discipline summaries
portional to her misconduct. The Committee must look at the nature of the conduct that is being considered. Defence counsel argued that Dr. McIntyre’ s misconduct amounted to a single kiss, and therefore the sexual abuse in this case was at the low end of the spectrum through a proportionality lens. The Committee found that the conduct in this case was not at the low end of the spectrum. In the context of that kiss, it is clear that Ms Y was a vulnerable patient who was socially and financially tied to Dr. McIntyre. Dr. McIntyre continued to medically treat Ms Y, as she had for many years. Sexual abuse compounded the abuse of power and control. The context of the sexual abuse was not a single kiss, but a part of the dynamic of this dependent relationship. Dr. McIntyre had a pattern of using her patients to fulfill her own needs. She did not have peer relationships with Mr. X and Ms Y, and could not have, by virtue of her position as their physician. These patients were also especially susceptible to Dr. McIntyre’ s attention to them because of their precarious mental health. Dr. McIntyre’ s misconduct involved boundary violations that continued for years. Ms Y was a vulnerable woman with mental health issues who required hospitalizations, and ongoing medication, among other assistance. Mr. X was also vulnerable with significant mental health issues. In both cases, Dr. McIntyre was in a position of trust and had power and control in the relationship. The College has a mandate to govern its members. When physicians engage in professional misconduct, as Dr. McIntyre did, the public loses confidence in the profession. If the penalty is not proportional with the seriousness of the misconduct, the profession is further tarnished. Revocation in this case is appropriate because of the nature and context of Dr. McIntyre’ s boundary violations with vulnerable patients, which took place over years, and her breach of the trust of her patients, the public, and the profession. Revocation serves the purpose of maintaining public protection and confidence in the profession. It should also serve as a deterrent to the membership in general. A reprimand is mandatory under the Code when there is a finding of sexual abuse. The Committee agreed that there were delays in this hearing that should not be borne by Dr. McIntyre. The
Committee orders costs in the amount of $ 13,380, which reflects two days of hearing and one day of penalty, at the current tariff of $ 4,460 per day. In summary, the Discipline Committee ordered revocation; public reprimand; reimbursement to the College for funding provided to patients under the program required under section 85.7 of the Code, post an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $ 16,060 and pay costs to the College in the amount of $ 13,380.
Order For complete details of the Order, please see the full decision at www. cpso. on. ca. Select Doctor Search and enter the Doctor’ s Name.
On August 5, 2015, Dr. McIntyre appealed the decision on finding of the Discipline Committee to the Superior Court of Justice( Divisional Court).
Dr. Sammy Joe Sliwin
Practice Location: Toronto Practice Area; Plastic Surgery
Hearing Information: Contested Hearing, 14 Days, Contested Penalty
On September 11, 2013, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Sliwin committed an act of professional misconduct, in that he has engaged in sexual abuse of a patient, and he has engaged in an act or omission relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. The evidence in this case, for the most part, was not in dispute. Ms A was a 29-year old married mother of two when she first met Dr. Sliwin in 1988. Ms A was a patient of Dr. Sliwin for a number of surgeries over an extended time period, commencing in 1992 with the first surgery and with the last surgery taking place in 2008. Ms A also worked in Dr Sliwin’ s office in an administrative position from 1992-1998, 2002-2005 and 2006-2008. They commenced an on-again off-again
72
Dialogue Issue 4, 2016