COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ALBERTA IN

COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ALBERTA
IN THE MATTER OF
A HEARING UNDER THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS ACT,
R.S.A. 2000, c. C-7
AND IN THE MATTER OF A HEARING REGARDING
THE CONDUCT OF DR. WILLIAM HEALLEY
DECISION OF THE HEARING TRIBUNAL OF
THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS
AND SURGEONS OF ALBERTA
I
INTRODUCTION
The Hearing Tribunal held a hearing into the conduct of Dr. William Healley on June 19, 2012 at
the offices of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (the "College") in Edmonton,
Alberta.
Present were:
The members of the Hearing Tribunal:
Dr. Don Yee, Chair
Dr. Doug Huber
Mr. Lloyd Hickman, public member
Mr. Craig Boyer, legal counsel for the College
Dr. Karen Mazurek, Complaints Director
Dr. William Healley, investigated member
Mr. David Steele, legal counsel for the investigated person
Mr. Greg Sim, independent legal counsel to the Hearing Tribunal
The hearing was held under the terms of Part 4 of the Health Professions Act ("HPA"). There
were no objections to the composition of the Hearing Tribunal or the jurisdiction of the Hearing
Tribunal to proceed with a hearing.
II
ALLEGATIONS
The allegations to be considered by the Hearing Tribunal were set out in the Notice of Hearing
(Exhibit 1).
Dr. Healley waived the reading of the allegations. Dr. Healley denied the allegations.
III
PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS
At the request of the Complainant, Patient X 1, Mr. Boyer made a preliminary application at the
outset of the hearing to hold part of the hearing in private pursuant to Section 78(1)(a)(iii) of the
HPA, which permits the Hearing Tribunal to close the hearing if the potential for disclosing a
person's confidential personal, health, property or financial information outweighs the
desirability of holding the hearing in public. Mr. Boyer submitted that the complainant and
investigated member’s testimony should be closed to the public but that the Decision be made
available to the public. Mr. Boyer also submitted that the Decision should be written in such a
way as to try to protect the identities of Patient X and her children. Mr. Boyer argued that given
the sensitive personal and health information that would be disclosed in the testimony, the
Tribunal would need to ensure that complainants are not dissuaded from coming forward due to
1
Although the Notice of Hearing referenced the complainant and her children by name, the Hearing
Tribunals refers to the complainant and her children as patients X, Y and Z to protect their identities.
1
the potential disclosure of their personal information. He argued that the public interest would
not be served by making all of the testimony public, but doing so would very likely be harmful
to Patient X and innocent parties that would be identified during the testimony.
Mr. Steele supported the application to close the hearing, pursuant to both s. 78(1)(a)(iii) and
Section 78(1)(a)(iv) of the HPA. Section 78(1)(a)(iv) provides that the Hearing Tribunal may
close the hearing if the presence of the public could compromise the ability of a witness to
testify.
The Hearing Tribunal ordered the hearing to be closed in accordance with Section 78(1)(a)(iii)
and (iv), and indicated that it would take into consideration Mr. Boyer’s application when
writing the Decision.
The reasons for ordering a closed hearing in this case are:
1. Both the testimony to be provided by the witnesses, and the arguments to be submitted by
the parties, referred to the personal health information of the complainant and her
children. The Tribunal did not feel the public interest required disclosure of these
intimate details.
2. Given the extremely sensitive nature of the issues discussed during the testimony,
ordering a closed hearing would ensure that the identities of the complainant and her
children identified in the evidence would be protected.
3. By ensuring the hearing remained closed, it would minimize the chances the complainant
would feel dissuaded from providing complete and forthright testimony surrounding the
allegations against the investigated member.
4. The Tribunal did not want to discourage others from testifying in similar circumstances.
5. Although the HPA generally contemplates that hearings are to be held in public, the HPA
also recognizes that competing interests, including privacy of those participating in the
process, and the desire to ensure that complainants and witnesses are not dissuaded from
making complaints as a result of the potential disclosure of sensitive personal
information, must be considered. Given the specific facts of this case, and after weighing
the various interests, the Tribunal felt that the privacy interests of the complainant and
other innocent parties named in the Allegations mandated closing the hearing in its
entirety.
IV
EVIDENCE
The parties entered the following documents by Agreement as Exhibits 1-12 at the
hearing:
Notice of Hearing dated February 10, 2012
Complaint by Patient X dated June 1, 2010
Letter of response from Dr. Healley, dated September 24, 2010
Patient chart for Patient X from Dr. Healley’s office
Alberta Health & Wellness billing records for Patient X from
January 1, 2006 to March 2, 2012
Alberta Health & Wellness billing records for Patient Y
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
2
Alberta Health & Wellness billing records for patient Z
Exhibit 8
Copies of emails between Patient X and Dr. Healley
Expert opinion from Dr. Gordon Chaytors dated July 14, 2001
Curriculum vitae from Dr. Gordon Chaytors
Section 35 of the Standards of Practice of the College of
Physicians & Surgeons of Alberta
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
Exhibit 11
Exhibit 12
Each of the parties submitted additional exhibits during the course of the hearing (exhibits 13-16),
which were as follows:
College of Physicians & Surgeons of Alberta Doctor/Patient
Sexual Involvement Policy
Copies of Patient X photographs
Canadian Medical Association Code of Ethics
Letter from Dr. B. Hardin
Exhibit 13
Exhibit 14
Exhibit 15
Exhibit 16
The College called three witnesses: Dr. Karen Mazurek, Patient X and Dr. Gordon Chaytors.
Dr. Healley presented evidence on his own behalf.
The key testimony of the witnesses who gave evidence during the hearing is summarized below.
Dr. Karen Mazurek
Dr. Mazurek testified that she is an Assistant Registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons
of Alberta and the Complaints Director for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta.
She has been the Complaints Director since 2005 after a 16-year career in Edmonton as a General
Practitioner. She provided testimony regarding the chronology of events which occurred from the
time Patient X submitted a complaint to the College regarding Dr. Healley to the commencement
of the Hearing into Patient X’s complaint, a period of time which exceeded 12 months.
