A pediatrician who has worked in Mississauga and Sarnia is still practising after being convicted of sexually assaulting women related to his work.

Dr. Kunwar Raj Singh also has unrelated gender- and age-based restrictions placed on his practice, but the College of Physicians and Surgeons won’t say why.

His case raises questions about why a doctor who has been convicted of sexual assault linked to his work is able to practise at all.

Roz Roach, a psychotherapist who sat on a provincial task force on sexual abuse of patients, says given Singh’s criminal conviction, it’s “scary” that he’s still treating patients.

“He shouldn’t be practising and his licence should have been revoked,” said Roach, who runs a centre for women and children who are victims of domestic violence in Scarborough.

Singh did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

An office manager at a Mississauga walk-in clinic linked to Singh said he hadn’t worked there in years. The clinic is still listed as one of Singh’s practice locations on the college registry.

There are 21 physicians in Ontario who have gender-based restrictions on practising, a Star investigation recently found. Twenty are male doctors restricted from treating female patients. One is a male doctor restricted from seeing male patients.

Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins recently ordered a review of the decades-old legislation that governs all 23 of the province’s regulatory colleges.

Singh was convicted of 16 counts of sexual assault and indecent assault in 1991, for which he received two years’ probation.

The college’s disciplinary committee found Singh guilty of professional misconduct over the same incidents related to his criminal convictions, college spokeswoman Kathryn Clarke said. According to the committee’s 1991 decision, the committee dealt with 13 specific incidents involving eight hospital employees and two mothers of Singh’s patients between 1976 and 1990.

The college found Singh made “inappropriate personal and suggestive comments, touched or squeezed the breasts of the victims or kissed the person against her will or grabbed or rubbed their buttocks or legs.”

The committee suspended Singh’s licence for six months, though the college asked that it be revoked. Clarke said the law only calls for mandatory revocation of a licence when “sexual abuse of a current patient is proven.”

In Singh’s case, the victims were hospital employees and patients’ mothers.

In its decision, which was sent to the Star by the college but is not included on Singh’s page in the online registry, the committee wrote: “Although his actions are a clear violation of ordinary social conduct as well as professional behaviour, this case does not fit into the category of sexual violation or exploitation of a patient/doctor relationship and this weighed significantly in the Committee’s decision not to revoke Dr. Singh’s licence as requested by the College.”

Medical malpractice lawyer Paul Harte says Singh’s case is particularly “troubling” not only because of his sexual assault convictions, but because three years later he was found to have falsified a document to register with the Medical Board of Trinidad and Tobago, according to a disciplinary panel decision document. His licence was then suspended for three months.

“Those are two very significant breaches,” said Harte.

A decade after Singh’s criminal convictions, he entered into a secret agreement with the college forcing him to have a female health professional with him if he is interacting with female patients or female caregivers of patients.

The 2003 restriction, unrelated to his criminal convictions, came after allegations were referred to the college’s discipline committee, said Clarke.

The allegations, which Clarke said were related to patients but did not include sexual touching, were withdrawn in October 2003 “as there was no reasonable prospect of a finding.”

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

She did not respond to followup questions on the nature of the allegations.

The voluntary agreement was updated in 2013, restricting Singh from treating anyone over the age of 18. It is not clear why. Clarke said there were no new allegations, but “the college may conduct investigations based on a variety of information about the physician’s clinical practice.”

A prospective patient searching for Singh on the college’s public registry will only see the two conditions from the updated 2013 agreement.

Singh’s registry history under 2003 simply says: “Transfer of class of certificate to: Restricted certificate.”

There are no other details.

Clarke said keeping the reasons behind the agreement “unavailable to the public” is mandated by law, noting the terms and conditions on a doctor’s certification must be made public, but that the law does not provide for a “summary of details” to be made public.

Roach said having a female health professional supervise doesn’t necessarily make the environment any safer.

“They themselves — they can become victims,” said Roach, who started her career as a nurse.

Clarke said Singh’s chaperones have “voluntarily agreed” to act in the role and are fully aware of Singh’s discipline history.

“It is desirable to have a regulated health professional act in this role as they are aware of the expected standards of practice, and are capable of fulfilling this function appropriately and completely,” she said.

When Singh tried to get back hospital privileges in Sarnia in 1992, nurses successfully rallied to get Singh banned from St. Joseph’s Health Centre, collecting 2,600 signatures on a petition arguing their workplace should be free of harassment.

With files from Paul Moloney, Colin Graf and The Canadian Press