Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 11 Sep 2013
Summary:
On September 11, 2013, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Sammy Joe Sliwin committed an act of professional misconduct, in that he has engaged in sexual abuse of a patient, and in that he has engaged in 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. Sliwin had a sexual relationship with his patient, Ms A, during the currency of a doctor- patient relationship. This sexual relationship, which included sexual intercourse, constitutes sexual abuse of a patient under section 51(1)(b.1) of the Code.
Dr. Sliwin failed to maintain proper boundaries with Ms A over the long period he was her physician. The Committee found this to be disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.
Following a contested penalty hearing that took place on June 13, 2014, on April 1, 2015, the Discipline Committee released its penalty decision. The Discipline Committee ordered and directed that:
1. the Registrar revoke Dr. Sliwin’s certificate of registration, effective immediately;
2. Dr. Sliwin appear before the panel to be reprimanded and the fact of the reprimand be recorded on the register.
At the penalty hearing, the Committee heard a constitutional motion brought by Dr. Sliwin.
The Discipline Committee rejected Dr. Sliwin’s constitutional argument that the mandatory revocation provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code were not intended to apply to “pre-existing relationships” and noted that in any event Dr. Sliwin had been Patient A’s physician even before the start of their sexual relationship. The Committee accepted that mandatory revocation as set out in the Code is an appropriate means to deal with the very real problem of sexual abuse of patients by physicians and to ensure protection of the public from such abuse. The Committee held that the mandatory revocation provisions do not violate either section 7 (which provides that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice) or section 15 (the equality provisions) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, the Committee found that the mandatory revocation provisions were constitutional and indeed applicable to Dr. Sliwin.
On April 2, 2015, Dr. Sliwin appealed the decision of the Discipline Committee to the Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court).
On April 2, 2015, Dr. Sliwin made a motion to the Divisional Court to stay the order of the Discipline Committee pending the appeal.
On April 8, 2015, the Divisional Court ordered that Dr. Sliwin’s revocation be stayed and that he be permitted to practise pending the appeal.
On February 1, 2016, the Discipline Committee ordered that:
- Dr. Sliwin pay costs to the College in the amount of $48,140.00 within 30 days of the date of this Order.
- Dr. Sliwin is required to reimburse the College for funding that may be provided to the complainant under the College’s program that provides funding for therapy or counselling for persons who, while patients, were sexually abused by members; and to post an irrevocable letter of credit or other security acceptable to the College, within 30 days of the date of this Order, in the amount of $16,060.00, to guarantee the payment of any amounts he may be required to reimburse for funding provided to the complainant under the program required under section 85.7 of the Code.
On March 27, 2017, the Divisional Court dismissed Dr. Sliwin’s appeal, except that the Court vacated the Committee’s order of February 1, 2016 to provide security for therapy or counseling costs. Therefore, the decision of the Discipline Committee, except for the order to provide security for therapy or counseling costs, is in effect.
Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: Appeal Dismissed
Appeal Decision Date: 2017-03-27
Hearing Date(s): June 6-8,June 18-22, 2012