Full Report

Key Points

• Dr. Charles James Marke (Kamloops, BC) admitted to professional misconduct related to failing to maintain professional boundaries with a former patient; the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia resolved the matter with a Consent Agreement and issued a formal reprimand.

• The misconduct involved contacting a former patient about one month after treatment ended, inviting her to his residence, engaging in personal conversation and physical contact (hugging and kissing).

• As part of the disposition Dr. Marke must complete a multi-disciplinary assessment program and additional continuing professional education in ethics/professionalism before any future re-licensure.

• Local news and College publications publicly reported the reprimand and regulatory action; there is no publicly disclosed record of criminal charges or civil suits tied to this matter in the sources reviewed.

Overview — Who he is and what he does

• Dr. Charles James Marke is a psychiatrist (previous registrant) who practised in Kamloops and served in roles connected to regional mental-health/addiction services. Historical documents show involvement in Interior Health initiatives (for example, a chronic pain strategy and outpatient detox development).

• The disciplinary record indicates he was a registrant of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (CPSBC) at the time of the investigation.

Allegations and Concerns

• Professional misconduct of a sexual nature (boundary violation): The Inquiry Committee’s investigation concluded Dr. Marke contacted a former patient for personal and social reasons about one month after treatment ended; they met at his home, engaged in personal conversation, and he kissed and hugged her. He admitted that this conduct failed to maintain required professional boundaries.

• Failure to disclose (in other public summaries): Some third-party aggregators summarize additional concerns (e.g., failing to disclose prior criminal charge when registering in another province) — those claims appear in summaries but are not substantiated in the primary CPSBC consent agreement PDF I reviewed; treat those secondary claims as unverified unless you want me to locate primary documentation.

Customer Feedback

Public, contemporaneous patient reviews specifically naming Dr. Charles James Marke are limited in accessible public review sites. Two relevant points from available material:

• Positive / professional contributions (contextual): Health-system documents note Dr. Marke’s involvement in creating regional addiction and outpatient detox services and in chronic pain strategy work — these describe constructive professional activity and suggest positive institutional contribution. Example: “Instigated the development of the Kamloops Outpatient Detox Facility.” (Interior Health document listing contributors).

• Negative / trust concerns (community reaction to discipline): Local news coverage of the College’s reprimand framed the incident as a breach of professional boundaries; such public reporting commonly leads to reputational damage among patients, but I found no large collection of individual patient testimonials (positive or negative) tied directly to the disciplinary event. Example local headline summaries: “Kamloops psychiatrist reprimanded for inappropriate relationship with patient.”

If you want, I can attempt a deeper scrape of local review platforms (RateMDs, Google/PagesJaunes, Yelp) for any patient comments; those searches sometimes turn up individual ratings or anecdotal comments, but I did not find robust patient review content in the sources already retrieved.

Risk Considerations

• Reputational risk: Public disciplinary actions by a provincial college (formal reprimand) are published and accessible to employers, health authorities, and the public; this typically damages patient trust and professional reputation in the community.

• Regulatory/licensing risk: The Consent Agreement imposes requirements (multidisciplinary assessment, continuing education) that must be satisfied for future licensure. Failure to comply would impede re-entry to practice or result in further discipline.

• Legal risk: Based on reviewed sources there is no open record in these documents of criminal convictions or civil suits arising from this incident; however boundary violations can sometimes precipitate civil litigation or criminal complaints if further facts emerge. At present, the immediate legal risk (criminal or civil) is not apparent in the materials reviewed.

• Operational risk to employers/partners: Health authorities who engaged him (past collaborator on programs) may face reputational questions and will likely require disclosure/assessment if considering future contractual or clinical privileges.

Business Relations and Associations

• Regional health authorities/documented collaborations: Documents show Dr. Marke’s name in association with Interior Health initiatives (Kamloops outpatient detox, chronic pain strategy). Those connections indicate prior working relationships with regional health administration and clinical collaborators.

• Regulator: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia is the primary regulatory body that investigated and documented the consent agreement.

Legal and Financial Concerns

• Lawsuits / criminal charges: In the sources reviewed (CPSBC consent agreement, College public notices, and local news coverage) I did not find mention of civil lawsuits, judgments, bankruptcy filings, or criminal convictions arising from this particular professional-conduct matter. The CPSBC disposition was regulatory (consent agreement + reprimand). Absence of evidence in a limited review is not proof of absence — a broader court-record search would be needed to definitively rule out any civil suits.

• Regulatory penalties / conditions: The key regulatory consequences are the published reprimand, requirement for multidisciplinary assessment, and continuing education — these are administrative rather than financial penalties. No fines or restitution amounts are listed in the CPSBC notice.

Risk Assessment Table

 The regulatory record shows a clear, documented instance of boundary crossing that the physician admitted to and resolved with the provincial regulator via a Consent Agreement. The action taken (formal reprimand + conditions) is consistent with other College dispositions for similar boundary breaches. While the misconduct did not escalate to criminal charges or public civil litigation, the presence of a published reprimand materially raises reputational and licensing risks for future practice.