DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
Disgraceful, Dishonourable or Unprofessional
Conduct
Dr. UVW is a family physician who saw the patient
in a walk-in clinic.
The panel members were unanimous that the Col-
lege had not discharged its burden of proving that
the questions Dr. UVW asked the patient constituted
disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional con-
duct. The panel concluded that the questions were
clinically appropriate.
The Committee accepted as fact that during the
initial appointment with Patient A, Dr. UVW did
ask three questions as alleged. However, the Commit-
tee found the questions were appropriate and did not
warrant a finding of professional misconduct.
Sexual Abuse
In addition, the majority (3) of the panel members
found that the College had not discharged its bur-
den of proving the allegations of sexual abuse. The
majority found that the patient’s evidence was not
sufficiently credible or reliable to support a finding of
sexual abuse.
In their opinion, the majority of the panel wrote:
“Patient A’s initial declaration under oath of
certainty about the date the alleged inappropriate
touching began, when clearly she was not certain,
raises serious questions about other elements of her
certainty, such as her claim that it had happened
multiple times,” stated the opinion.
There were no extenuating circumstances explain-
ing Patient A’s widely divergent stories about the
frequency of contact, stated the majority opinion.
Dissenting Opinion
A minority (2) of the panel members found that the
patient’s evidence of sexual abuse was credible and
reliable, despite some discrepancies in her testimony
and prior statements, and would therefore have
found that Dr. UVW had committed sexual abuse.
The dissenting panel members stated in their opinion:
“We are mindful of just how vulnerable Patient
A was; alone, pregnant, unsophisticated, naive and
without social supports and clearly vulnerable pre-
senting to a walk-in clinic far along in her pregnancy
either not sure she was pregnant or in denial of her
pregnancy, needing care. In the view of the Minority,
Dr. UVW’s incomplete records and accompanying
incomplete memory for the unusually frequent visits
of Patient A to his walk-in stretches credulity. Patient
A’s incomplete memory and inconsistencies are also
concerning, though she is steadfast in her assertion
that the touching occurred more than once. On the
balance of probabilities, the minority favours the
evidence of Patient A. The inference is drawn that
based on the body parts touched (the breasts and the
vagina), without clinical indication, that the touch-
ing was of a sexual nature and so constitutes sexual
abuse.”
APPEAL SUMMARY
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 sought leave to appeal to the Court
of Appeal for Ontario. On July 7, 2017, the Court of
Appeal denied Dr. McIntyre’s motion for leave to ap-
peal and fixed costs payable to the College at $1,000.
ISSUE 4, 2017 DIALOGUE
91