Previous Hearings
Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 30 Nov 2015
Summary:
On November 30, 2015, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Dobrowolski committed an act of professional misconduct, in that he has engaged in the sexual abuse of patients, 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, has failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession; and has been found guilty of offences relevant to his suitability to practise. Dr. Dobrowolski did not contest the allegations.
On December 20, 2005, as a result of an appeal of a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the Divisional Court made an order, by which terms, conditions or limitations were imposed on Dr. Dobrowolski’s certificate of registration. These terms, conditions or limitations were in place until October 12, 2012 at 12:01 a.m. when his certificate of registration was suspended on an interim basis by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College, pending this hearing. The terms, conditions or limitations imposed by the Divisional Court included that:
(a) Dr. Dobrowolski was prohibited from performing any form of physical examination on any of his patients;
(b) Dr. Dobrowolski was required to post signage in his waiting room in a location where it was visible to patients, in an approved form, advising patients of this restriction;
(c) Dr. Dobrowolski was required to advise all female patients of the discipline findings made against him by the Discipline Committee of the College, and that as a result he was restricted from performing any form of physical examinations on any of his patients, and that if a physical examination was necessary, it would have to be performed by another physician;
(d) Dr. Dobrowolski was required to further advise all female patients that it was inappropriate and unacceptable for him to have any form of relationship with his patients outside of the physician-patient therapy relationship; and
(e) Dr. Dobrowolski was required to have all existing and future female patients sign an acknowledgment in a form provided, indicating that they had been advised of all of this information.
Investigation regarding Patient A
Patient A was Dr. Dobrowolski’s patient between approximately February 2006 and May 2011, having been referred to him by a friend when seeking treatment for panic attacks and anxiety.
With respect to Patient A, in summary between February 2006 and May 2011, during the doctor-patient relationship:
- Dr. Dobrowolski touched Patient A in a sexual manner, including her breasts, legs, vaginal area and anal area, in the guise of a medical examination;
- Dr. Dobrowolski shaved Patient A’s legs and pubic area during medical appointments for a sexual purpose;
- Dr. Dobrowolski took photographs and videos of Patient A during medical appointments, on some occasions without her knowledge, including photographs and videos in which she was fully or partially nude and was being touched by Dr. Dobrowolski;
- Dr. Dobrowolski purchased lingerie for Patient A to wear and photographed her wearing it during medical appointments;
- Dr. Dobrowolski inappropriately showed photographs of other patients’ genital areas to Patient A during medical appointments;
- Dr. Dobrowolski hugged and kissed Patient A during medical appointments;
- Dr. Dobrowolski offered to undress during Patient A’s medical appointment;
- Dr. Dobrowolski made inappropriate and sexual remarks to Patient A during medical appointments;
- Dr. Dobrowolski gave and lent money and items to Patient A during medical appointments;
- Dr. Dobrowolski breached the terms, conditions or limitations of his certificate of registration and the Divisional Court order in his conduct towards Patient A.
During the entire time period that he treated Patient A, Dr. Dobrowolski was subject to the terms, conditions or limitations on his certificate of registration and the Divisional Court order. He violated these terms, conditions or limitations and the Divisional Court order by conducting what purported to be physical examinations of Patient A. In addition, although he had Patient A sign the acknowledgement required by the Divisional Court’s order, Dr. Dobrowolski gave Patient A false and misleading information about the terms on his certificate of registration, and the reasons for them, including his discipline history.
In July 2012, as a result of information received from Patient A and her husband, College investigators attended at Dr. Dobrowolski’s office to obtain any computers used in his practice, together with thumb drives, disc drives, storage units, and cameras for inspection and analysis.
The College retained a computer forensics expert, Mr. X, to perform a forensic analysis of the materials obtained from Dr. Dobrowolski’s office. Preliminary results of his analysis showed numerous images of Patient A from Dr. Dobrowolski’s computer that Mr. X had recovered, including nude and partially nude images. The images were derived from videos taken on a computer camera, from which screen shots were taken and saved by Dr. Dobrowolski. Though Patient A believed Dr. Dobrowolski was performing physical examinations on her, in fact he had been touching her for a sexual purpose and filming himself doing so.
In addition, Mr. X recovered thousands of images of other nude and partially nude women. The images were captured in Dr. Dobrowolski’s medical office, in some cases while the women interacted with Dr. Dobrowolski, for example while he handled their breasts, and in some cases without the woman’s face being visible. Mr. X also recovered two videos of women in their underwear and/or nude, taken in Dr. Dobrowolski’s medical office, in which Dr. Dobrowolski touched the women, including their breasts and vaginal areas. Both videos and many images had been deleted prior to Mr. X’s analysis.
