DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
asked Dr. Crozier for money. Patient C told Dr. Cro-
zier that she needed money because her family was
not doing well financially. She threatened to report
Dr. Crozier to the College for his boundary cross-
ings with her in 1997 and for his alcohol use if Dr.
Crozier did not provide her with money. Dr. Crozier
provided Patient C with several thousand dollars in
1997.
Thereafter, Patient C continued to threaten Dr.
Crozier and ask him for money. He continued to pay
her with the exception of two years until the fall of
2013. Dr. Crozier estimates having paid Patient C a
total of approximately $150,000.
Dr. Crozier received residential treatment for
alcohol abuse (substance abuse disorder) in 2000
and 2001. He returned to the practice of medicine
in the middle of 2002. Upon his return to practice,
Dr. Crozier saw Patient C for appointments from
July 2002 to September 2006. The allegations with
respect to Patient C came to the College’s attention
in July of 2014 through a third party.
REASONS FOR PENALTY
It is the Committee’s duty to ensure that the jointly
proposed penalty will satisfy the penalty criteria
established by the courts. These include protection of
the public, specific and general deterrence, denuncia-
tion of the misconduct, maintenance of the public
confidence in the medical profession and its capabil-
ity to regulate in the public interest and, in so far as
possible, rehabilitation of the member.
Revocation of Dr. Crozier’s certificate of registra-
tion will protect the public. There is no place in the
medical profession for physicians who sexually abuse
their patients. The Committee believes that the pen-
alty of revocation is the only penalty that will fully
express the public’s and the profession’s disapproval
of Dr. Crozier’s misconduct.
Dr. Crozier’s grossly self-indulgent actions have
had long-lasting and devastating effects on Patients A
and B and their relationships with others, and have
undermined their trust in the medical profession as a
whole. These two victims were highly vulnerable pa-
tients who sought the help of Dr. Crozier and wholly
trusted him because they had very long-standing
therapeutic relationships, which he betrayed. The
public must be confident that when they seek the
68
DIALOGUE ISSUE 4, 2017
help of a member of the profession, they will not be
abused, and that when a patient is abused, the Col-
lege will act to ensure no others are harmed.
Dr. Crozier’s misconduct with Patient C astounded
the Committee. His misconduct with Patient C
displays extremely poor judgment involving repeated
boundaries transgressions. Dr. Crozier made pay-
ments of large sums of money to her to prevent her
from reporting his behaviour to the College. Such
misconduct cannot be tolerated.
A public reprimand will serve to denounce Dr. Cro-
zier’s reprehensible misconduct and serve as a general
deterrent to the membership of the profession.
When determining an appropriate penalty, it is
important for the Committee to take into consider-
ation any mitigating factors. Dr. Crozier has accepted
responsibility in both the criminal and professional
proceedings against him. Admitting to the allega-
tions against him has spared the victims the added
trauma of having to appear at the hearing. However,
these patients may require continued therapy to
recover from the sexual abuse they endured, and so it
is reasonable and just that Dr. Crozier reimburse the
College for the funding of therapy they may need.
Dr. Crozier’s admission and cooperation has spared
the College the added time and costs of a contested
hearing. However, it is fair and reasonable that Dr.
Crozier cover some of the costs of the proceeding,
by way of paying the tariff amount of $5,000 for one
day of hearing to the College, as jointly requested.
ORDER
In summary, the Discipline Committee ordered:
revocation of Dr. Crozier’s certificate of registration;
a reprimand; reimbursement to the College for fund-
ing provided to Patient A and B under the program
required under section 85.7 of the Code, by posting
an irrevocable letter of credit or other security ac-
ceptable to the College, in the amount of $32,120;
and costs to the College in the amount of $5,000.
For complete details of the Order, please see the
full decision at www.cpso.on.ca. Select Find a Doctor
and enter the doctor’s name.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Crozier waived his
right to an appeal and the Committee administered the
public reprimand.