discipline summaries
A ’ s clitoris if he had intended this to happen . The Committee accepts Dr . IJK ’ s evidence that the touching described could not have happened accidentally during the abdominal examinations . Dr . IJK was not Ms . A ’ s regular physician . She had never been examined by him before . The Committee found that Ms . A most likely genuinely misunderstood the touching in the genital area at Appointment 2 as sexual in nature when , to a reasonable observer or clinician , this would not have been the case . The Committee also finds that her suspicions throughout are likely to have impacted her perceptions . At both Appointment 1 and Appointment 2 , third parties were present in the rooms where Ms . A claims the sexual touching occurred : a registered nurse at Appointment 1 , who testified she was attentive to Dr . IJK ’ s actions in relation to Ms . A ; and Ms . A ’ s young relative at Appointment 2 . While the presence of third parties does not exclude the possibility of sexual touching , it makes it less probable and would suggest risk-taking behaviour on the part of Dr . IJK which , in the view of the Committee , would diminish the likelihood of sexual abuse having occurred . The Committee ’ s primary concern about Ms . A ’ s evidence was not that , overall , she lacked credibility . The Committee found Ms . A to be an honest witness who had nothing to gain by making a knowingly false complaint , and much to lose , including exposing herself to the stress of these proceedings . The Committee ’ s concern on the basis of the evidence is that Ms . A ’ s perception of the nature of Dr . IJK ’ s touching was not accurate . Her testimony indicated to the Committee that , in some circumstances , she was suspicious of the motivations of others in a way which is reasonably not warranted by the circumstances . These suspicions were evident prior to the first incident of alleged sexual touching , when Dr . IJK told the nurse to turn the ultrasound monitor towards him and away from Ms . A , which led her to wonder whether he was trying to hide something . Ms . A appeared to be unaware how her suspicions could cloud or colour her perceptions . If sexualized touching had taken place during the abdominal examination at Appointment 1 , which she told her husband it did , it is implausible that she was not suspicious at all when she returned for Appointment 2 , which she told the Committee . The Committee finds her evidence not reliable with respect to the touching by Dr . IJK in his examinations . The Committee is of the view that Ms . A perceived a sexual aspect to the touching that is not objectively indicated . Dr . IJK may have conducted the examinations in question in a perfunctory and insensitive fashion ; this would be consistent with his demeanour as a witness . He may not have been particularly careful about the exact placement of his fingers during the pelvic examination at Appointment 2 . The Committee considered that his actions could have been misunderstood by Ms . A , who was in an emotionally vulnerable state , and who was unfamiliar with Dr . IJK and was questioning his motivations . These conclusions do , in the view of the Committee , seem consistent with the totality of the evidence . The Committee does not accept that there is sufficiently reliable evidence to support a finding of sexual abuse . It is not possible for the Committee to know , based on the evidence , precisely how Dr . IJK touched Ms . A on the dates in question . The College has the burden , however , of proving that touching of a sexual nature by Dr . IJK of Ms . A took place as alleged . The Committee does not find on the evidence that it is more likely than not that sexual touching did take place . Accordingly , the Committee found the allegations of sexual abuse and disgraceful , dishonourable and unprofessional conduct were not proven .
Full decisions are available online at www . cpso . on . ca . Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor ’ s name .
Issue 4 , 2016 Dialogue 79