a prescription for a friend of Khan's ac- quaintance. A doctor retained by the college to in- vestigate the complaints found Khan did not comply with the college's prescription policies and that his actions constituted behaviour that would be considered dis- graceful, dishonourable or unprofessional by its members. "Over 5,000 times you put the well-being of patients at risk for your financial gain," said Paul Malette, a member of the col- lege's discipline committee. "You compounded this conduct by vio- lating physician-patient boundaries." The blank letterhead could have been used to prescribe any substance for any- one, Malette noted. "Prescribing is a very significant regu- lated medical act for which you failed to meet the standard." The college withdrew allegations of in- competence. Amey said the the complaints pertained chiefly to Khan's judgment, not his medi- cal abilities. Khan's practice was assessed in March 2020 and was found to be meeting the stan- dard of the profession at that time. Khan has also stopped co-signing pre- scriptions and his letterhead has not been used by his acquaintance since 2017. At this time the college has no reason to be- lieve otherwise, Amey said, adding that Khan admitted to the allegations and coop- erated early on with the investigation. Khan has also been ordered to complete an ethics course within six months and pay costs of $6,000 within 30 days. DOCTOR'S CERTIFICATE SUSPENDED FOR 'CO-SIGNING SCHEME' BILL JACKSON bjackson@torstar.ca The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario on August 17, 2016. Andrew Lahodynskyj photo NEWS PHYSICIAN CO-SIGNED 5,400 PRESCRIPTIONS WITHOUT PATIENT ASSESSMENTS