Porter, Paul Michael (CPSO#: 58683)

Current Status: Revoked: Discipline Committee as of 28 Sep 2016

CPSO Registration Class: None as of 28 Sep 2016

Indicates a concern or additional information

Summary

Former Name: No Former Name

Gender: Male

Languages Spoken: English

Education:McMaster University, 1987

Practice Information

Primary Location of Practice
Practice Address Not Available
View Professional Corporation Information

Professional Corporation Information

Corporation Name: Dr. Michael Porter Medicine Professional Corporation

Certificate of Authorization Status: Inactive: Mar 24 2017

Specialties

Specialty Issued On Type
Psychiatry Effective: 28 May 1992 RCPSC Specialist

Postgraduate Training

Please note: This information may not be a complete record of postgraduate training.

McMaster University, 01 Jul 1988 to 30 Jun 1989
Resident 1 - Psychiatry

McMaster University, 01 Jul 1989 to 30 Jun 1990
Resident 2 - Psychiatry

McMaster University, 01 Jul 1990 to 30 Jun 1991
Resident 3 - Psychiatry

McMaster University, 01 Jul 1991 to 30 Jun 1992
Resident 4 - Psychiatry

Registration History

Action Issue Date
First certificate of registration issued: Postgraduate Education Certificate Effective: 01 Jul 1987
Transfer of class of registration to: Independent Practice Certificate Effective: 30 Sep 1991
Suspension of registration imposed: Executive Committee Effective: 13 Dec 2000
Transfer of class of certificate to: Restricted certificate Effective: 29 Nov 2002
Suspension of registration removed Effective: 19 Feb 2003
Terms and conditions amended Effective: 10 Jul 2003
Suspension of registration imposed: Discipline Committee Effective: 16 Jul 2012
Suspension of registration removed Effective: 16 Aug 2012
Revoked: Discipline Committee. Effective: 28 Sep 2016

Previous Hearings

Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 11 Feb 2016
Summary:

On February 11, 2016, the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and 
Surgeons of Ontario found that Dr. Paul Michael Porter committed an act of professional 
misconduct in that he engaged in sexual abuse of Patient A 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. 
 
Patient A was a patient of Dr. Porter, a psychiatrist, from April 2008 until her last visit in 
April 2012. Dr. Porter’s certificate of registration had been subject to certain limitations 
at that time, which included the following: 
 
“Dr. Porter shall install in his office a video system which will, with the consent of each 
patient, tape each entire psychiatric session and which can be monitored by the office 
staff and preserved for inspection.” 
 
Patient A testified that Dr. Porter first hugged her about a year and a half after started 
seeing him, when she was dwelling on the death of her relative. She thought Dr. Porter 
felt bad for her because her relative had passed away and so he said “Here, let me give 
you a hug.” After that, she said they would hug just before she left. 
 
She testified that the hugs were frequent in 2011. At the end of a session she would stand 
up and move towards the window and he would hug her there. He said he was hugging 
her in that location because it was out of the camera’s view.  
 
At first the hugs ended when she said “I have to go” and then later on as the relationship 
developed, they would each say “I love you.” The hugs which were captured on video 
were initiated by Dr. Porter by standing and holding his arms open, welcoming Patient A 
to the embrace. Dr. Porter would generally stand in an area or move to behind his chair 
where the video camera was unlikely to fully capture the hug. The hug was a full body 
hug with their torsos in contact. A rocking motion from side to side was also observed. 
All the hugs took place in the privacy of Dr. Porter’s office with the door closed in the 
context of a psychotherapy session. 
 
It was clear to the Committee that the hugs that were observed went beyond purported 
therapeutic  hugs.  The  Committee  accepted  that  the  hugs  were  tender  and  mutually 
satisfying,  reflecting  an  enjoyable,  romantic  gesture. This,  in  the  Committee’s  view, 
accords with the meaning of “sexual nature” in the legislation. These hugs were wrong 
especially  in  a  psychotherapy  context  and  in  the  Committee’s  view,  constitute  sexual 
abuse. The Committee found that Dr. Porter repeatedly hugged Patient A in a sexualized 
manner.  
 
Patient A testified that she recalled three occasions when Dr. Porter kissed her. The first 
time occurred when they were standing by the window in his office, a second time when 
she  was  sitting  on  his  lap  and  another  when  they  were  both  in  the  secretary’s  office 
together. Dr. Porter denies any kissing took place.  
 