Patient X’s complaint was submitted in June 2010. The initial complaint was directed to a
College investigation. The College’s investigator was Ms. Marnie Johnson. Ms. Johnson
attended Dr. Healley’s office and obtained the relevant medical records. A request for a written
response to the complaint from Dr. Healley was made. Ms. Johnson interviewed Dr. Healley and
the complainant. Ms. Johnson obtained Alberta Health and Wellness billing records and gathered
emails exchanged between Dr. Healley and the complainant. She completed her investigation
report in June 2011. After review of the investigation report, Dr. Mazurek requested that Ms.
Johnson obtain an expert to comment on Dr. Healley’s conduct. A review of the case and expert
report was requested from Dr. Gordon Chaytors. After Dr. Chaytors submitted his expert opinion
to the College, the College requested clarification of his expert opinion on the case. Dr. Mazurek
received the file back from Ms. Johnson in late 2011/early 2012. Dr. Mazurek reviewed Dr.
Chaytors’ submitted opinion and subsequently referred the matter to a hearing by a College
Hearing Tribunal.
Dr. Mazurek confirmed that the Health Professions Act in Alberta was proclaimed in December
2009. At the same time, the College Council developed and implemented its Standards of Practice
document. She pointed out that the allegations in Patient X’s complaint occurred while Alberta
Physicians were regulated under the Medical Professions Act. Prior to development of the
3
College’s Standards of Practice, namely Standard number 35 pertaining to Sexual Boundary
Violations, the College had a policy regarding Doctor/Patient Sexual Involvment dating back to
1992. This policy was entered as Exhibit 13 for this Hearing.
In cross-examination by Mr. Steele, Dr. Mazurek explained that it took about a year for the
College’s investigation report into the complaint about Dr. Healley to be prepared due to the large
volume of cases the College’s investigators have.
Patient X
Patient X explained to the Tribunal that she had requested an application to close the hearing be
made because she is very embarrassed for the events that occurred in her complaint against Dr.
Healley and wished for the details of those events not to be made public and affect her personal
life more than it already has.
Patient X first started seeing Dr. Healley for medical care in 2006. Patient X confirmed that she
authored a letter of complaint, dated June 1, 2010, concerning Dr. Healley (Exhibit 2).
4
5
6
ti
In general, the Tribunal found Patient X to be clear and forthright in her testimony. Despite being
an educated, polished successful professional, Patient X was emotionally fragile and vulnerable at
the time she alleges Dr. Healley’s boundary violations started
Due to various aspects of her personal life at that time, she was fragile and vulnerable.
7
There were some slight inconsistencies in her testimony in regards to specific dates certain events
occurred but they only differed by at most a month from her written complaint. The Tribunal did
not feel these minor inconsistencies were material at all.
The Tribunal found Patient X to be a credible witness overall. The major details of her testimony
were consistent throughout her testimony and in cross-examination, including her motivations for
submitting a formal complaint about Dr. Healley to the College. The Tribunal felt the major
details of Patient X’s testimony were supported by the presented evidence.
The Tribunal found her actions to be consistent with her stated motivations and the given
circumstances of her medical visits with Dr. Healley. Her personal life stressors made her a
vulnerable person when she sought medical attention from Dr. Healley in 2008
The Tribunal accepted her testimony that she was interested in a serious relationship with
Dr. Healley as opposed to a casual sexual relationship. Her actions of wanting to confirm that he
was single and indicating to him in emails that she has to consider her children when committing
to a relationship speak to this.
She presented herself as a well-spoken, articulate witness. Her tone during her testimony was
quiet, detached and reserved when discussing most details of her allegations, and she admitted
being embarrassed about her relationship with Dr. Healley. She at times was emotional during her
testimony when discussing very sensitive topics
The Tribunal found Patient X’s testimony that she was interested in a serious relationship with
Dr. Healley to be more believable than Dr. Healley’s testimony that she was only interested in a
casual sexual relationship with him. The Tribunal also preferred Patient X’s testimony to Dr.
Healley’s evidence that Patient X had been the aggressor in the relationship for the reasons
explained below.
Dr. Gordon Chaytors
Dr. Chaytors verified his curriculum vitae as being Exhibit 11 of the Hearing materials. He
testified he obtained his medical degree from the University of Alberta in 1969. He subsequently
obtained his general practice license after his intern year at the Calgary General Hospital. He has
practiced medicine in Fort McMurray, Edmonton and Nelson, British Columbia. His most recent
medical job was a position in the University of Alberta Department of Family Medicine. He
recently retired as a full professor in June 2009 and is now a Professor Emeritus in Family
Medicine. He still teaches family medicine to resident physicians and medical students and
maintains a clinical practice in palliative care. His medical career has spanned 40 years. Mr.
Boyer proposed that Dr. Chaytors be qualified as a witness able to provide expert opinion advice
in Family Medicine and the physician-patient relationship and Mr. Steele did not object. The
Tribunal accepted Dr. Chaytors as an expert qualified to give opinion evidence in the areas of
family medicine and the physician-patient relationship.
Dr. Chaytors testified he was asked by the College Investigator (Ms. Marnie Johnson) to provide
his expert opinion on the complaint Patient X submitted regarding Dr. Healley. He has reviewed
the College’s file on the matter and provided the College with a written report, which he referred
to during his testimony. In particular, he was asked to provide his opinion as to if there was any
evidence of inequality in the relationship between Patient X and Dr. Healley.
8
Dr. Chaytors testified he aimed to address three main questions:
1) If the physician-patient relationship ever ended, and if so
2) How much time had elapsed before the sexual relationship began.
3) Was Dr. Healley’s ongoing role as Patient X’s children’s physician a contributing factor
into any power imbalance between Dr. Healley and Patient X
Dr. Chaytors testified he found no formal documentation from Dr. Healley or Dr.
C’s
files that the physician-patient relationship ever ended between Dr. Healley and Patient X.
Additionally, he found no formal letter from Patient X indicating that she had found a new family
physician and no longer wanted to use Dr. Healley as her family physician. There was no
evidence of any request from Dr.
C for Patient X’s file at Dr. Healley’s office to be
transferred.