Upon the College’s receipt of the preliminary results of the computer forensics analysis, on October 10, 2012, the ICRC referred allegations to the Discipline Committee and suspended Dr. Dobrowolski’s certificate of registration without notice. At the same time, another investigation was commenced by the College, based on the information obtained in the investigation into Mr. A’s complaint, including in particular the videos and images of women other than Patient A that were obtained from Dr. Dobrowolski’s computer devices.
Criminal Conviction of Dr. Dobrowolski
After allegations against Dr. Dobrowolski were referred to discipline, Dr. Dobrowolski was arrested in November 2012, and charged with sexual assault of Patient A.
On May 14, 2014, Dr. Dobrowolski was found guilty in the Ontario Court of Justice of the following offences relevant to his suitability to practise:
(i) having sexually assaulted sixteen persons, contrary to section 271, subsection (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada ( “sexual assault”);
(ii) having without lawful excuse disobeyed a lawful order by conducting physical examinations on twelve persons, contrary to section 127, subsection (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada (“breach of a court order”); and
(iii) having without lawful excuse, surreptitiously made visual recordings of nine persons, who were in circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy when those persons were in a place in which they could reasonably be expected to be nude, to be exposing their genital organs or anal region or exposing their breasts or be engaged in explicit sexual activity, namely Dr. Dobrowolski’s office, and thereby having committed an offence under section 162, subsection (1), clause (a) of the Criminal Code, contrary to section 162, subsection (5) of the Criminal Code of Canada (“voyeurism”).
In total, the criminal findings related to Dr. Dobrowolski’s conduct towards 22 female patients, including Patient A.
Misconduct towards Other Patients
The College’s and police investigative processes led to the discovery of misconduct by Dr. Dobrowolski towards other patients who were not the subject of his criminal conviction:
(i) Regarding Patient B, when College investigators attended at Dr. Dobrowolski’s office in October 2012 to serve him with notice of his suspension and of the new investigation, she was present at his office. Investigators identified her as the subject of one of the videos recovered in the forensic analysis. The video shows Dr. Dobrowolski placing a concealed video camera in the area of his desk before Patient B enters the room. It then shows Dr. Dobrowolski touching Patient B’s breasts and vaginal area, including inserting his fingers into her vagina. College investigators advised Patient B of the video that the College had discovered. They learned from her that on numerous occasions during medical appointments Dr. Dobrowolski had conducted what Patient B believed at the time to be physical examinations on her, consisting of Dr. Dobrowolski touching her breasts and her genitals, including inside her vagina. Dr. Dobrowolski had videotaped Patient B without her knowledge, while touching her breasts and her genitals for his own sexual purposes.
(ii) Regarding Patient C, in approximately 2011 or 2012, Dr. Dobrowolski purported to examine a mole at a medical appointment. She removed her top but not her bra for the examination. In doing so, Dr. Dobrowolski breached the terms, conditions or limitations on his certificate of registration and the Divisional Court order prohibiting him from conducting physical examinations, and engaged in inappropriate touching of a sexual nature.
(iii) Regarding Patient D, she was Dr. Dobrowolski’s patient intermittently between 2000 and 2011. Dr. Dobrowolski on one occasion early in her treatment performed what purported to be a physical examination, including feeling around the area of her breast, while telling her that he had found cancerous spots on other women. In doing so, Dr. Dobrowolski engaged in inappropriate touching of a sexual nature.
(iv) Regarding Patient E, she was Dr. Dobrowolski’s patient from November 2005 to March 2006. Dr. Dobrowolski offered to check her breasts to see if she had any moles, and performed what purported to be a breast examination on one occasion during a medical appointment. In doing so, Dr. Dobrowolski engaged in inappropriate touching of a sexual nature.
(v) Regarding Patient F, on approximately five occasions between 2007 and 2008 during medical appointments, Dr. Dobrowolski conducted what purported to be physical examinations, with Patient F’s bra off and her underwear on. In doing so, Dr. Dobrowolski engaged in inappropriate touching of a sexual nature and breached the terms, conditions or limitations on his certificate of registration and the Divisional Court order.
(vi) Regarding Patient G, she was Dr. Dobrowolski’s patient between February 2005 and May 2012. Dr. Dobrowolski injected vitamin B12 shots into Patient G’s buttocks on 1 to 3 occasions during medical appointments, in breach of the terms, conditions or limitations on his certificate of registration and the Divisional Court order. He also inappropriately lent her one hundred dollars during a medical appointment.
