discipline summaries
Allegation of Disgraceful, Dishonourable or
Unprofessional Conduct
Apart from the intimate sexual relationship, the
Committee also found Dr. Gale engaged in conduct
relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard
to all the circumstances would reasonably be regarded
by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
In particular, the Committee found that:
• r. Gale participated in the hiring of a young
D
female patient to work in his home as a nanny.
While the Committee heard evidence from Mrs.
Gale that she had called the Public and Physician Advisory Service, the Committee found
that either no call was made or if made, Mrs.
Gale minimized or failed to properly characterize the circumstances;
• fter hiring Ms. X , Dr. Gale developed a perA
sonal and flirtatious relationship with her which
included hot tubbing and watching television
alone together;
• r. Gale smoked marijuana with Ms. X in the
D
family garage as testified by Mr. B who was
visiting at the time; and
• r. Gale corresponded with Ms. X after she was
D
fired and after he had transferred her care to another ophthalmologist. The Committee accepted that email sent by Dr. Gale made reference
to Ms. X’s “boobs”. Dr. Gale testified that it
was Ms. X who made the reference. Either way,
such interaction with a former patient speaks
to a pattern of sexualized interaction which was
inappropriate.
Reasons for Penalty
The sexual abuse as found in this case, including sexual
intercourse and oral sex, is of the most serious nature.
Such actions betray not only the trust patients place
in their treating physician but the trust that the public
have in the profession. This trust is fundamental and
reflects a professional duty inherent to the practice of
medicine. Nothing short of separation of the member
from the profession will suffice when such sexual abuse
of a patient occurs.
Dr. Gale has academic standing and teaching responsibilities as an assistant professor. The profession looks
to its teachers to present role models for young physi-
64
Dialogue Issue 2, 2015
cians in training. This makes Dr. Gale’s misconduct
all the more grave. The consequences to the profession
and the public are significant.
Revocation serves to denounce the misconduct
from the perspective of the profession and the public.
Further, revocation will be a specific deterrent to Dr.
Gale and will illustrate clearly to the profession that
such conduct is unacceptable and irreconcilable with
medical practice. In addition, revocation demonstrates
to the public that the profession will not tolerate such
behaviour.
A reprimand provides the opportunity for the Committee to speak directly to Dr. Gale regarding the
nature and impact of his professional misconduct.
Given the findings of the Committee, that Dr. Gale
took advantage of a vulnerable young woman for his
own purposes is clear.
The Committee agrees with the submissions of the
College that Dr. Gale should reimburse the College for any funding provided for Ms. X under the
program required under section 85.7, and therefore
Dr. Gale should post an irrevocable letter of credit or
other security acceptable to the College. The amount
of $16,060 is the maximum permitted by the regulation and is appropriate in the circumstances.
As to costs in this matter, the Committee agreed
with the position of the College that costs should reflect 10 days of hearing time at the rate of $4,460 per
day. This cost is rightly borne by the member and not
the membership at large.
Order
The Discipline Committee ordered and directed that:
1. the Registrar revoke Dr. Gale’s certificate of registra
tion effective immediately.
2. Dr. Gale appear before the panel to be reprimand
ed.
3. Dr. Gale reimburse the College for funding pro
vided to patients under the program required under
section 85.7 of the Code, by posting an irrevocable
letter of credit or other security acceptable to the
College within 30 days of this Order, in the amount
of $16,060.
4. Dr. Gale pay costs to the College in the amount of
$44,600 within 30 days of this Order.