From his review of the file, Dr. Chaytor concluded the sexual relationship between Patient X and
Dr. Healley began at approximately the same time Dr. Healley realized the physician-patient
relationship between him and Patient X was over, but that the sexual relationship occurred during
the time Patient X was bringing her children in to see Dr. Healley for medical care, and by way of
having a parental guardian role to provide medical consent on her childrens’ behalf, still had a
professional relationship with Dr. Healley at that time.
Dr. Chaytors testified in his expert opinion, the fact that the results from Patient X’s
were sent to Dr. Healley’s attention established Dr. Healley as
Patient X’s primary care physician. From these findings, Dr. Chaytors testified that in his expert
opinion, the physician-patient relationship between Dr. Healley and Patient X never formally
ended. He found no formal chart documentation indicating that Dr. Healley had gone through the
College’s recommended steps to formally end a therapeutic relationship with a patient.
Dr. Chaytors could not answer his second self-imposed question, as he did not feel the physicianpatient relationship ever ended between Dr. Healley and Patient X. Dr. Chaytors testified that he
felt the sexual relationship which occurred while Dr. Healley was caring for Patient X’s children
was inappropriate because during that time, Dr. Healley would have been in a position of
authority and power over the children and Patient X, as she was the parent of the children
providing medical consent on their behalf. Dr. Chaytors testified that he felt the sexual
relationship violated the Canadian Medical Association Code of Ethics, as the personal sexual
relationship represented a conflict of interest with a patient, the patient was being exploited for
personal gain, the sexual relationship posed potential harm to that patient, and Dr. Healley had
not properly ended the physician-patient relationship.
He found no documented evidence of a clinic visit of one of Patient X’s children to Dr. Healley in
July 2009 and questioned if this was a memory issue on Patient X’s part.
Dr. Chaytors testified that he felt if a patient were pursuing a personal relationship with a
physician or recently after a physician-patient relationship ended, it is the responsibility of the
physician to not let that happen, and to have a witness such as a nurse witness the conversation
where the physician states such a relationship will not develop.
The Tribunal found Dr. Chaytors to be a credible, forthright, thoughtful, articulate, well-spoken
expert witness. He provided consistent answers in cross-examination and his opinion that the
sexual relationship between Dr. Healley and Patient X was inappropriate was not refuted by the
Defence. His expert testimony supported the notion that there was never any formal
9
documentation to indicate when, if ever, the physician-patient relationship ended between Dr.
Healley and Patient X, and no evidence that Dr. Healley had taken any steps to terminate that
professional relationship before the personal, sexual relationship began.
Dr. William Healley
Dr. Healley testified he was born in South Africa in 1953. He obtained his medical degree in
South Africa in 1976. He obtained his residency training in South Africa and subsequently
worked as a physician in South Africa and New Zealand before coming to Canada in 1997. In
Canada, he has worked in Saskatchewan, Fort McMurray and Calgary.
He has worked in the same medical clinic in Calgary for the past 6 years. The clinic is a mixed
clinic in that some patients are walk-in and some book clinic appointments with their regular
family physicians in that clinic. In 2008-2009, his practice was about 60% walk-in and 40%
regular patients. He testified that once he refers a walk-in patient to a different physician, the
receiving physician assumes care of the patient and afterwards the patient has to find a new
family physician.
Dr. Healley testified he only saw Patient X for pre-natal visits and no other medical reasons. He
testified that in his current clinical practice, it is common not to have an ongoing care relationship
with patients due to the walk-in nature of the clinic. He testified he had no discussions with
Patient X regarding mood or anxiety issues she may have been experiencing and had never
treated Patient X for any mood or anxiety issues. He testified he had no recollection at all of
Patient X ever being depressed
Dr. Healley denied ever flirting with Patient X during medical visits she had with him
He denied complimenting Patient X on her appearance in the
clinic visits. He denied ever
touching her back or legs or hugging her during these visits. He testified all of the pre-natal visits
Patient X had with him
were chaperoned. He denied ever discussing her marital issues or
details of his previous marriage with Patient X during clinic visits. He had no specific recollection
of receiving a Christmas gift
from Patient X
He testified that Patient X often asked personal questions about his marital status during
medical visits which made him uncomfortable and that he was either brief with his answers of
simply did not answer. He testified that he did tell Patient X he was divorced. He testified he only
shared personal information about his finances with Patient X after their sexual relationship
began.
Dr. Healley testified that at the end of 2008 he referred Patient X to an obstetrician/gynecologist
(Dr.
A)
He testified at this point he told
Patient X his role as her physician was over. However, he admitted that he did not document this
in Patient X’s medical record and did not send Patient X a formal letter to this effect. He testified
that this is the official policy of his clinic to not officially document the end of a physician-patient
relationship on the patient chart. Exhibit 16 was a letter from Dr. Healley’s clinic setting out a
policy statement to this effect.
Dr. Healley testified that after
he gave his cell phone number to Patient X after
she asked for it. Dr. Healley testified he routinely gives his cell phone number and email address
out to patients as a way for them to contact him to discuss their care and for after-hours medical
care. He testified there is no other on-call arrangement at his clinic for clinic patients to access
medical care after normal clinical hours. He denies ever text messaging Patient X.
10
Dr. Healley denied ever flirting with Patient X
when she starting
bringing her oldest child in to see him for medical care. He testified that at an
clinic
visit with one of Patient X’s children, Patient X stated she had a new family physician and Dr.
Healley was not her physician any more,
He testified Patient X then invited him to have tea
and supper with her, which he accepted. He testified that after the dinner she insisted they
continue the evening by having tea. He testified that later that evening
Dr. Healley admitted he
was providing medical care to Patient X’s children at this time, but stated he did not feel there
was any power imbalance between him and Patient X during the time of their sexual relationship.
Dr. Healley stated that he did not assume care of Patient X again
despite Dr.
A’s June 1, 2009 letter to him indicated that Dr.
Patient X to Dr. Healley’s care.
Dr. Healley admitted to having sex with Patient X
unsure of what type of relationship she wanted with him.
A was returning
but that he was
He denied ever being married to the woman in Nanton and stated she was a business partner. He
further characterized his relationship with the woman in Nanton as “complex” and “on and off”.
