discipline summaries
portional to her misconduct . The Committee must look at the nature of the conduct that is being considered . Defence counsel argued that Dr . McIntyre ’ s misconduct amounted to a single kiss , and therefore the sexual abuse in this case was at the low end of the spectrum through a proportionality lens . The Committee found that the conduct in this case was not at the low end of the spectrum . In the context of that kiss , it is clear that Ms Y was a vulnerable patient who was socially and financially tied to Dr . McIntyre . Dr . McIntyre continued to medically treat Ms Y , as she had for many years . Sexual abuse compounded the abuse of power and control . The context of the sexual abuse was not a single kiss , but a part of the dynamic of this dependent relationship . Dr . McIntyre had a pattern of using her patients to fulfill her own needs . She did not have peer relationships with Mr . X and Ms Y , and could not have , by virtue of her position as their physician . These patients were also especially susceptible to Dr . McIntyre ’ s attention to them because of their precarious mental health . Dr . McIntyre ’ s misconduct involved boundary violations that continued for years . Ms Y was a vulnerable woman with mental health issues who required hospitalizations , and ongoing medication , among other assistance . Mr . X was also vulnerable with significant mental health issues . In both cases , Dr . McIntyre was in a position of trust and had power and control in the relationship . The College has a mandate to govern its members . When physicians engage in professional misconduct , as Dr . McIntyre did , the public loses confidence in the profession . If the penalty is not proportional with the seriousness of the misconduct , the profession is further tarnished . Revocation in this case is appropriate because of the nature and context of Dr . McIntyre ’ s boundary violations with vulnerable patients , which took place over years , and her breach of the trust of her patients , the public , and the profession . Revocation serves the purpose of maintaining public protection and confidence in the profession . It should also serve as a deterrent to the membership in general . A reprimand is mandatory under the Code when there is a finding of sexual abuse . The Committee agreed that there were delays in this hearing that should not be borne by Dr . McIntyre . The
Committee orders costs in the amount of $ 13,380 , which reflects two days of hearing and one day of penalty , at the current tariff of $ 4,460 per day . In summary , the Discipline Committee ordered revocation ; public reprimand ; reimbursement to the College for funding provided to patients under the program required under section 85.7 of the Code , post an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $ 16,060 and pay costs to the College in the amount of $ 13,380 .
Order For complete details of the Order , please see the full decision at www . cpso . on . ca . Select Doctor Search and enter the Doctor ’ s Name .
On August 5 , 2015 , Dr . McIntyre appealed the decision on finding of the Discipline Committee to the Superior Court of Justice ( Divisional Court ).
Dr . Sammy Joe Sliwin
Practice Location : Toronto Practice Area ; Plastic Surgery
Hearing Information : Contested Hearing , 14 Days , Contested Penalty
On September 11 , 2013 , the Discipline Committee found that Dr . Sliwin committed an act of professional misconduct , in that he has engaged in sexual abuse of a patient , and he has engaged in 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 . The evidence in this case , for the most part , was not in dispute . Ms A was a 29-year old married mother of two when she first met Dr . Sliwin in 1988 . Ms A was a patient of Dr . Sliwin for a number of surgeries over an extended time period , commencing in 1992 with the first surgery and with the last surgery taking place in 2008 . Ms A also worked in Dr Sliwin ’ s office in an administrative position from 1992-1998 , 2002-2005 and 2006-2008 . They commenced an on-again off-again
72
Dialogue Issue 4 , 2016