discipline summaries
DR. JEFFREY STEVEN GALE
Practice Location: Kingston
Area of Practice: Ophthalmology
Hearing Information: Contested Hearing, 10 days
On December 13, 2013, the Discipline Committee
found that Dr. Gale committed acts of professional
misconduct, in that he sexually abused a patient, and
he engaged in conduct or an act or omission relevant
to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all
the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by
members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. Dr. Gale denied the allegations.
Dr. Gale participated in the hiring of a young female
patient, Ms. X, to work as his family’s live-in nanny.
The medical issues for which Ms. X was under the care
of Dr. Gale were significant and ongoing.
Allegation of Sexual Abuse
The Committee found that Dr. Gale had a sexual
relationship with Ms. X which included oral sex and
sexual intercourse which took place while she was
his patient (majority opinion) at the Gale home and
in Dr. Gale’s office. The Committee in its analysis
considered the credibility of witnesses; the personal
relationship between Dr. Gale and Ms. X which laid
the groundwork for intimacy; and, a detailed assessment of the evidence relating to sexual allegations. The
Committee also considered and rejected counsel for
Dr. Gale’s theory of the case.
The Committee accepted the evidence of Ms. X as
to the intimate relationship as reasonable, logical, detailed and supported by testimony and consideration
of all of the evidence. The Committee placed little
or no reliability on Dr. Gale’s evidence on the major
issue. The Committee noted he sought to minimize
his role in crossing boundaries and justify his conduct as immature. He first denied to his lawyer that
he had ever seen a valentine card addressed to Ms
X’s mother, which depicted his own erect penis and
which referred to her as a GILF (“Grandmother I’d
Like to F***”). Later in his testimony, he admitted
that he had made the card with Ms. X, saying it was
an example of the sexualized humour he used. The
Committee found his cavalier attitude to boundary
issues to be absolutely astounding.
The Committee accepted that a personal and flirtatious relationship laid the basis for the intimate relationship which followed. This included a household
with few boundaries and where sexual innuendo was
part of everyday conversation. Dr. Gale referred to Ms.
X as a NILF (“Nanny I’d Like to F***”), smoked marijuana with Ms. X on at least one occasion, watched
TV alone with Ms. X, and often hot tubbed with her
alone. These events preceded the oral sex and sexual
intercourse but provided the context for the sexual
relations which began shortly thereafter.
The Committee accepted the evidence of Ms. X
as to the beginning of the intimate sexual relationship (oral sex and sexual intercourse) in May 2008,
when Dr. Gale came to her bed, and when she went
to his office the next day. The Committee examined
in detail the evidence of a number of witnesses who
testified as to the events of June 2 and 3, 2008 when
it was alleged that Dr. Gale spent the night in Ms.
X’s bed. The Committee found the evidence of Ms. X
and her mother to be consistent and unequivocal. The
Committee did not find the testimony of Dr. Gale’s
wife or Ms. F (another nanny) credible on this issue.
Further, the Committee accepted Ms. X’s evidence of
a continuing sexual relationship from June 6 to June
12; this occurred while Dr. Gale’s wife was away. Dr.
Gale’s wife insisted he fire Ms. X which he did, but
he then allowed Ms. X to stay in the home and the
Committee accepted that they continued their sexual
relationship until her departure.
The Committee did not accept Dr. Gale’s suggestion that Ms. X was after money or was motivated by
revenge. There was nothing in the period of time following her firing and when the affair is alleged to have
ended in mid-August that suggested that Ms. X was
considering accusing Dr. Gale of anything including
sexual abuse. Indeed, he acted on her behalf medically,
sent her a card when she was ill, they corresponded by
email, he met her at a book store and in his office and
they phoned frequently. The Committee did not believe that Ms. X concocted or confabulated a detailed
story of serious sexual abuse to destroy Dr. Gale’s life,
home and professional career. Rather, the Committee
accepted that her actions in making a complaint to the
College were those of a woman scorned at the hands
of her doctor and wanting to see justice done.
Issue 2, 2015 Dialogue
63