He stated he had been married but was divorced in 1997 and his daughter’s mother is living in
New Zealand.
He denied ever
encouraging Patient X to leave her husband so he could pursue a relationship with her.
In cross-examination, Dr. Healley admitted he may have seen Patient X in clinic for non-pre-natal
reasons. He indicated he had not reviewed his own chart to determine the nature of all of her
visits with him before testifying. He said that once he referred Patient X to Dr.
A, all of
her medical care was Dr.
A’s responsibility. He testified that when he refers a patient for
specialist care, the specialist physician should assume responsibility for all of the patient’s care
from that point forward, especially pre-natal patients.
He stated Patient X never mentioned any
details of her marital problems when she accompanied her children to see Dr. Healley in clinic.
Dr. Healley stated his understanding was that neither he nor Patient X was interested in a serious
relationship, and that this discussion occurred during the first dinner they shared together
Dr. Healley testified Patient X did not tell him she had a new family physician until the
medical appointment for her child. He verified he never communicated with Dr.
with regards to Dr.
C being Patient X’s new family physician.
C
11
Dr. Healley verified the emails contained in Exhibit 9 are emails between him and Patient X. He
testified that Patient X’s emails suggested to him that she was only looking for a casual sexual
relationship with him. He testified Patient X tried to continue email and phone contact with him,
but while he tried to discourage such contact, he replied out of courtesy.
When asked why there were widely diverging accounts in his testimony on several material
points compared to Patient X’s testimony, Dr. Healley stated he had “no idea” why.
V
SUBMISSIONS REGARDING THE ALLEGATIONS
Mr. Boyer made closing submissions on behalf of the College. He indicated that there was a
discrepancy and dispute between the testimony of Dr. Healley and Patient X. As such, it would be
critical for the Tribunal to assess the credibility of Dr. Healley and Patient X. He cited the case of
Faryna v. Chorney which deals with the legal test when dealing with the test for credibility and
pointed out the case illustrates the test of the truth of a witness’ story is the story’s harmony with
the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would recognize as
reasonable in that place and those conditions.
He suggested that the Tribunal would have to decide if there was an existing physician-patient
relationship and/or power imbalance at the time of the sexual relationship between Dr. Healley
and Patient X. He submitted that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that at the time of
the sexual relationship, Patient X was interested in pursuing a serious relationship with Dr.
Healley as opposed to a casual sexual one. Mr. Boyer presented several examples of case law
where it was found that having a sexual relationship with a patient or a recently former patient
was improper or unprofessional conduct.
Mr. Boyer submitted to the Tribunal that there was an ongoing physician-patient relationship
between Dr. Healley and Patient X which overlapped with the period of time they had a sexual
relationship. He submitted that at the least, even if Patient X was not seeing Dr. Healley for any
medical reasons, there was a residual power imbalance between Patient X and Dr. Healley during
the time of the sexual relationship.
While Dr. Healley admitted in testimony that he did have sex on several occasions with Pateint X,
a discrepancy emerged between the testimony of Dr. Healley and the evidence presented during
the hearing with respect to the nature of their relationship. While Dr. Healley testified he felt
Patient X wanted a casual sexual relationship with him, Patient X’s emails to him reflected her
concern for her children and how she wanted to consider their best interests before committing to
any relationship. Mr. Boyer contended that these actions on Patient X’s part are those of someone
considering a serious relationship as opposed to a casual sexual one.
Mr. Boyer submitted that the evidence presented during the Hearing clearly show the ongoing
existence of a physician-patient relationship between Dr. Healley and Patient X during the time of
their sexual relationship. Patient X was clearly an established patient of Dr. Healley’s, as opposed
to being a walk-in at Dr. Healley’s clinic. The Alberta Health & Wellness billing records indicate
Dr. Healley provided care for Patient X for medical reasons in addition to just
Additionally, Dr.
A’s letter to Dr. Healley dated June 1, 2009 (page 53, Exhibit 4) clearly
states that Dr.
A was returning patient X to the care of Dr. Healley. Given this evidence
and the expert testimony of Dr. Chaytors, Mr. Boyer contended that there was no clear ending of
12
the physician-patient relationship between Dr. Healley and Patient X. Additionally, though there
was a period of months where Patient X did not see Dr. Healley for medical care, this amount of
time was not a long enough cooling-off period to allow for the power-imbalance existing between
a physician and patient to disappear between Dr. Healley and Patient X. It was established during
the hearing that Dr. Healley and Patient X were having a sexual relationship during the time Dr.
Healley was providing medical care for Patient X’s children and given that Patient X was
accompanying her children to these medical visits and giving consent on their behalf, there was
still a clear power-imbalance between Dr. Healley and Patient X at this time.
Mr. Boyer argued that even if Patient X was the aggressor in the relationship as Dr. Healley had
testified, Dr. Healley was in a position of power and influence over Patient X and had the
authority and moral and professional obligation to deny such advances, if they occurred. Dr.
Healley’s actions of
are indicative of actions a physician would take for a
patient of theirs. Lastly, Mr. Boyer argued that the passage of time of only a few months since the
most recent clinic visit does not mean a physician-patient relationship should end and the
patient’s clinic chart be closed, as Dr. Healley had testified.
Mr. Boyer submitted that Patient X’s version of the events fits the preponderance of the
circumstances and not Dr. Healley’s.
Finally, Mr. Boyer submitted that on the preponderance of the evidence as a whole, Dr. Healley’s
version of the events was not as credible as Patient X’s version. The evidence presented clearly
shows that on the balance of probabilities an ongoing physician-patient relationship was in
existence between Dr. Healley and Patient X and overlapped with a sexual relationship between
the two, which included a time period where Dr. Healley provided medical care for Patient X’s
children. Mr. Boyer submitted Dr. Healley’s conduct in all of this was inappropriate and
unprofessional.
Mr. Steele made closing submissions on behalf of Dr. Healley. He indicated that while Dr.
Healley admitted to having a sexual relationship with Patient X, he was not Patient X’s physician
at the time of the sexual relationship. He contended that the physician-patient relationship
between Dr. Healley and Patient X ended when Dr. Healley referred Patient X to Dr.
