discipline summaries
In the Committee’s view, the expert evidence,
which was accepted by the Committee, indicated
that the single-head stethoscope that was employed
by Dr. OPQ requires that the physician holds the
stethoscope’s head between his first and second finger
with the flat of his hand touching the patient’s skin.
In the Committee’s view, the physician’s hand would
therefore rest on the patient’s chest or breast when
the physician is auscultating for breath sounds. Such
touching is clinically appropriate to the examination,
and does not constitute sexual abuse.
Given the Committee did not find that Dr. OPQ
touched Patient A in a sexual manner on a date in
November 2010, the Committee also finds that
he did not engage in disgraceful, dishonourable or
unprofessional conduct. Also, the expert evidence
established that a gown was not a requirement for a
chest examination.
In summary, the Committee found that the College
had not established on the basis of clear, cogent and
convincing evidence that Dr. OPQ touched Patient
A’s breast in a sexual manner on a date in November
2010. The Committee concluded that Patient A did
not try to misrepresent what happened during the
chest examination by Dr. OPQ, but that she did
misperceive and misinterpret the examination, for
the reasons indicated above.
Full decisions are available online at www.cpso.on.ca.
Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’s name.
APPEAL SUMMARies
DR. MARY ELIZABETH McINTYRE
Formerly Chatham
The decision of the Discipline Committee was pub-
lished in Dialogue, Issue 4, 2016.
On August 5, 2015, Dr. McIntyre initiated an ap-
peal of the finding of sexual abuse of Patient Y, and
the penalty decision of the Discipline Committee to
the Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court).
The appeal was heard on December 8, 2016. The
Divisional Court dismissed Dr. McIntyre’s appeal on
January 17, 2017 with $10,000 in costs to the College.
Dr. McIntyre is seeking leave to appeal to the
Court of Appeal for Ontario.
DR. SAMMY JOE SLIWIN
Formerly Toronto
The decision of the Discipline Committee was pub-
lished in Dialogue, Issue 4, 2016.
On April 2, 2015, Dr. Sliwin initiated an appeal
of the decision of the Discipline Committee to the
Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court), and he
made a motion to stay the order of the Discipline
Committee pending the appeal. On April 8, 2015,
the Divisional Court ordered that Dr. Sliwin’s revoca-
tion be stayed and that he be permitted to practise
pending the appeal.
The appeal was heard on June 28, 2016. The Divi-
sional Court dismissed Dr. Sliwin’s appeal on March
27, 2017, except that the Court set aside the Com-
mittee’s order of February 1, 2016 to provide secu-
rity for therapy or counseling costs. Therefore, the
decision of the Discipline Committee, except for the
order to provide security for therapy or counseling
costs, is in effect.
MD
72
Dialogue Issue 2, 2017