discipline summaries complainants had presented with relatively minor respiratory complaints . Dr . Peirovy examined each of them in a very similar fashion , which included an examination of the lungs by auscultation of the anterior chest . In each case , the patient had remained fully clothed . Each had been asked to lie supine on the examination table , and to turn her head towards the left , facing the wall . Dr . Peirovy then proceeded to insert his hand , holding his stethoscope , underneath the clothes of these patients including under their bras . He placed his hand , holding the stethoscope , on the breasts of the complainants . There was some variation in the descriptions of these four patients with respect to the exact way in which their breasts were touched ; all , however , indicated contact between Dr . Peirovy ’ s fingers and / or his stethoscope , and their nipples . Two of the complainants stated that Dr . Peirovy had cupped their breast with his hand ; one indicated that Dr . Peirovy had “ tweaked ” her nipples , meaning that he had squeezed the nipple between two of his fingers . All complainants stated that they thought immediately that they had been touched inappropriately . The Committee found that this pattern demonstrates a very high degree of connectedness between these four sets of allegations . They all stated that their breasts and nipples had been touched in a very similar fashion . Such evidence is probative of a central issue , namely whether the touching in question was of a sexual nature , and to rebut Dr . Peirovy ’ s defence that the nature of the touching was inadvertent and simply misunderstood by the complainants . There is no suggestion of collusion amongst any of these four complainants , such as would diminish the strength of their evidence . All testified that they did not know , and had never spoken to , each other . All were unaware of the specifics of any of the other allegations against Dr . Peirovy . The Committee is of the view that the evidence is sufficient to support a finding of sexual abuse and disgraceful , dishonourable and unprofessional conduct with respect to each of these patients without the use of similar fact evidence . The Committee finds , however , that the evidence of each of these four complainants should be admitted as similar fact evidence with respect to the allegations of each of them to rebut Dr . Peirovy ’ s defence that the nature of the touching was inadvertent or simply misunderstood by the complainants , and to support the conclusion that each was touched in the manner in which she described . The Committee finds that the evidence of the remaining two complainants , Ms . Y and Ms . Z , is dissimilar in important respects to the evidence of the others and should not be admitted as similar fact evidence to support the allegations of the other four .
Ms . Y While the Committee accepted that Ms . Y ’ s testimony was sincere , there are reasons to doubt the reliability of her retrospective account , as her subjective impressions appear to have been influenced by the fact reports were made by others . Despite testifying that she had misgivings with respect to how Dr . Peirovy had examined her on the occasion of her second appointment , Ms . Y saw him for a third time just a few days later . She had telephoned the clinic in advance in order to ensure that she could . The Committee draws the inference that Ms . Y was not overly concerned about what had occurred at the second appointment at the time she booked her third appointment . The Committee is aware that victims of abuse can react quite differently to the abusive experience , and that many victims will return to their abusers or fail to report their abusers immediately . The fact that Ms . Y returned to see Dr . Peirovy a third time does not prove that she was not subjected to sexual touching on the second visit . These particular circumstances , however , do raise questions about the reliability of her account of the second visit as the Committee is concerned that her account has been somewhat tainted by the fact that she subsequently learned of other complaints . Dr . Peirovy was accompanied by a female nurse at all times during the course of his encounters with Ms . Y . While surreptitious sexual touching could still have occurred in the presence of the chaperone , the circumstances do tend to support Dr . Peirovy ’ s evidence that he was simply examining Ms . Y in accordance with his usual routine .
Full decisions are available online at www . cpso . on . ca . Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor ’ s name .
Issue 1 , 2017 Dialogue 69