Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 05 Aug 2016
Summary:
On August 5, 2016, the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario found that Dr. William Arthur Damian 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:
DR. BEAIRSTO INAPPROPRIATELY MASSAGED PATIENT A’S BACK
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 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 the incidental touching of the outside of both breasts – and her lower legs.
The Committee found that the nature and extent of Dr. Beairsto’s touching of Patient A could not be confused with a back examination. The massage was for the purpose of relaxation and was not sexual in nature.
The Committee found that the back massage was inappropriate in the context of Dr. Beairsto’s doctor-patient relationship with Patient A. The massage Dr. Beairsto gave to Patient A was a boundary violation that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
DR. BEAIRSTO STROKED PATIENT A’S BUTTOCKS AFTER A PSYCHOTHERAPY SESSION
Dr. Beairsto stroked Patient A’s 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 therefore made efforts to leave the office quickly.
Dr. Beairsto put one of his hands on her buttocks with no clinical reason to do so. This incident occurred sometime in the middle of their doctor-patient relationship. She continued to see Dr. Beairsto despite her embarrassment at the time.
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.
DR. BEAIRSTO EXAMINED PATIENT A’S CHEST IN AN INAPPROPRIATE MANNER
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.
DR. BEAIRSTO MADE INAPPROPRIATE REMARKS TO PATIENT A
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 finds 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.
DR. BEAIRSTO HUGGED AND KISSED PATIENT A
Dr. Beairsto routinely ended his psychotherapy sessions with hugs and kisses. The Committee did not accept that the routine practice of hugging and kissing every patient in the course of every visit is appropriate.
Although the touching was not of a sexual nature, Dr. Beairsto’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as crossing doctor-patient boundaries with a vulnerable therapeutic patient, and was disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional.
DR. BEAIRSTO TOUCHED HIS CROTCH INAPPROPRIATELY AND SUBSEQUENTLY SNIFFED HIS FINGERS
Patient A testified that Dr. Beairsto touched himself near his genitals and then smelled his hand during an appointment. Patient A said that this incident left her feeling embarrassed.
Dr. Beairsto testified that he may have moved his hand from somewhere below the desk towards his nose as part a demonstration to explain that smelling one’s vaginal discharge could be helpful in determining if a vaginal infection had resolved.
The Committee found that what Dr. Beairsto said and did was unprofessional. It is so outside the norm of what is a professional way to communicate medical information that, even if not a salacious gesture as alleged, it is completely inappropriate, and the Committee finds Dr. Beairsto’s conduct to be disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional.
PENALTY
On November 4, 2016, the Discipline Committee granted an adjournment of the penalty hearing dates of November 8 and 11, 2016 on terms including that the Registrar suspend Dr. Beairsto’s certificate of registration effective November 11, 2016, until such time as the matters currently referred to the Discipline Committee in the Notice of Hearing dated November 10th, 2014, are disposed of by a panel of the Discipline Committee.
On March 6, 7 and 31, 2017, the Committee heard evidence and submissions on penalty and costs, and received supplementary written submissions on penalty on April 7, 2017. Subsequent to the Committee’s deliberations on the oral and written submissions but prior to the release of the Committee’s decision on penalty, College counsel requested permission to provide submissions to the Committee on amendments to section 51 of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 that came into force on May 30, 2017. The Committee accepted this request and subsequently received further written submissions from counsel for the College and for Dr. Beairsto and written advice from Independent Legal Counsel with respect to the issues raised by counsel. The Committee met again on September 25, 2017 and considered these additional submissions and written comments on ILC advice.
On October 5, 2017, the Committee ordered and directed that:
- The Registrar to revoke Dr. Beairsto’s certificate of registration, effective immediately.
- Dr. Beairsto to appear before the Committee to be reprimanded, within three months of the date this Order becomes final.
- Dr. Beairsto to reimburse the College for funding for the patient under the program required under s.85.7, in the amount of $16,060.00, and to post a letter of credit acceptable to the College to guarantee the payment of any amount he may be required to reimburse, within 30 days of the date this Order becomes final.
- Dr. Beairsto to pay to the College costs in the amount of $24,420.00, within 30 days of the date of this Order.
Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: No Appeal
Hearing Date(s): Hearing Dates: October 19-20, 2015
Penalty Hearing: March 6 -7 and March 31, 2017