In the words of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the case of Toronto’s Dr. Javad Peirovy “is amongst the most egregious examples of sexual abuse by physicians.”

Yet Peirovy was given only a six-month suspension in April by the CPSO’s independent discipline committee, after it found he had groped four female patients. He had pleaded guilty in criminal court in 2013 to simple assault in the case of two patients.

The medical regulatory body, which has previously expressed disappointment with the committee over the fact Peirovy’s licence wasn’t revoked, has now taken the doctor to court.

The college is asking a panel of Divisional Court judges to order a new discipline hearing — arguing the public was at “significant risk” while Peirovy was at work.

“It is the appellant’s position that revocation, which was the penalty it sought before the committee, is the appropriate penalty in this case, given the utterly egregious and deliberate nature of the respondent’s sexual misconduct towards his female patients,” says the college’s factum (a written submission), filed in court this week.

Peirovy has always denied the discipline committee allegations against him, and his lawyer did not return requests for comment this week.

Peirovy’s position at the discipline committee was that the patients misunderstood the examinations of them, according to the college’s factum. He acknowledged that he would place his hand under a patient’s bra during an examination, but he denied that any of his actions were sexually motivated.

The CPSO’s appeal highlights a loophole in current legislation governing the conduct of physicians in Ontario, which critics have long decried as outdated.

Revocation of the medical licence is mandatory for nearly every other form of sexual abuse, including penetration, oral sex and masturbation. But groping remains a grey area, and revocation is entirely at the discretion of the discipline committee panel hearing the case.

“The college is not in the habit of appealing discipline decisions on a regular basis, and it reflects the college’s perception of how out of touch this decision was,” said medical malpractice lawyer Paul Harte, who was not involved in the case.

Following a Star investigation into doctors still at work after sexually abusing their patients, the provincial government established a task force in December 2014 to study the issue and make recommendations. The Ministry of Health has said the report is expected to be made public soon.

The Star revealed in July that the report was actually submitted to the government last December, but its release has been held up for months due to legal concerns that it defames top medical organizations, including the CPSO.

The draft report recommended stripping regulatory bodies such as the CPSO of the power of investigating sexual abuse complaints and proposed the creation of an independent body to handle those cases.

Peirovy pleaded guilty in criminal court in 2013 to two counts of simple assault after being initially charged with sexually assaulting six female patients. He had earlier pleaded not guilty to sexual assault in those two cases, and the charges relating to the other four women were withdrawn by the Crown.

Peirovy was given a conditional discharge and 18 months’ probation and was ordered by the court to take counselling.

After the criminal case was over, Peirovy was found guilty in 2015 by the college’s discipline committee of sexually abusing four female patients in the span of one year at a Toronto walk-in clinic, leaving them “traumatized.”

In the case of two patients, he placed his stethoscope on their nipples and cupped their breasts. Regarding two others, he touched their nipples when “there was no clinical reason” to examine the women in that way, the panel found.

But when it came to imposing the penalty in April, the four-member committee — chaired by former CPSO president Dr. Marc Gabel — declined to take away Peirovy’s licence, despite the urging of the college’s lawyers.

The committee concluded that he was embarrassed by his actions, at a low risk to reoffend and can improve through professional training and counselling. He was also ordered to practise only on female patients in the presence of a female health professional.

In its factum filed in Divisional Court, the CPSO argued that the discipline committee’s decision on penalty is inconsistent with its decision regarding Peirovy’s guilt. The college argues that the penalty ruling was applied “without regard to changing social values around penalties for sexual abuse committed by physicians on their patients.”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

The college noted that in the criminal context, sentences have increased over the years “to respond to changing social values or pressing social problems that require an enhanced response from courts and tribunals.” The college mentions, as one example, impaired driving charges, for which penalties have steadily increased.

“Public safety was at significant risk as the respondent offered his medical services in a walk-in clinic open to the general public,” says the factum, referring to Peirovy. “The conduct was repeated, even after the respondent knew that one of his patients had complained to the authorities about his conduct.”