DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
DR. PAUL MICHAEL PORTER
PRACTICE LOCATION: Grimsby
AREA OF PRACTICE: Psychiatry
HEARING INFORMATION: Contested Hearing – Eight Days
On February 11, 2016, the Discipline Committee
found that Dr. Porter committed acts of professional
misconduct, in that he engaged in sexual abuse of
Patient A, and he 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.
Patient A was a patient of Dr. Porter, a psychiatrist,
between 2008 and 2012. Dr. Porter’s certificate of
registration was subject to certain limitations at that
time, including the following: “Dr. Porter shall in-
stall in his office a video system which will, with the
consent of each patient, tape each entire psychiatric
session and which can be monitored by the office
staff and preserved for inspection.”
The Committee found that Dr. Porter engaged in
sexual abuse of Patient A by hugging her, kissing her,
holding her hand, having her sit on his lap, and mak-
ing remarks of a sexual nature, as described below.
Patient A testified that Dr. Porter first hugged her
about a year and a half after she started seeing him,
when she was grieving the death of her relative.
She thought Dr. Porter felt bad for her because her
relative had passed away and so he said “Here, let
me give you a hug.” After that, she said they would
hug just before she left. She testified that the hugs
were frequent in 2011. At the end of a session, she
would stand up and move towards the window and
he would hug her there. He said he was hugging her
in that location because it was out of the camera’s
view. At first the hugs ended when she said “I have to
go” and then later on as the relationship developed,
they would each say “I love you.” There were 14 hugs
documented on video clips. The hugs captured on
video were initiated by Dr. Porter by standing and
holding his arms open, welcoming Patient A to the
embrace. Dr. Porter would generally stand in an area
62
DIALOGUE ISSUE 3, 2017
or move to behind his chair where the video camera
was unlikely to fully capture the hug. The hug was a
full body hug with their torsos in contact. A rocking
motion from side to side was also observed. All the
hugs took place in the privacy of Dr. Porter’s office
with the door closed in the context of a psychothera-
py session.
It was clear to the Committee that the hugs that
were observed went beyond purported therapeutic
hugs. The hugs were of a sexual nature and conveyed
Dr. Porter’s romantic interest in his patient. These
hugs were wrong, especially in a psychotherapy con-
text. The Committee found that Dr. Porter repeat-
edly hugged Patient A in a sexualized manner.
Patient A also testified that she recalled three occa-
sions when Dr. Porter kissed her. The first time oc-
curred when they were standing by the window in his
office, a second time when she was sitting on his lap
and another when they were both in the secretary’s
office together. Dr. Porter denied any kissing took
place. The Committee carefully reviewed the evi-
dence available and considered the credibility of both
Patient A and Dr. Porter. The Committee found that
Dr. Porter kissed Patient A, that he held her hand in
the hallway of his office, and that she sat on his lap in
his office on one or more occasions. Patient A further
testified that Dr. Porter made sexual comments to
her on numerous occasions. These include telling
her he loved her; telling her that they would have a
future together in two years; complimenting her on
her appearance; saying that he would like to hold her
hands on an airplane; and telling her that they would
look funny making love together because of their
bad backs. Dr. Porter denied that he made any of
these remarks. The Committee assessed the respective
credibility of Dr. Porter and Patient A, and found
that Dr. Porter made sexual remarks to Patient A just
as she testified he did. The Committee accordingly
found that Dr. Porter sexually abused Patient A as set
out above, as well as that he engaged in disgraceful,
dishonourable or unprofessional conduct in sexually
abusing Patient A.
In addition, the Committee found that Dr. Porter
also engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unpro-
fessional conduct as set out below:
• Dr. Porter disclosed personal information inappro-