DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
DR . WILLIAM ARTHUR DAMIAN BEAIRSTO
PRACTICE LOCATION : Toronto AREA OF PRACTICE : General Practice ( Psychotherapy )
HEARING INFORMATION : Contested Allegations ; Five Hearing Days
On August 5 , 2016 , the Discipline Committee found that Dr . Beairsto committed an act of professional misconduct in that he has engaged in the sexual abuse of a patient and in that he has engaged in conduct or 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 . Dr . Beairsto provided psychotherapy to patients in a converted office in his house in Toronto . Between 1997 and 2012 , he provided treatment to Patient A in respect of a marital breakdown . The Committee found that he engaged in the following misconduct with regard to Patient A during their doctor-patient relationship :
Massage Patient A told Dr . Beairsto about her ongoing back pain . Dr . Beairsto suggested that a massage might help alleviate her pain , and he then offered to massage her back . She thought this was weird but she agreed . Patient A testified that she put on a hospital gown but left her bra and underwear on . She lay face down on the examining table . Dr . Beairsto spent 20 minutes rubbing her neck , her back , her sides – including touching the outside of both breasts – and her lower legs . The Committee found that the back massage did take place and that it was inappropriate in the context of Dr . Beairsto ’ s doctor-patient relationship with Patient A . After careful consideration of the evidence heard , the Committee found that , if Dr . Beairsto had touched the sides of Patient A ’ s breasts during the massage , it was incidental to the massage . Although clearly inappropriate , the massage was not sexualized , did not involve any fondling , and was not found to be touching of a sexual nature .
The Committee , however , found that the back massage was a boundary violation that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful , dishonourable or unprofessional .
Stroking of Buttocks Patient A testified that Dr . Beairsto stroked her buttocks as she was getting ready to leave the office at the end of a psychotherapy session . Dr . Beairsto had quickly come around his desk and positioned himself so that he had one hand on her buttocks and one hand in front of her , restricting her movement somewhat . Patient A testified that this made her feel “ like a deer in headlights .” She made an effort to leave the office quickly . The Committee found that Dr . Beairsto touched and stroked Patient A ’ s buttocks as she described , and that this was not a matter of incidental contact as Dr . Beairsto brushed by her . The Committee found that Dr . Beairsto ’ s stroking of Patient A ’ s buttocks at the end of a psychotherapy session with no clinical reason to do so was touching of a sexual nature , constituting sexual abuse within the meaning of the Code .
Inappropriate Behaviour During Chest Examination In 2011 , Patient A had agreed to Dr . Beairsto examining her chest because of her bronchitis . Dr . Beairsto rolled up the front of her shirt above her bra near her collarbone , and Dr . Beairsto smiled and made a “ woo ” sound that sounded to her like a sound of “ approval ” while looking at her chest and breasts . The Committee found that Dr . Beairsto made the aforementioned sounds while conducting a chest examination of Patient A , and that this would be regarded by members as inappropriate and unprofessional .
Inappropriate Remarks Patient A testified that Dr . Beairsto would compliment her on her hair and / or outfit at every visit . Patient A testified that Dr . Beairsto told her “ a few times ” that she “ would be a good lover .” The Committee found that , by making this remark to Patient A , Dr . Beairsto engaged in conduct that , in the circumstances , would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional .
32
DIALOGUE ISSUE 3 , 2018