A
He also pointed out much of Patient X’s verbal testimony was not
contained within her complaint letter to the College, which he suggested impacts her credibility
as a witness. He also submitted that Patient X’s testimony regarding the clinic visits she had with
Dr. Healley
was not truthful and indicated that her motivation to provide such testimony
was that she was upset over being rejected by Dr. Healley after seeking a serious relationship
with him but not being successful.
Mr. Steele submitted that there is no documented College Standard stating it is inappropriate for a
physician to have a sexual relationship with a parent of children who are his patients. He
submitted that the physician-patient relationship between Patient X and Dr. Healley ended
months before their sexual relationship started and that at the time of the sexual relationship there
was no power imbalance between the two.
Mr. Boyer submitted that while Patient X was not seeing Dr. Healley as a patient when she
brought her children in for medical visits with him, as she still represented her children at those
medical visits in the legal consent process, a power imbalance between her and Dr. Healley was
still existing. He pointed out that if found to be factually proven, Allegations 2 and 3 harm the
integrity of the profession, which would be a breach of the Canadian Medical Association Code
13
of Ethics. Such a breach would constitute “unprofessional conduct” as Section 25 of the College’s
Standards of Practice indicates all physicians must respect all aspects of the Canadian Medical
Association Code of Ethics.
Mr. Steele indicated that the College’s Standards of Practice were established January 1, 2010
and that virtually all of Dr. Healley’s conduct in this case is alleged to have occurred prior to that,
and as such, Dr. Healley should not be held to the College’s Standards.
VI
ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND ALLEGATIONS
Introduction
In reaching a decision in this hearing, the Hearing Tribunal must decide whether the College has
proven the allegations in the Notice of Hearing on a balance of probabilities.
If the allegations are factually proven, the Hearing Tribunal must then assess whether the proven
conduct constitutes "unprofessional conduct" as defined in Section 1(1)(pp) of the HPA.
The analysis and findings of the Hearing Tribunal in relation to each of the allegations is set out
below.
Allegation 1
Allegation 1 relates to the complaint made by Patient X regarding Dr. Healley’s behavior towards
her during medical clinic visits, their sexual relationship
Allegation 1(c) is factually proven, as Dr. Healley in his testimony admitted to having a sexual
relationship with Patient X
However, Dr. Healley denied the
remaining parts of Allegation 1.
The Hearing Tribunal did not have enough evidence to find Allegation 1(b) factually proven.
However, the Tribunal finds that the Allegations 1(a), 1(c) and 1(d) in the Notice of Hearing are
proven on a balance of probabilities, and moreover, that the conduct constitutes "unprofessional
conduct" as that term is defined in Section 1(1)(pp) of the HPA.
In determining whether the allegations which Dr. Healley denied were proven, the Hearing
Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of both Patient X and Dr. Healley, who gave
conflicting testimony regarding the events and the allegations. In general, the Hearing Tribunal
found Patient X to be a more credible witness than Dr. Healley. Where their evidence conflicted
on material points, the Hearing Tribunal preferred the testimony of Patient X. The reasons for
preferring Patient X's testimony are:
a) Patient X presented herself as more believable and credible than Dr. Healley. Details of
her testimony were confirmed in repeated cross-examination and her actions seemed
consistent with her testimony and stated motivations. She overall presented herself as a
credible, forthright witness.
b) At times during Dr. Healley's testimony, he did not seem forthright with his answers
when asked about discrepancies between his written reply to the College regarding
Patient X’s complaint and his verbal testimony. There were several instances where he
cited a lack of familiarity with the English language to explain these discrepancies. At
other times he appeared and was admittedly flustered during cross-examination. The
Tribunal felt these behaviors during his verbal testimony negatively impacted his
14
credibility and believability.The Tribunal found the discrepancies referred to here
negatively impacted Dr. Healley’s credibility and believability. These discrepancies will
be outlined below:
c) Dr. Healley testified that he only saw Patient X in clinic for
though he said
he might have seen her for other reasons but had not reviewed his chart. However,
Alberta Health and Wellness billing records submitted by Dr. Healley (Exhibit 6) clearly
document Patient X was seen by Dr. Healley for medical reasons in addition to
d) Dr. Healley testified that at the
Patient X
clinic visit for Patient X’s youngest child,
However, in his
email to Patient X dated
(Exhibit 9, page 117) he states “I hope you
don’t think it was bad of me to take you in my arms………If I overstepped my limits I
am appologising (sp)”.
e) Dr. Healley testified that it was Patient X who was the aggressor in their relationship and
that he was uncomfortable with her advances and would always try to come up with
reasons not to accept her invitations to socialize and would either not answer or at least
try to be vague when Patient X tried to ask him questions about his personal life during
clinic visits. Additionally he testified Patient X always initiated contact through email or
texting but he would always try to discourage further contact by not replying. However,
emails between Dr. Healley and Patient X (Exhibit 9) clearly show that at several times it
was Dr. Healley initiating contact with Patient X to invite her out for dinner or tea.
Additionally the email exchanges between Dr. Healley and Patient X in Exhibit 9
demonstrate he was responding enthusiastically to many of Patient X’s emails. When
asked why he repeatedly responded to Patient X’s emails when he was trying to
discourage contact, Dr. Healley stated he did so “out of courtesy”. The Tribunal did not
accept this testimony from Dr. Healley. Though Patient X did give Dr. Healley Christmas
gifts and did compliment him in email messages, the Tribunal feels these actions only
establish her feelings towards Dr. Healley at that time. Given these discrepancies in Dr.
Healley’s testimony and the preponderance of evidence surrounding this material point,
the Tribunal did not believe Dr. Healley’s testimony that Patient X was the aggressor in
their relationship and that he was always trying to avoid her advances.
f) Dr. Healley testified that neither he or Patient X wanted a serious relationship and all
Patient X was seeking was a casual sexual relationship with him. Patient X’s emails
indicate otherwise, as she clearly stated how she was considering the impact of a new
relationship on her children and how important it was to Patient X to know more about
Dr. Healley’s personal life and marital status before committing to a relationship with
him. Patient X testified that at the time of the relationship, she felt Dr. Healley loved her
and they were in a serious committed relationship and the preponderance of evidence and
her actions support this testimony. Dr. Healley’s evidence on this point was at odds with
the credible evidence, and therefore, the Tribunal accepted Patient X’s testimony over Dr.
