discipline summaries professional boundaries with Mr . X during the doctorpatient relationship ( by engaging in a close friendship ) and after the doctor-patient relationship , by commencing a sexual relationship with him approximately 12 months after the end of the doctor-patient relationship .
Sexual Abuse and Disgraceful Dishonourable and Unprofessional Conduct regarding Ms Y The Committee found that Dr . McIntyre engaged in boundary violations with her patient , Ms Y , in that a close personal relationship existed between the two . Dr . McIntyre allowed herself to become a close friend of Ms Y , often involved in her personal and financial affairs , including helping her with loans , financial issues and her bank account . Ms Y often travelled with Dr . McIntyre and her children , which included Dr . Mc- Intyre and Ms Y sharing a bed . Dr . McIntyre engaged Ms Y in caring for her children and performing household chores . Dr . McIntyre was found in bed together with Ms Y , both partially unclothed and in the nude on separate occasions . The Committee also found that Dr . McIntyre sexually abused Ms Y by engaging in a romantic kiss with her in November or December 2010 , while Ms Y was Dr . McIntyre ’ s patient . Ms Y was a vulnerable patient . She had been a patient of Dr . McIntyre for many years and the doctor took advantage of her position of power to become involved with her socially and ultimately , sexually .
Penalty and Reasons for Penalty The College sought revocation of Dr . McIntyre ’ s certificate of registration , a reprimand , costs , and the posting of an irrevocable letter of credit or other security acceptable to the College for funding of counselling under section 85.7 of the Code . The College submitted that this penalty was warranted given the nature of Dr . McIntyre ’ s professional misconduct . Counsel for Dr . McIntyre argued that the penalty of revocation was excessive . He argued that the additional finding of sexual abuse involved a single kiss , which did not warrant revocation . The Committee ’ s penalty determination is based on the guiding principle of protection of the public . An appropriate penalty should be proportionate to the misconduct and must also serve as a general deterrent to the profession and specific deterrent to the member .
The penalty should express the profession ’ s denunciation of the misconduct , and uphold the profession ’ s honour and reputation . The public ’ s confidence in the profession ’ s ability to self-regulate in the public interest is also an important penalty principle . Where appropriate , the penalty should also allow for rehabilitation of the member .
The Committee also considered the nature and context of the misconduct . Conduct which takes place over a period of time , involves a breach of trust , and includes preying on vulnerable patients warrants significant sanction .
Aggravating Factors The Committee found that Dr . McIntyre ’ s boundary violations with Ms Y were not isolated incidents but they rather took place over a lengthy period of time . Ms Y was Dr . McIntyre ’ s close friend and took care of many of Dr . McIntyre ’ s needs around the home . The kiss was only one aspect of this abusive relationship . They were clearly in an intimate relationship at the same time Ms Y was Dr . McIntyre ’ s patient . Dr . McIntyre sustained close personal relationships with both Ms Y and Mr . X concurrently with her doctor-patient relationships . The doctor-patient relationship was terminated with Mr . X before the sexual relationship commenced . However , with Ms Y , the doctor-patient relationship continued during their sexual relationship . Both patients were vulnerable . Ms Y had previous hospitalizations . Her mental illness was serious and ongoing . It was inappropriate for Dr . McIntyre to be prescribing medication and continuing to treat Ms Y because of their personal relationship , which involved kissing and other boundary violations . The Committee was disturbed by the abuse of power and control in this situation .
Mitigating Factors It is to Dr . McIntyre ’ s credit that she admitted the facts in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Admission , obviating the need for an undoubtedly lengthier hearing . The Committee agreed with defence counsel that Dr . McIntyre ’ s penalty should be commensurate and pro-
Full decisions are available online at www . cpso . on . ca . Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor ’ s name .
Issue 4 , 2016 Dialogue 71