DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
DR. BCD DR. EFG
On June 15, 2017 the Discipline Committee released its decision in the case of Dr. BCD and found that the allegations that he had engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct and the sexual abuse of a patient were not proved. Dr. BCD is an obstetrician / gynecologist. The patient attended 11 pre-natal appointments with Dr. BCD beginning in July 2007. Patient A alleged that in the course of these appointments, Dr. BCD digitally penetrated her vagina, in the guise of performing a digital vaginal examination, at every visit, except perhaps two or three visits, when she was accompanied by her mother or the baby’ s father. Dr. BCD denied performing digital vaginal examinations at any time, and denied touching Patient A’ s vagina in a sexual or inappropriate manner. The College and Dr. BCD agreed that there were no medical reasons for Dr. BCD to perform digital vaginal examinations in the prenatal medical appointments that he had with Patient A. The Committee heard the testimony of Patient A, Dr. BCD, Dr. BCD’ s office assistant, Ms. H. The Committee found both Dr. BCD and Ms. H to be credible and their testimony reliable. When testifying, Patient A seemed to be honest and sincere as to what her memories were. However, the Committee found that her overall memory was poor and not as good as she believed. There were instances when she appeared to embellish her version of events. The Committee did not accept her evidence that her memory of her appointments of 2007 was better today because she had“ talked to others” about them and had thought about them. Memory does not improve with the passage of time. Ultimately, the Committee was not convinced of the reliability of Patient A’ s evidence. The Committee concluded that Patient A’ s evidence is unreliable and her version of events was simply not plausible. The Committee found that the evidence to support the allegations was not clear, cogent and convincing.
On June 19, 2017, the Discipline Committee released its reasons in the case of Dr. EFG and found that the allegations that he had engaged in sexual abuse and disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct were not proved. Patient A testified that, during a single visit at a walk-in clinic in December 2014, Dr. EFG touched her breasts in a sexual manner and made inappropriate remarks to her about her appearance. Dr. EFG denied the allegations. The Committee heard Patient A’ s testimony and felt empathetic to her and accepted that she believed that she had been touched in a sexual manner. However, the Committee found her testimony to be unreliable, because of multiple inconsistencies, particularly, in relation to the clinical records of Dr. EFG and another doctor who worked at the clinic.
The Committee found that the evidence to support the allegations was not clear, cogent, and convincing.
DR. XYZ
On June 26, 2017, the Discipline Committee released its decision in the case of Dr. XYZ and found that the allegations of sexual impropriety and disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct were not proved. It had been alleged that in or around 1985-1987, Dr. XYZ, a general practitioner, had engaged in sexual impropriety with Patient A and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct by, among other things, massaging Patient A and touching Patient A’ s genitals inappropriately and / or sexually. Although the Committee accepts that Patient A believed that she had been touched in a sexual manner by Dr. XYZ, the Committee found Patient A’ s testimony to be unreliable because of multiple and significant inconsistencies. The Committee found
ISSUE 2, 2018 DIALOGUE 83