Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 20 May 2015
Summary:
On May 20, 2015, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Peter John Brown 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. Brown admitted to the allegation of disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct.
In September 2010, Ms A, a university student, began counselling to deal with ongoing stressors in her life, which caused significant anxiety, with Dr. Brown, a family physician who provided psychotherapy at the Student Health Services.
Initially, Ms A had a difficult time opening up to Dr. Brown, but by December 2010, she was willing to talk and share more. By the spring of 2011, Ms A had developed significant trust in Dr. Brown and began experiencing different feelings in that she had become attracted to him and cared what he thought about her. She had some insight into her feelings for him as she had some knowledge of transference and was aware that transference can arise in counseling situations. Dr. Brown recommended yoga to her as part of therapy but went on to disclose his personal experience and details about where he went. They shared music interests and she gave him a “gift of music” in the summer of 2011. He responded by email and included a message on the jump drive, which he gave back to her. The professional relationship now had a significant personal aspect as illustrated by late night emails sent by Dr. Brown to Ms A.
The nature of the professional relationship changed suddenly on a day in September 2011, when after a yoga session they attended together, Dr. Brown sat in her car and professed that he had feelings for her. The Committee found that Dr. Brown’s declaration was an expression of romantic feelings and sexual interest towards Ms A and as such, found that Dr. Brown engaged in sexual abuse of his patient by making remarks of a sexual nature.
The next day, there were numerous text messages between Ms A and Dr. Brown. Dr. Brown arranged to see Ms A in the office for an appointment two days later. The last office appointment was on a scheduled appointment date the following week.
In between the yoga date and the date of the last office appointment, the Committee found that Ms A and Dr. Brown went for walks in the neighbourhood, went to yoga together, held hands, hugged, were affectionate during a hiking trip and, on either the day of the hiking trip or the next day, first engaged in oral sex. The Committee found that Dr. Brown engaged in sexual abuse of Ms A both by touching her in a sexual manner and by engaging in oral sex with her prior to Ms A’s last appointment in September 2011.
Dr. Brown admitted that he had sexual intercourse with Ms A on the date of the last office visit and on the next day. The Committee found that Dr. Brown was no longer attending or actively treating Ms A after the date of the last office visit, however, the Committee concluded that the last office visit did not end of the professional relationship in the circumstances. The Committee stated that the duration of the professional relationship will depend on the potential for the physician to exploit the trust or emotions of the patient or otherwise use the influence of their previous physician patient relationship. In such circumstances, the physician patient relationship endures and the physician remains accountable, whether or not the service provided has ended.
The Committee found that the professional relationship between Ms A and Dr. Brown endured beyond the last office visit of September 2011, and was still alive at time of the last communication between them. Based on these facts, the Committee found that Dr. Brown engaged in sexual intercourse with Ms A after the date of the last office appointment while she was still his patient.
Also, the Committee found that Dr. Brown’s inappropriate behaviour and numerous boundary violations clearly supported a finding of disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct, as follows:
- Dr. Brown shared personal information with Ms A between January and April 2011;
- Dr. Brown engaged in encouraging a personal relationship with Ms A by responding to her gift of music, involving her in yoga (a sport he was involved in) and providing her easy access to his personal email. He texted her late at night regarding the usefulness of certain yoga activities which was an inappropriate intrusion into her personal time. These actions fostered a familiarity and personalization of the professional relationship and made her feel special;
- That they mutually agreed to meet at yoga on a date in September when Ms A returned from a trip. The Committee found this to be a clear and significant boundary violation;
- Dr. Brown encouraged Ms A to keep a journal of her dreams and later asked if he would get to know what she wrote about him - an example of the progressive and gradual change to a more personal relationship;
- After the September yoga date, Dr. Brown walked with Ms A, sat with her in her car and disclosed feelings for her. He had a duty to his patient and to the profession to put a halt to this and he did not;
- The relationship was now influenced by a romantic and sexual interest which was mutual. It was Dr. Brown alone who instigated this change;
- After the final September office visit, Dr. Brown had the opportunity to act in his patient’s interest and he did not. Not only did he invite her to his house where they engaged in sexual intercourse, but he later informed her that there relationship must end only to recant; and
- Dr. Brown deluded himself into thinking that her emotional problems were lessening in the face of obvious stressors. He failed to recognize her urgent need to see another therapist and ignored the welfare of his patient.
On August 17, 2015, the Committee ordered and directed that:
- the Registrar revoke Dr. Brown’s certificate of registration effective immediately.
- Dr. Brown appear before the panel to be reprimanded.
- Dr. Brown reimburse the College for funding provided to patients under the program
- required under section 85.7 of the Code, by posting an irrevocable letter of credit or other security acceptable to the College, within thirty (30) days of this order in the amount of $16,060.00.
- Dr. Brown pay costs to the College in the amount of $17,840.00 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: No Appeal
Hearing Date(s): July 14-17 , 2014 Penalty hearing August 17, 2015