Healley’s on this material point.
g) Dr. Healley testified that the topic of
never came up in clinic visits with
Patient X. However, in Dr. Healley’s chart notes for Patient X, he has documented she
has a family history of
(Exhibit 4, page 16).
15
h) Dr. Healley testified that there was never any flirting or inappropriate touching during
Patient X’s clinic appointments with him
as Patient X had testified. On the
balance of probabilities, the Tribunal found Patient X’s testimony more believable
surrounding this allegation. The Tribunal felt that on the balance of probabilities, it was
more likely that there was flirting during the
clinic appointments which contributed
to the development and cultivation of an emotional relationship between Dr. Healley and
Patient X. This emotional relationship was the lead-up to the initiation of a physical and
sexual relationship
which both Dr. Healley and
Patient X testified occurred. The Tribunal did not accept Dr. Healley’s testimony that
there was absolutely no flirting and touching in the
clinic visits and then in
a
physical and sexual relationship spontaneously started.
i)
Dr. Healley testified that his role as Patient X’s physician and their physician-patient
relationship ended in
when he referred Patient X to Dr.
A
The Tribunal concluded this was not the case and that the
physician-patient relationship between Dr. Healley and Patient X was never terminated.
Dr. Chaytors’ expert testimony found no obvious evidence that this therapeutic
relationship ended. There was no chart documentation that Dr. Healley formally ended
his role as Patient X’s physician. Additionally, he continued to initial and file medical
investigation results for Patient X. Dr. Healley ordered laboratory tests and an ultrasound
and
, which the
Tribunal felt were actions clearly reflective of a physician role for Patient X. Finally, Dr.
A’s letter to Dr. Healley dated
after the successful birth of her
youngest child clearly states Dr.
A was returning Patient X to Dr. Healley’s care.
The Tribunal did not accept Dr. Healley’s testimony that with a referral to Dr.
A
for management of
, Dr.
A was at that point responsible for
all of Patient X’s medical care.
In light of the Tribunal's findings regarding credibility outlined above, the Hearing Tribunal finds
that Patient X’s testimony regarding Allegations 1(a), (c), and (d) is more credible and believable
than Dr. Healley’s. Accordingly, where the testimony differs on material points, the Tribunal
accepts the version of events presented by Patient X and rejects the version of events put forward
by Dr. Healley.The Tribunal does not believe the physician-patient relationship ever ended
between Dr. Healley and Patient X, and feels that there was an ongoing power imbalance between
them.
Allegations 1(a): Failing to maintain an appropriate physician and patient relationship, in
particular flirting with Patient X during medical appointments.
The Tribunal finds that Allegation 1(a) is factually proven.
At Patient X's
with Dr. Healley in
, he rubbed her leg, calf
and back. No medical explanation for this type of touching was provided, and Patient X had not
complained to Dr. Healley about any issue with her leg, calf or back that she wanted medical
attention for. Dr. Healley arranged to assess Patient X every 2 weeks for
clinic visits and
the flirting continued at each visit. He complimented Patient X and called her the “most beautiful
patient I have” and the “most gorgeous girl”. Hugging occurred in the examination room during
the clinic visits. Patient X confided in Dr. Healley details of the emotional stressors in her life at
that time, including
. Dr.
Healley shared details of his marriage and divorce with Patient X.
16
Given that Patient X was experiencing significant emotional stressors in her life during these
medical visits, merely hugging Patient X would not necessarily have been inappropriate.
However, Patient X described physical contact in her testimony that goes beyond a mere hug. The
Tribunal finds that the sum total of the kind of touching and flirting as described by Patient X to
have occurred during her
clinic visits with Dr. Healley was clearly inappropriate
and had no therapeutic value whatsoever.
The Tribunal also finds that the conduct in issue constitutes "unprofessional conduct", which is
defined in Section 1(1)(pp) of the HPA to include conduct that breaches the Standards of Practice,
or conduct that harms the integrity of the profession. Dr. Healley’s behavior during Patient X's
clearly harm the integrity of the profession, given that there
was no therapeutic purpose for the touching that occurred and given the inappropriateness of the
comments made by Dr. Healley towards Patient X.
From 1992 and including the time of Dr. Healley’s conduct, the College had in place a policy
entitled Doctor/Patient Sexual Involvement (Exhibit 13). That policy held that there are no
circumstances in which sexual activity between a doctor and patient is acceptable. The policy
indicated that any behavior, gesture or expression that is sexualized or seductive is considered
unprofessional. While the policy did not make express reference to doctors engaging in sexual
involvement with a patient’s parent or guardian, the policy stated that the dynamics involved in
doctor/patient relationships include power, authority, control and trust and these factors preclude,
absolutely, gaining consent for sexual involvement with a patient. It also stated that sexual or
romantic relationships between doctors and their former patients are unethical if there is a
potential for the physician to use or exploit the trust, knowledge, emotions or influence derived
from the previous professional relationship.
The HPA defines unprofessional conduct to include breaches of the College’s standards of
practice however the Tribunal recognized that it would be unfair to find Dr. Healley guilty of
unprofessional conduct under the HPA based solely on a breach of the 1992 policy that was in
place prior to the HPA coming into effect. Nevertheless the Tribunal considered the content of the
1992 policy relevant in assessing whether Dr. Healley’s conduct harmed the integrity of the
profession. The Tribunal was of the view that the public should be able to expect physicians to
abide by College policies, particularly those dealing with doctor/patient sexual involvement. Dr.
Healley’s departure from the principles espoused in the 1992 policy clearly harmed the integrity
of the profession.
The Tribunal finds that Dr. Healley’s behaviors of hugging, discussing his own marriage, calling
Patient X his most beautiful patient, a gorgeous girl, and a perfect 10 suggest that there was an
attempt by Dr. Healley to develop an intimate relationship with Patient X, with the further hope
of developing a sexual relationship, which is what ultimately occurred and Dr. Healley admitted
to. The conduct in issue clearly constitutes "unprofessional conduct" given the context in
Allegation 1(a).