The Committee carefully reviewed the evidence available and considered the credibility 
of both Patient A and Dr. Porter. The Committee found that Dr. Porter kissed Patient A, 
that he held her hand in the hallway of his office, and that she sat on his lap in his office 
on one or more occasions.  
 
Patient A testified that Dr. Porter made sexual comments to her on numerous occasions. 
These include telling her he loved her; telling her that they would have a future together 
in two years; complimenting her on her appearance; saying that he would like to hold her 
hands on an airplane; and telling her that they would look funny making love together 
because of their bad backs. Dr. Porter denied that he made any of these remarks.  
 
The Committee again rested its decision on its assessment of their respective credibility, 
and found that Dr. Porter made sexual remarks to Patient A just as she testified he did. 
 
The  Committee  found  that  Dr.  Porter  has  engaged  in  disgraceful,  dishonourable  or 
unprofessional conduct in sexually abusing Patient A as set out above. In addition, the 
Committee found that Dr. Porter also engaged in such conduct as set out below: 
   -  Dr. Porter disclosed personal information inappropriately to Patient A when he 
      told her details of his health, personal history, marriage and family; 
   -  Dr. Porter disclosed sensitive and personal information inappropriately about his 
      adopted son; 
   -  Dr.  Porter  disclosed  information  about  the  mental  health  of  another  patient, 
      Patient B, and the personal details of another patient, Patient C. In both cases this 
      was inappropriate; 
   -  Dr. Porter purposefully acted to undermine the safeguards put in place to protect 
      patients by having Patient A move to an area of his office which could not be 
      captured on video; and 
   -  Dr. Porter failed to preserve all videos, as he was required to do under a prior 
      College order. 
 
For the above reasons, the Committee found that Dr. Porter engaged in conduct which 
would  reasonably  be  regarded  by  members  as  disgraceful,  dishonourable  or 
unprofessional.  
 
PENALTY 
 
On September 28, 2016, the Discipline Committee ordered and directed that: 
 
   -  The Registrar revoke Dr. Porter’s certificate of registration effective immediately; 
   -  Dr. Porter appear before this panel to be reprimanded and that the fact of the 
      reprimand be recorded on the register;  
   -  Dr. Porter pay costs to the College in the amount of $36,200.00; and 
-  Dr. Porter provide to the College an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of 
   $16,060.00, or other security acceptable to the College, within thirty (30) days of 
   the date this Order becomes final.

Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: No Appeal
Hearing Date(s): Hearing: September 14-17 continuing September 22 continuing November 23-25, 2015 Penalty Hearing: June 29, 2016 Reprimand: January 16, 2017


Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 16 Apr 2012
Summary:

On April 16, 2012, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Paul Michael Porter committed an 
act of professional misconduct, 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. Porter admitted the allegation 
of professional misconduct. 
 
Dr. Porter's Certificate of Registration was subject to an interim suspension pursuant to section 
37 of the Health Professions Procedural Code between December 13, 2000 and November 29, 
2002. This was in relation to a discipline proceeding in which Dr. Porter was later found to be 
incompetent and to have committed professional misconduct in respect of 2 patients with 
complex psychiatric issues, including dissociative identity disorder (DID). Dr. Porter's practice 
was made subject to conditions, including retaining a practice monitor and clinical supervisor, 
and discontinuing treating dissociative identity disorder or borderline personality disorder 
patients for at least five years. Dr. Porter's Certificate of Registration continues to be subject to 
these conditions.  
  
Dr. Porter's Failure to Maintain Boundaries with Patients A and B 
 
Dr. Porter began treating Patient A in 1989. He diagnosed Patient A with dissociative identity 
disorder. Dr. Porter continued to treat Patient A until his Certificate of Registration was 
suspended, as described above.  
 
While treating Patient A, Dr. Porter developed a close personal relationship with her and failed to 
maintain therapeutic boundaries. Dr. Porter was regarded by Patient A as being akin to a member 
of her family, and he and Patient A spent time at each other's homes and with each other's 
families. Dr. Porter also commenced treating Patient A's husband, Patient B. Both Patient A and 
Patient B felt highly dependent on Dr. Porter. The close personal relationship between Dr. Porter 
and Patients A and B continued during the time when Dr. Porter's Certificate of Registration was 
suspended, and Patient A also received counselling from Dr. Porter during that period.  
 
