DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
from being alone with anyone under 18 years of age,
including while he practised as a physician. His bail
was varied on February 16, 2012 and March 1, 2012.
After the College was made aware of the charges
against Dr. Johnston, an investigator was appointed
on March 20, 2012. At the College’s request, Dr.
Johnston voluntarily entered into an undertaking
on November 5, 2012 that mirrored the terms of
his criminal recognizance, so that the College could
monitor Dr. Johnston’s compliance. This undertak-
ing remained in effect after Dr. Johnston’s criminal
process came to an end.
After allegations against Dr. Johnston were re-
ferred to the Discipline Committee, the Inquiries,
Complaints and Reports Committee of the College
provided Dr. Johnston with notice that it intended to
impose an interim order against him pending resolu-
tion of the discipline allegations. In response, Dr.
Johnston entered into a new voluntary undertaking
(replacing the 2012 undertaking) dated March 17,
2016 which required him to have a College-approved
practice monitor for all professional encounters
with patients under the age of 18, until the allega-
tions against him were resolved. Subsequently, Dr.
Johnston chose to cease practising medicine until the
hearing.
REASONS FOR PENALTY
Counsel for the College and counsel for Dr. Johnston
made a joint submission that called for the revoca-
tion of Dr. Johnson’s certificate of registration, a
reprimand, and the payment of costs.
The Committee considered the proposed penalty
in light of accepted penalty principles, including,
foremost, the protection of the public, as well as
maintenance of public confidence in the integrity
and reputation of the medical profession, and its
ability to self-regulate in the public interest.
This was the first case to be heard by the College’s
Discipline Committee regarding the viewing, pur-
chasing, and possession of pornographic images of
young children. The purchase and possession of such
images demean the participants who are below the
age of consent, and encourage and allow the continu-
ing exploitation of children.
The Committee was of the opinion that Dr. John-
ston’s involvement with child pornography repre-
78
DIALOGUE ISSUE 4, 2017
sented one of the most serious forms of misconduct
possible by a physician, and is deserving of the most
serious sanction. While the legal definition of sexual
abuse does not include possessing and viewing child
pornography, the Committee found that it was con-
duct of a sexual nature with the potential to demean
and traumatize young persons. Purchasing, viewing
and possessing child pornography by a physician
cannot be countenanced. Neither can voyeurism, by
placing cameras in a public bathroom, for its delib-
erate, secretive, devious, intrusive, and demeaning
ways. There is an expectation of moral behaviour by
persons granted the privilege to practise medicine.
Dr. Johnston’s engagement in the consumption of
child pornography and voyeurism demonstrated con-
duct that is totally unbecoming of a physician.
The Committee was presented with certain mitigat-
ing factors. A no contest plea spared witnesses from
having to testify and the Committee the time and
expense of conducting a lengthy contested hearing.
Since 2011, Dr. Johnston practised under restrictions
imposed by the courts and by voluntary undertakings
to the College in 2012 and 2016. Subsequently, he
chose to cease practising until the hearing. There was
ongoing cooperation by Dr. Johnston with the Col-
lege. However, none of these factors were meaningful
in assessing the proposed penalty because they did
not speak to the danger that child pornography poses
to children.
As a further mitigating factor, counsel for Dr. John-
ston raised the issue of his recent bipolar diagnosis.
The Committee was presented with no evidence re-
garding the basis for diagnosis, or that Dr. Johnston’s
conduct was in any way the result of this medical
condition.
Aggravating factors included Dr. Johnston’s part in
encouraging the commercialization and availability
of child abuse pornography, and victimization of the
affected children, as well as the moral reprehensibility
of this type of pornography.
Child pornography is not a victimless activity. The
children portrayed and directed to perform actions
are being traumatized and victimized. There was no
question in the Committee’s mind on examining the
police reports that Dr. Johnston was fully aware of
the nature of the images he downloaded.
Furthermore, Dr.