The Tribunal also noted that Dr. Healley’s conduct constituted a breach of standard 35,
subsections 1(d), (h) and (i) of the College’s Standards of Practice, which state that a physician
must not make sexualizing comments towards patients, must maintain appropriate professional
boundaries in their interactions with patients, must not make sexualizing body contact including
frotteurism, kissing, hugging or fondling, and must not socialize with a patient in the context of
developing an intimate relationship (Exhibit 12). While the Standards of Practice make it clear
that hugging a patient is not always inappropriate, the Standards contemplate that if there is a
sexual overtone present, such conduct is never acceptable.
17
Standard of Practice 35 came into effect on January 1, 2010 after most of the conduct at issue in
this case. The Tribunal did not base its decision on any breach of Standard of Practice 35, but the
Tribunal noted that Standard 35 appeared to be only a restatement of existing principles.
Allegation 1(b):
The Tribunal did not find this Allegation factually proven.
Patient X was only able to provide equivocal verbal testimony regarding this allegation and stated
that Dr. Healley only hinted at this. The Tribunal did not find this allegation to be proven on the
balance of probabilities.
Allegation 1(c): Having sexual intercourse with Patient X on more than one occasion
Dr. Healley admitted to this conduct in his testimony and his reply letter to the College dated
September 24, 2010 (Exhibit 3). Dr. Healley testified that the physician-patient relationship
between him and Patient X ended in
, but the Tribunal did not accept this
testimony and found no evidence of a formal termination of the physician-patient relationship
between Dr. Healley and Patient X. The Tribunal felt that a power imbalance still existed at the
time of the physical and sexual relationship between Dr. Healley and Patient X.
The Tribunal finds this allegation was proven, and moreover that the conduct clearly constitutes
unprofessional conduct.
The Tribunal also finds that the conduct in issue constitutes "unprofessional conduct", which is
defined in Section 1(1)(pp) of the HPA to include conduct that breaches the Standards of Practice,
or conduct that harms the integrity of the profession. Dr. Healley’s behavior in this matter clearly
harms the integrity of the profession.
From 1992 and including the time of Dr. Healley’s conduct, the College had in place a policy
entitled Doctor/Patient Sexual Involvement (Exhibit 13). Much of Dr. Healley’s conduct in
relation to Allegation 1(c) occurred before the HPA was proclaimed. The College’s existing
Physician/Patient Sexual Involvement policy (Exhibit 13) held that there are no circumstances in
which sexual activity between a doctor and patient is acceptable. The policy indicated that any
behavior, gesture or expression that is sexualized or seductive is considered unprofessional.
While the policy did not make express reference to doctors engaging in sexual involvement with
a patient’s parent or guardian, the policy stated that the dynamics involved in doctor/patient
relationships include power, authority, control and trust and these factors preclude, absolutely,
gaining consent for sexual involvement with a patient. It also stated that sexual or romantic
relationships between doctors and their former patients are unethical if there is a potential for the
physician to use or exploit the trust, knowledge, emotions or influence derived from the previous
professional relationship.
The HPA defines unprofessional conduct to include breaches of the College’s standards of
practice however the Tribunal recognized that it would be unfair to find Dr. Healley guilty of
unprofessional conduct under the HPA based solely on a breach of the 1992 policy that was in
place prior to the HPA coming into effect. Nevertheless the Tribunal considered the content of the
1992 policy relevant in assessing whether Dr. Healley’s conduct harmed the integrity of the
profession. The Tribunal was of the view that the public should be able to expect physicians to
18
abide by College policies, particularly those dealing with doctor/patient sexual involvement. Dr.
Healley’s departure from the principles espoused in the 1992 policy clearly harmed the integrity
of the profession.
Standard of Practice 35 came into effect on January 1, 2010 after most of the conduct at issue in
this Allegation. The Tribunal did not base its decision on any breach of Standard of Practice 35,
but the Tribunal noted that Standard 35 appeared to be only a restatement of existing principles.
Allegation 1(d):
The Tribunal finds this allegation factually proven.
The Tribunal finds this allegation was proven, and moreover that the conduct clearly constitutes
unprofessional conduct in that Dr. Healley was providing medical services in a situation where
there was a clear conflict of interest. The Tribunal finds this conduct harmful to the integrity of
the medical profession and as such finds the conduct in this respect unprofessional, as defined by
the Health Professions Act Section 1(1)(pp)(xii).
Conclusion Regarding Allegation 1
The Tribunal has carefully considered the totality of the evidence pertaining to Dr. Healley’s
interactions with Patient X. The Tribunal notes that none of the behavior that is the subject of the
Allegation 1(a) had any therapeutic or diagnostic relevance in providing medical care for Patient
X. Instead, Dr. Healley’s behavior towards Patient X during
clinic visits she had with
him
, as outlined above, constituted sexual boundary
violations. The Tribunal feels Dr. Healley used his position of authority and influence to groom
an intimate relationship with a vulnerable patient which culminated in having sexual intercourse
with her on several occasions
, an allegation that Dr. Healley
admitted to. He repeatedly made comments to her during medical appointments which appeared
to be sexualized, given the context in which they were made and touched her inappropriately
during clinic visits. The Tribunal believes the purpose of this conduct was to develop and groom
an intimate relationship with Patient X. While the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to prove
on the balance of probability that Dr. Healley encouraged Patient X
, the Tribunal did conclude that the physician-patient
19
relationship between Dr. Healley and Patient X never formally ended and that the associated
power imbalance of this relationship still existed at the time of their physical and sexual
relationship.
The Tribunal found this conduct to be harmful to the reputation and
integrity of the medical profession. The Tribunal feels the proven elements of Allegation 1 clearly
constitute unprofessional conduct according the Health Professions Act.
Allegation 2:
Having treated Patient Y, a minor child,
and
while having a sexual relationship with his mother,
Patient X
Allegation 2 relates to the complaint made by Patient X whereby Dr. Healley treated one of her
children, Patient Y, who was a minor at the time while having a sexual relationship with Patient
X.