While Dr. Porter's Certificate of Registration was suspended, Patients A and B began to provide 
significant sums of money to Dr. Porter which they maintain were loans. Dr. Porter maintains 
that the sums were gifts. The amounts included two drafts in the amounts of $4,900 and $8,000, 
and a cheque for $12,000. Patients A and B asked Dr. Porter for a number of years to return the 
money in question. Dr. Porter has returned between approximately $5000 and $7000. Dr. Porter 
has undertaken to the College to pay a total of $17,400 to Patient A. 
 
The Discipline Committee ordered and directed that: 
 
      1.    the Registrar suspend Dr. Porter's certificate of registration for a one month 
            period, to commence at 11:59 p.m. on July 16, 2012.  
 
      2.    Dr. Porter appear before the panel to be reprimanded. 
 
      3.    Dr. Porter shall within 180 days pay the College its costs of this proceeding in the 
            amount of $3,650.00. 

Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: No Appeal
Hearing Date(s): April 16, 2012


Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 19 Sep 2002
Summary:

On September 19, 2002, the Discipline Committee found Dr. Porter committed professional 
misconduct in that he engaged in conduct unbecoming a physician, in that he contravened 
Ontario Regulations regarding his records with respect to two patients, and that he engaged in 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. In addition 
the Committee found Dr. Porter to be incompetent in that his care of the complainants as patients 
displayed a lack of knowledge, skill and judgment, or disregard for the welfare of his patients.  
 
On November 29, 2002, the Discipline Committee ordered and directed the Registrar to impose a 
period of suspension and terms, conditions and limitations on the certificate of registration.  
 
On December 23, 2002, Dr. Porter appealed the decision to the Divisional Court.  
 
On February 20, 2003, the Divisional Court granted a party stay of the decision - staying the 
suspension but maintaining the terms, conditions and limitations on the certificate of registration.  
 
On July 10, 2003, the Divisional Court upheld the finding of the Discipline Committee, however, 
allowed the appeal as to penalty and ordered that the suspension of Dr. Porter’s certificate of 
registration be lifted immediately subject to the following conditions:  
(a) Dr. Porter shall install in his office a video system which will, with the consent of each 
patient, tape each entire psychiatric session and which can be monitored by the office staff and 
preserved for inspection.  
(b) Dr. Porter will retain the services of a full-time secretary.  
(c) Dr. Porter will implement a system to restrict the patients physical access to his personal 
office.  
(d) Dr. Porter will discontinue treating dissociative identity disorder or borderline personality 
disorder patients for a period of five years. If after that period of time, he wishes to treat patients 
with the disorders referred to in this subsection, he shall undergo an assessment of competence 
through a SAP of the Quality Assurance Committee of the College in accordance with subsection 
(d) (iii) a., b., and c. [of the Discipline Committee Order]. Anytime after the expiration of the 
period of five years, Dr. Porter may apply to the Discipline Committee for a variation of these 
conditions or any other conditions on his certificate of registration.  
(e) Dr. Porter will implement a procedure to ensure that he treats a broader cross section of 
general psychiatric patients.  
(f) Dr. Porter will implement a system that will address his problems with respect to record-
keeping to avoid billings being submitted to OHIP before the appropriate notes for that patients 
visit have been written.  
(g) Upon filing with the Registrar of the CPSO the written undertaking of a practice monitor, Dr. 
Porter will seek and receive from the monitor daily assistance to ensure that his practice is 
operating adequately and thereafter, once that has been determined, will have his practice 
monitored on a bi-weekly basis. The supervision shall include the intake of referrals, new 
patients and mail and the management of information. To this end Dr. Porter will make available 
to the practice monitor such random charts and files as she might require in order to assess that 
appropriate notes are being prepared and that OHIP billing is appropriate.  
(h) Dr. Porter will seek and obtain the assistance of a psychiatrist to monitor and supervise his 
psychiatric practice and to advise the Registrar of the College of any issues in it on an ongoing 
basis. 
 
On July 25, 2003, Dr. Porter applied for leave to appeal the decision of the Divisional Court to 
the Court of Appeal.  
 
On February 12, 2004, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal. 

Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: Decision Altered
Appeal Decision Date: 10 Jul 2003
Hearing Date(s): Apr 16, 2001