DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE FINDINGS
There was clear evidence before the Committee of
sexual assault by Dr. Marshall of Complainant A.
However, the Committee found that there was insuf-
ficient evidence to establish a doctor-patient relation-
ship concurrent with the sexual misconduct. Other
than the back incident, there was no evidence to link
any of the evidence of sexual assault before the Com-
mittee to evidence of a doctor-patient relationship.
The evidence regarding the back incident, without
specific evidence linking the incident to any particu-
lar test, record, or billing, was insufficient on its own
to establish the existence of a doctor-patient relation-
ship. The Committee did not find that Dr. Marshall
engaged in sexual impropriety with a patient because
the existence of a doctor-patient relationship was not
established.
The Committee did find, however, that Dr. Mar-
shall committed an act of professional misconduct
in that he engaged in conduct or an act relevant to
the practice of medicine that, having regard to all
the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by
members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofes-
sional (under the Health Disciplines Act, which was
in force at the time of the conduct) and he has been
found guilty of an offence that is relevant to his
suitability to practise (under the Health Professions
Procedural Code, which was in force at the time of
the conviction). Counsel for the College and counsel
for Dr. Marshall agree that there is only one finding
of professional misconduct. Counsel for the Col-
lege and counsel for Dr. Marshall also agree that as
the Committee may impose a penalty under either
the Health Disciplines Act or the Health Professions
Procedural Code, it made sense to impose the penalty
under the Health Professions Procedural Code.
Counsel for the College submitted that revocation
of Dr. Marshall’s certificate of registration was the
appropriate penalty in this case, together with a rep-
rimand and payment of costs for two days of hearing
at the tariff rate of $5,000 per day.
Counsel for Dr. Marshall submitted that an ap-
propriate penalty would be a reprimand and a
suspension of 12 to 16 months, followed by careful
monitoring of Dr. Marshall’s clinical behaviour in-
cluding a chaperone, limits on Dr. Marshall’s abil-
ity to physically examine patients, and a reporting
mechanism back to the College provided he was in,
or completing, therapy. Counsel for Dr. Marshall did
not dispute the costs portion of the College’s sug-
gested penalty.
REASONS FOR PENALTY
The Committee considered that protection of the
public from further misconduct by this physician to
be of the utmost importance in determining the ap-
propriate penalty. It is vital to maintain the public’s
confidence in the College’s ability to self-govern in
the public interest. The penalty must also provide
specific and general deterrence, communicate the
profession’s disapproval of the misconduct, and take
into account any aggravating and mitigating fac-
tors. Where appropriate, the penalty should also take
into account the possibility of rehabilitation of the
member.
The Committee carefully considered the submis-
sions of both parties and concluded that revocation is
the appropriate penalty in this case.
ORDER
In summary the Committee ordered and directed
revocation of Dr. Marshall’s certificate of registration
effective immediately; a public reprimand; and costs
in the amount of $10,000.
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.
Dr. Marshall waived his right to an appeal and the
Committee administered a reprimand in Dr. Marshall’s
absence.
Full decisions are available online at www.cpso.on.ca.
Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’s name.
ISSUE 3, 2017 DIALOGUE
61