discipline summaries
spite the fact that he was informed many times that
his actions were inappropriate, and warned to desist.
His conduct caused significant discomfort to the staff
involved, and disrupted the workplace environment
to some extent. Some staff went out of their way to
avoid him and, in the case of Ms B as reflected in
her impact statement, suffered psychological harm.
There is no evidence that patient care was adversely
affected. Dr. Minnes was apparently oblivious to
the impact of his actions on others, despite repeated
warnings, until he commenced therapy with Dr. K in
2009, which was at the direction of the hospital.
The evidence is, however, that there are significant
mitigating factors with respect to this finding. Dr.
Minnes has accepted responsibility for his behaviour at the hospital. He acknowledged, in a meeting
with his Department Chief, that he had difficulty
exercising appropriate self-control. At the hearing,
he admitted that his actions constituted professional
misconduct. He continued in therapy with Dr. K for
a lengthy period of time, and Dr. K’s report documents progress in therapy. Furthermore, without
diminishing the potential for Dr. Minnes’ behaviour
to have traumatized the hospital staff, the behaviour
itself amounted to relatively minor boundary violations. The frequency of the objectionable behaviour
diminished over time.
Repeated boundary violations with staff in the
workplace cannot be tolerated or condoned. To his
credit, Dr. Minnes has accepted responsibility for his
misbehaviour in this regard. He has attended therapy
with Dr. K and has made progress in understanding
his behaviour and its impact on others. The principle
of general deterrence with respect to the membership
as a whole, however, warrants a significant response
from the Discipline Committee. All physicians must
understand that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable.
The Committee finds that the hospital incidents’
findings, standing alone, warrant a penalty consisting of a public reprimand, suspension of Dr. Minnes’
certificate of registration for three months, and a requirement for remediation with respect to boundary
issues, including pursuing therapy. This penalty for
the hospital findings, in the view of the Committee,
would protect the public, maintain public confidence
in the integrity and reputation of the profession, ad-
70
equately address both general and specific deterrence,
and provide for Dr. Minnes’ ongoing rehabilitation.
The penalty is consistent with previous decisions of
the Discipline Committee in similar cases.
The Camp Incident
The findings of the Committee with respect to the
camp incident are extremely troubling. Dr. Minnes
was found to have engaged in very intrusive and coercive sexual activities with a 17-year-old female. The
complainant was, essentially, unknown to him; there
had been some previous casual contact between the
two, and he had invited her to his cabin, an invitation which she had accepted.
The complainant was not a patient of Dr. Minnes’.
The power imbalance in the relationship between Dr.
Minnes and the complainant, however, is striking.
Dr. Minnes was the physician at the camp where the
complainant was employed as a counsellor. He was a
senior member of the staff and an experienced pediatrician. The complainant had arrived at the camp for
the first time just one week prior to the incident in
question. She was by nature passive, shy, compliant,
and deferential to authority.
The Committee found that Dr. Minnes was in a
clear position of authority with respect to the complainant, despite the absence of a doctor/patient
relationship. Although there was not a pre-existing
relationship between the complainant and Dr.
Minnes on which feelings of personal trust could be
based, Dr. Minnes’ position as camp physician conveyed an expectation that he could be trusted. The
complainant had a right to expect that Dr. Minnes,
in his interactions with her, would be professional
and trustworthy. The Committee found that Dr.
Minnes had abused his position of authority and
trust, in order to take advantage of the complainant
for his sexual gratification. He behaved in a fashion
which the Committee characterizes as manipulative,
coercive, opportunistic, and, seemingly, predatory.
It is clear to the Committee that the misuse of
a position of trust and authority, in order to take
sexual advantage of a vulnerable victim under the age
of 18 years, conveys an added dimension with respect
to the gravity of the offending behaviour. Consent
on the part of the victim is not possible under the
circumstances, even if the victim acquiesces. It is
Dialogue Issue 4, 2015
Issue4_15.indd 70
2015-12-16 9:36 AM