discipline summaries
professional. Dr. Woollam pleaded no contest to the
allegations.
The Discipline Committee also found that Dr.
Woollam has been found guilty of an offence that is
relevant to his suitability to practice. Dr. Woollam
admitted to this allegation.
Dr. Woollam was criminally charged on October 16,
2009, with sexual assault against Patient A, contrary
to section 271 of the Criminal Code. He was convicted
on November 24, 2010. Dr. Woollam received a
12-month conditional sentence, followed by probation
for a term of one year. Dr. Woollam’s practice has been
restricted to male patients since January 5, 2011.
Dr. Woollam unsuccessfully appealed the decision to
the Divisional Court and to the Court of Appeal for
Ontario. A panel of three judges of the Court of Appeal issued their reasons dismissing leave to appeal on
November 21, 2013.
At the time of the incident in June of 2009, Patient A was 21 years old. She had been a patient of
Dr. Woollam’s since 2005. Patient A’s medical issues
included psychological issues of low self-esteem and
depression. She also had kidney stones and ovarian
cysts around the time of the incident. During a followup examination with respect to her cysts, Dr. Woollam
palpated her upper abdomen and checked her ovaries.
He then began rubbing her stomach and talking to
her. Dr. Woollam put his hand under her pants and
underwear and began moving his fingers in a back and
forth motion on her labia and clitoris. Dr. Woollam
also touched her breast under her bra. Patient A described being scared and silent. Dr. Woollam told her
that he was attracted to her and asked if she wanted
to take things further. Patient A indicated that she did
not and Dr. Woollam apologized repeatedly. Patient A
told Dr. Woollam that he had crossed the line.
Reasons for Penalty
It was submitted by College counsel, and not disputed
by counsel for Dr. Woollam, that the actions involved
masturbation of the patient, and therefore revocation
of Dr. Woollam’s certificate of registration was mandatory pursuant to section 51 (5) of the Code. The Committee did not consider it necessary to decide whether
66
the acts in question constitute masturbation of the
patient. The Committee accepted the joint submission that this was a case for revocation of the member’s
certificate of registration.
In assessing the appropriateness of the penalty, the
Committee assessed the aggravating and mitigating
factors. This was sexual misconduct which was intentional and carried out under the guise of a medical
examination. The victim was considerably younger
than Dr. Woollam, had a long-term trusting relationship with him, and consequently, was in an extremely
vulnerable position. The impact of Dr. Woollam’s
actions on her was significant. She described in her
victim impact statement the profound loss of trust in
physicians for both herself and her family, the impact
on her professional activities and on her relationships
with men, including those whom she had previously
trusted implicitly.
Notwithstanding the seriousness of the actions of Dr.
Woollam, the Committee is aware that the action
constituted a single act of professional misconduct by
a physician with no previous record with the College.
In addition, Dr. Woollam saved the complainant from
having to testify again before the Discipline Committee, and saved the College the expense of a contested
hearing.
The proposed penalty met the principles that are
applied to penalty decisions. Revocation of the physician’s certificate of registration serves the purpose
of both protecting the public and maintaining the
public’s confidence in the profession and its ability to
govern itself. It should also act as a significant deterrent for the profession in general. The reprimand
expresses the profound abhorrence of the profession
for such actions which undermine the trust that patients must have in their physician, including when
they are undergoing intimate examinations. The
provision of funding for therapy allows for a limited
degree of restitution to be made by Dr. Woollam if
the complainant requires therapy. Finally, Dr. Woollam’s absence from practice allows him a period for
potential rehabilitation.
The Committee found that this was an appropriate
case for it to exercise its discretion to award costs to
Dialogue Issue 1, 2015
Issue1_15.indd 66
2015-03-19 11:18 AM