discipline summaries
glass of juice.
Ms A attended the infirmary; Dr. Minnes was in
his living quarters. Ms A entered his living quarters.
Dr. Minnes made progressively intrusive advances towards her, enquiring about her sexual activities with
her boyfriend, inviting her to sit on the couch beside
him, putting his arm around her shoulder, placing
her hand on his genitals over his pants, removing her
shirt, fondling her breasts, rubbing himself against
her buttocks, removing her shorts and attempting to
remove her underwear. When Dr. Minnes attempted
to remove her underwear, Ms A told him she had to
leave as it was late and that she had responsibilities
and subsequently left the cabin.
Dr. Minnes denied this allegation, and said that
Ms. A appeared unannounced and uninvited and
attempted to seduce him into sexual activities. When
he became uncomfortable with Ms A’s aggressive
actions, he testified that he asked her to leave in no
uncertain terms.
The Committee accepted the complainant’s version
of events.
The Committee found that the brief informal
conversation about Ms A’s foot did not establish a
doctor-patient relationship. While Dr. Minnes, as
camp physician, was responsible for providing medical service to both children and staff at the camp,
he did not provide any medical services to Ms A.
She did not follow his initial advice to come to the
infirmary prior to the date in July 2007, and did
not attend that evening out of concern for her foot
(which was getting better). Dr. Minnes never properly examined her foot, he gave no medical advice and
did not prescribe treatment and no record was made
of Dr. Minnes’ brief discussion with Ms A about her
foot. The Committee, therefore found, based on the
evidence, that there was no doctor-patient relationship between Dr. Minnes and Ms. A. She was not his
patient on the date in July 2007.
Since the Committee found that the complainant
was not Dr. Minnes’ patient, he has, therefore, not
committed sexual abuse of a patient.
Despite finding that no doctor-patient relationship
existed, Dr. Minnes was nevertheless the camp doctor
and 47 years old and Ms A was a 17-year-old camp
counsellor, and he was in a position of authority vis a
vis Ms A.
The Committee finds on the evidence that Dr.
Minnes’ conduct with Ms A, having regard to all
the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by
members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional.
Reasons for Penalty
The Committee made two separate findings of
professional misconduct against Dr. Minnes, both involving conduct that has been found to be disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional.
First, Dr. Minnes’ conduct towards staff at the
hospital, between 2003 and 2009, was found to be
disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional. The
evidence disclosed that he had engaged in repeated
boundary violations with female nursing staff at the
hospital where Dr. Minnes was employed as a pediatrician. The behaviour in question consisted mainly
of unwanted and inappropriate touching. Dr. Minnes
admitted that he had behaved as alleged.
Second, Dr. Minnes was found to have engaged in
overt and intrusive sexual behaviour with a teenaged
female counsellor, Ms A, at a summer camp where
Dr. Minnes was the camp physician. This occurred
on one occasion in the summer of 2007.
The principles relevant to the imposition of penalty
in disciplinary proceedings are well-established. The
protection o