The Hearing Tribunal finds that the Allegation 2 in the Notice of Hearing is factually proven, and
moreover, that the conduct constitutes "unprofessional conduct” as it is defined in Section
1(1)(pp) of the HPA.
In determining whether Allegation 2 was proven, the Hearing Tribunal considered Dr. Healley’s
admission of having had a sexual relationship with Patient X from
The Tribunal confirmed that Dr. Healley provided medical care to Patient Y on
, as shown in Alberta Health & Wellness billing
claims submitted by Dr. Healley (Exhibit 7).
Dr. Healley contended that he was not Patient X’s physician at the time of their sexual
relationship and therefore there was no power imbalance between himself and Patient X at the
time of the events of this allegation. However, for reasons outlined above, the Tribunal concluded
the physician-patient relationship between Dr. Healley and Patient X was never terminated and as
such, there still was a power imbalance between the two of them at the time of their sexual
relationship. Additionally, the Tribunal finds that this power differential between himself and
Patient X also existed at those dates because Patient X accompanied and acted as guardian for
Patient Y at medical appointments with Dr. Healley in
and
In light of the Tribunal's findings regarding the ongoing existence of a clear power imbalance
between Dr. Healley and Patient X from
, the Tribunal, in
addition to finding Allegation 2 factually proven, finds Dr. Healley’s actions during these events
to be “unprofessional conduct”, as it is conduct harmful to the integrity of the medical profession,
as outlined in Section 1(1)(pp)(xii) of the Health Professions Act.
The Tribunal also finds that the conduct in issue constitutes "unprofessional conduct", which is
defined in Section 1(1)(pp) of the HPA to include conduct that breaches the Standards of Practice,
or conduct that harms the integrity of the profession.
As noted above, the College had in place a policy entitled Doctor/Patient Sexual Involvement
(Exhibit 13) at the time of Dr. Healley’s conduct with respect to this Allegation. That policy held
that there are no circumstances in which sexual activity between a doctor and patient is
acceptable. The policy indicated that any behavior, gesture or expression that is sexualized or
seductive is considered unprofessional. While the policy did not make express reference to
doctors engaging in sexual involvement with a patient’s parent or guardian, the policy stated that
20
the dynamics involved in doctor/patient relationships include power, authority, control and trust
and these factors preclude, absolutely, gaining consent for sexual involvement with a patient. It
also stated that sexual or romantic relationships between doctors and their former patients are
unethical if there is a potential for the physician to use or exploit the trust, knowledge, emotions
or influence derived from the previous professional relationship.
The HPA defines unprofessional conduct to include breaches of the College’s standards of
practice however the Tribunal recognized that it would be unfair to find Dr. Healley guilty of
unprofessional conduct under the HPA based solely on a breach of the 1992 policy that was in
place prior to the HPA coming into effect. Nevertheless the Tribunal considered the content of the
1992 policy relevant in assessing whether Dr. Healley’s conduct harmed the integrity of the
profession. The Tribunal was of the view that the public should be able to expect physicians to
abide by College policies, particularly those dealing with doctor/patient sexual involvement. Dr.
Healley’s departure from the principles espoused in the 1992 policy clearly harmed the integrity
of the profession and therefore the Tribunal finds his conduct with regards to this Allegation
unprofessional.
Conclusion Regarding Allegation 2
The Hearing Tribunal finds that the conduct in issue constitutes "unprofessional conduct" within
the meaning of Section 1(1)(pp)(xii), which defines such conduct to include that harms the
integrity of the profession. The Tribunal found that the conduct referenced in Allegation 2 is
unprofessional because Dr. Healley while providing medical care to a minor whose mother he
was having a sexual relationship with, held a large power imbalance over both the patient and his
mother. Additionally, the Tribunal found no substantial evidence that Dr. Healley had officially
terminated the physician-patient relationship he had with Patient X at the time of their sexual
relationship, which the Tribunal feels reinforced the power imbalance between Dr. Healley and
Patient X. Such actions are not appropriate, given the power imbalance between a physician and a
patient or the individual who acts as guardian of a minor patient.
Allegation 3:
Having treated Patient Z, a minor child,
while having a sexual relationship with his mother,
Patient X.
Allegation 3 relates to the complaint made by Patient X whereby Dr. Healley treated one of her
children, Patient Z, who was a minor at the time while having a sexual relationship with Patient
X.
No evidence was called to prove this allegation as it relates to the date of
However, the Tribunal finds that the rest of Allegation 3 is proven, and moreover that the proven
conduct constitutes “unprofessional conduct”.
In determining whether Allegation 3 was proven, the Hearing Tribunal considered Dr. Healley’s
admission of having had a sexual relationship with Patient X from
The Tribunal confirmed that Dr. Healley provided medical care to Patient Z on
and
as shown in Alberta Health & Wellness billing claims submitted by Dr.
Healley (Exhibit 8).
The Tribunal had the same considerations as it did for Allegation #2 with regards to the ongoing
existence of a clear power imbalance between Patient X and Dr. Healley at the time of Patient Z’s
medical appointments with Dr. Healley in
21
In light of the Tribunal's findings regarding the ongoing existence of a clear power imbalance
between Dr. Healley and Patient X from
, the Tribunal, in
addition to finding Allegation 3 factually proven, finds Dr. Healley’s actions during these events
to be “unprofessional conduct”, as it is conduct harmful to the integrity of the medical profession,
as outlined in Section 1(1)(pp)(xii) of the Health Professions Act for the reasons described above
for Allegation 2.
Conclusion Regarding Allegation 3
The Hearing Tribunal finds that the conduct in issue constitutes "unprofessional conduct" within
the meaning of Section 1(1)(pp)(xii) of the HPA, which defines such conduct to include that
which harms the integrity of the profession. The Tribunal found that the conduct referenced in
Allegation 3 is unprofessional because Dr. Healley, while providing medical care to a minor
whose mother he was having a sexual relationship with, held a large power imbalance over both
the patient and his mother. Additionally, the Tribunal found no substantial evidence that Dr.
Healley had officially terminated the physician-patient relationship he had with Patient X at the
time of their sexual relationship, which the Tribunal feels reinforced the power imbalance
between Dr. Healley and Patient X. