Dialogue Volume 14 Issue 2 2018 - Page 84

DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES on a balance of probabilities that the allegation that Dr. XYZ engaged in sexual impropriety with Patient A by giving her a massage and touching her sexually during the massage, is not proven. The Committee also finds the allegation that Dr. XYZ engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct in relation to Patient A is not proven. APPEAL SUMMARY DR. ROB JOSEPH KAMERMANS The decision of the Discipline Committee was pub- lished in Dialogue, Issue 1, 2017. On August 24, 2016, Dr. Kamermans appealed the finding and penalty decisions to the Ontario Supe- rior Court of Justice (Divisional Court). The appeal was heard on January 15, 2018 and, on February 8, 2018, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal with $15,000 in costs to the College. APPEAL SUMMARY DR. JAVAD PEIROVY The Court of Appeal for Ontario has released its decision in the Dr. Javad Peirovy case. In a decision dated July 17, 2015, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Peirovy engaged in sexual abuse of four patients and disgraceful, dishonorable or professional behaviour in respect of a fifth patient. The Committee also found that a criminal conviction for assault of two patients was an offence relevant to Dr. Peirovy’s suitability to practice. On penalty, the Discipline Committee imposed a suspension of six months and other terms, conditions and limitations on Dr. Peirovy’s certificate of registration, including chaperone requirements. The College appealed the Discipline Committee’s penalty decision to the Divisional Court. In its deci- sion dated January 17, 2017, the Divisional Court 84 DIALOGUE ISSUE 2, 2018 allowed the College’s appeal, holding among other things that the penalty imposed on Dr. Peirovy was manifestly unfit and out of step with social values concerning physician sexual abuse of patients. Both the Discipline Committee and the Divisional Court decision appeared in Dialogue Issue 1, 2017, Dr. Peirovy obtained leave to appeal and appealed the Divisional Court’s decision to a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal. In its majority decision, the Court of Appeal al- lowed Dr. Peirovy’s appeal and restored the penalty decision of the Discipline Committee. The Court held that the Discipline Committee is a specialized, expert tribunal and that the Divisional Court had failed to show appropriate deference. The Court also noted that the penalty imposed on Dr. Peirovy was in keeping with prior penalty decisions of the Discipline Committee in the area of sexual abuse and that the Divisional Court erred in substituting its own view of an appropriate penalty. In her dissent, the judge concluded that Dr. Peirovy’s appeal should be dismissed and the Divi- sional Court’s decision upheld. She concluded that the penalty imposed by the Discipline Committee was manifestly unfit. The judge agreed with the Col- lege’s argument that deference is not required when a penalty no longer reflects societal values. Full decisions are available online at www.cpso.on.ca. Select Find a Doctor and enter the doctor’s name.