(vii) Regarding Patient H, Dr. Dobrowolski injected vitamin B12 shots into her hip once a month between 2005 and 2007. While Dr. Dobrowolski had Patient H sign the acknowledgement required by the terms, conditions or limitations on his certificate of registration and the Divisional Court order, he falsely told her they arose because a patient’s husband had overreacted when Dr. Dobrowolski examined his wife for a mole while she was breastfeeding.
(viii) Regarding Patient I, she was Dr. Dobrowolski’s patient in approximately 2005 and 2006. Dr. Dobrowolski directed Patient I to disrobe, did not leave the room while she did so, and performed what purported to be physical examinations on her, including touching her legs, abdomen, and breasts. In doing so, he engaged in touching of Patient I of a sexual nature and breached the terms, conditions or limitations on his certificate of registration and the Divisional Court order.
(ix) Regarding Patient J, she was Dr. Dobrowolski’s patient from approximately 1998 until June 2012.
Dr. Dobrowolski made inappropriate comments to Patient J during medical appointments, including sharing personal information. Dr. Dobrowolski also commenced performing a physical examination on Patient J on one occasion during a medical appointment, inappropriately looking at and touching her back and chest, purportedly while looking for moles. Patient J did not remove her clothes. Dr. Dobrowolski inappropriately offered to perform a breast examination during a medical appointment, but Patient J declined.
The Discipline Committee ordered and directed that:
- the Registrar revoke Dr. Dobrowolski’s certificate of registration, effective immediately.
- Dr. Dobrowolski appear before the panel to be reprimanded.
- Dr. Dobrowolski reimburse the College for funding provided to those patients in respect of whom this panel has found Dr. Dobrowolski to have engaged in sexual abuse, under the program required under section 85.7 of the Code.
- Dr. Dobrowolski post an irrevocable letter of credit or other security acceptable to the College, to guarantee the payment of any amounts he may be required to reimburse under paragraph 4 of this Order, such security to be posted within ninety (90) days of the date of this Order, in the amount of $449,680.00.
- Dr. Dobrowoski pay costs to the College in the amount of $4,460.00 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: No Appeal
Hearing Date(s): November 30, 2015
Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 08 Jul 2004
Summary:
On November 29, 2004, the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, found that Dr. Stanley Thomas Dobrowolski committed professional misconduct pursuant to the Health Professions Procedural Codeand made its penalty order.
On December 17, 2004, Dr. Dobrowolski appealed the decision of the Discipline Committee to the Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court).
Pursuant to s.25(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the appeal stayed the decision of the Discipline Committee.
On December 20, 2005, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal on consent of the parties, set aside the Order of the Discipline Committee and imposed the following penalty:
(i) The Appellant shall attend before a new panel of the Discipline Committee to be reprimanded with the fact of the reprimand to be recorded on the register;
(ii) The Registrar shall suspend the Appellant s certificate of registration for a period of six (6) months. Three (3) months of the suspension shall be suspended if the Appellant attends at his own expense and successfully complete the College boundary and record-keeping courses.The suspension shall commence on June 1, 2006.
(iii) The Appellant shall no longer conduct any form of physical examination of any of his patients;
(iv) The Appellant shall place in his waiting room in a location where it will be visible to patients the notice attached as Schedule A [to the Divisional Court order];
(v) The Appellant shall advise all female patients of the discipline findings made against him by the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and that as a result he is restricted from performing any form of physical examinations on any of his patients, and that if a physical examination is necessary it will have to be performed by another physician;
(vi) The Appellant shall further advise all female patients that it is inappropriate and unacceptable for him to have any form of relationship with his patients outside of the physician-patient therapy relationship.
(vii) The Appellant shall have all existing and future female patients, when they arrive for their next appointment after the date of this Order, sign an acknowledgement in the form attached as Schedule B [to the Divisional Court order], and permanently retain the acknowledgement in all patient medical records, such records to be stored in his office and made available for inspection by the College of Physicians and Surgeons;
(viii) The Appellant shall permanently maintain a master list containing the names of all patients;
(ix) The Appellant shall allow representatives of the College of Physicians and Surgeons to attend at his office without prior notice for periodic random inspections of patient charts;
(x) The Appellant shall provide his written consent to the College of Physicians and Surgeons having access to his billings to the Ontario Health Insurance Plan;
(xi) A restriction shall be placed on the Appellant s certificate of registration prohibiting him from conducting any form of physical examination on any of his patients;
(xii) All of the conditions and restrictions imposed on the Appellant shall be placed on his certificate of registration in the public register.
Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: Decision Altered
Appeal Decision Date: 2005-12-20
Hearing Date(s): Jul 06, 2004
Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 07 Oct 1999
Summary:
On October 7, 1999 the Discipline Committee accepted Dr. Dobrowolsi(s plea of guilty and found him guilty of professional misconduct. Subsequently, the Committee ordered the following penalty:
1. Dr. Dobrowolski is to be reprimanded and the fact of that reprimand is to be recorded on the Register;
2. During the 5-month period immediately following the disposition of this hearing, Dr. Dobrowolski shall submit himself to supervision of his practice, at his expense. This supervision should include, but shall not be limited to, the use of tapes and video tapes of patient interviews, chart reviews, and attention to issues of transference, counter-transference and boundary violations. The supervisor shall submit a report to the Registrar following the 5-month period, confirming that supervision of Dr. Dobrowolski(s practice has been carried out in accordance with the foregoing and that Dr. Dobrowolski(s psychiatric care is appropriate and ethical;
3. Dr. Dobrowolski shall submit to a peer assessment by the supervisor 12 months after completion of the 5-month period of supervision, and the supervisor shall submit a report on his assessment to the Registrar;
4. Dr. Dobrowolski shall provide written apologies to the complainants to be sent to the College for forwarding to the complaints; and
5. A questionnaire is to be made available to patients at Dr. Dobrowolski(s office for the period of 12 months from the date of disposition.
Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: No Appeal
Hearing Date(s): Oct 07, 1999
Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 25 May 1995
Summary:
Between July and October 1994, Dr. Dobrowolski had been referred to the Discipline Committee on various allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence. The Executive Committee ordered that these allegations be divided into two sets and dealt with in two separate Discipline Hearings. In the course of one of these Hearings, which began in October 1994, Dr. Dobrowolski pleaded guilty to a charge of professional misconduct, as defined in Ontario Regulation 448/80, as amended, in that he failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession, contrary to s. 27(21); and in that he engaged in conduct or an act relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to s. 27(32). The Discipline Committee accepted this plea, and in a decision which was released in April 1995, found him guilty of professional misconduct. At the same time, the Committee also found Dr. Dobrowolski guilty of professional misconduct, as defined in s. 27(3) of Ontario Regulation 448/80, as amended, in that he failed to maintain the records which are required to be kept respecting his patients. Consequently, the Committee imposed the following penalty:
1. Dr. Dobrowolski was to be reprimanded, with the fact of the reprimand to be recorded on the Register.
2. Dr. Dobrowolski s licence to practice was to be suspended for a period of twelve months.
3. The latter nine months of the twelve-month period of suspension were to be suspended, provided that the following conditions were met:
(a) Through the twelve-month period Dr. Dobrowolski was to continue to see his treating psychiatrist at least once a month.
(b) The treating psychiatrist was to submit reports, satisfactory to the Registrar, every two months, confirming that Dr. Dobrowolski was continuing in his course of treatment, that he was making satisfactory progress and that he was unlikely to pose any threat to the well-being of his patients. The first such report was to be received by the Registrar no more than 75 days after this Order became final and subsequent reports were to be received every 60 days thereafter.
(c) During the ten-month period immediately following the resumption of his practice, Dr. Dobrowolski was to submit himself to nine months of weekly supervision of his practice, at his expense, with a supervisor or his or her alternate, both acceptable to the Registrar. The supervision was to include, but was not to be limited to, the use of tapes and videotapes of patient interviews, chart reviews, and attention to issues of transference, counter-transference and boundary violations. The proposed supervisor was, no later than 75 days after this Order became final, to confirm in writing to the Registrar that he or she would undertake the supervision of Dr. Dobrowolski s practice.
(d) The supervisor was to submit reports, satisfactory to the Registrar, every two months, confirming that supervision of Dr. Dobrowolski s practice was being carried out in accordance with the foregoing terms and that Dr. Dobrowolski s pyschiatric care was appropriate and ethical.The first such report was to be received by the Registrar no more than 165 days after this Order became final and subsequent reports were to be received every 60 days thereafter.
4. In the event that the Registrar failed to receive the reports required under paragraphs 3(b) and 3(d) cited above, the suspension of Dr. Dobrowolski s licence to practice was to resume and to continue for the remaining nine months.
5. By agreement of counsel, in light of the Section 37 Order against Dr. Dobrowolski, the time that he had been unable to practice was to be credited against the suspension imposed by the Discipline Committee, provided that the terms imposed under paragraphs 3(a) through 3(d) cited above were to apply forthwith upon his resuming his practice, for the time periods therein specified.
Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: No Appeal
Hearing Date(s): Oct 31, 1994