While he may have been acquitted in criminal court of possessing child pornography and voyeurism, those same allegations would eventually prove to be the undoing of Dr. Kevin Johnston’s medical career.

Formerly known as Kevin Richard Speight, the 44-year-old man was stripped of his licence Monday by a disciplinary panel of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) and ordered to pay the college $5,000 in costs.

A family and emergency room doctor who practised in a number of cities including Toronto and Mississauga since 1999, Johnston pleaded no contest before the five-member panel to a charge of “conduct unbecoming of a physician.”

The plea means he did not contest the facts presented to the panel, but also did not admit guilt. His case demonstrates the differences in the threshold that must be met to prove guilt in a criminal case versus a disciplinary tribunal.

The disciplinary hearing heard that Johnston was acquitted in court in 2013 of criminal charges in relation to the 2010 purchase of 14 discs containing child pornography, according to a statement of uncontested facts.

“The court found that the Crown had not led any evidence of an essential element of the offence, namely that Dr. Johnston knew the nature and content of the images that he ordered,” the statement says.

The college began investigating Johnston in 2012, shortly after charges were laid. Following his acquittal, the college requested a further report from Toronto police to address the issue noted by the court.

Received in 2015, the report “confirms that Dr. Johnston was aware of the nature and content of the child pornography that he purchased, and in particular that he had accessed various movie trailers and images containing child pornography before he purchased photo collections,” says the statement.

The disciplinary hearing heard that footage from a public washroom was also located on a micro SD card found at Johnston’s home in 2011, along with a mini video recorder and an iPhone.

Johnston surreptitiously filmed an unknown male defecating in a stall. Through a peep hole, he also filmed a man urinating.

“While Dr. Johnston was acquitted criminally of voyeurism charges in relation to the above conduct, he does not contest the facts above,” says the statement.

As part of his bail conditions after being charged in 2011, Johnston was prohibited from being alone with anyone under 18 years of age, including patients. He voluntarily entered into a similar agreement with the college in 2012 so that the CPSO could monitor him, according to the statement.

After he was acquitted criminally and the bail conditions lifted, the agreement with the college barring him from seeing patients under the age of 18 alone remained in place.

Once the allegations regarding his conduct as a physician were sent to the disciplinary committee, the agreement with the college was varied last March, in which Johnston agreed not to see patients under the age of 18 unless in the presence of a college-approved monitor. He subsequently chose to stop practicing pending the disciplinary hearing.

Lawyers for the college and Johnston agreed that revocation of the doctor’s licence was the appropriate penalty in this case, even if this was not considered a case where revocation is mandatory, such as when a doctor is found to have had sex with a patient.

“This is morally reprehensible and absolutely antithetical to the profession of medicine,” said college lawyer Morgana Kellythorne, speaking of Johnston’s conduct.

She highlighted that the voyeurism allegation is also concerning to members of the public who might find themselves disrobed and exposed in an examination room.

The panel was told that there was no comparable case of a doctor possessing child porn that had been dealt with by the college. Johnston’s lawyer, Jenny Stephenson, told the panel her client accepts the “seriousness of his actions” and takes responsibility for them.

Panel chair Dr. John Watts told Johnston in a reprimand that his conduct damages the public’s trust in the profession and cannot be tolerated.

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

“Even if the videos you purchased showed no evidence of violence or overt sexual acts, and this was not clear on the evidence, society at large would view the deliberate visualization of pornographic images of young boys as conduct totally unbecoming of a physician,” he said.

“When we consider in addition that you have admitted to voyeurism, which is intrusive, deliberate, and devious, and also morally repugnant, we are even more convinced this penalty is deserved.”

Johnston quietly responded: “Thank you, sir. I’m very sorry.”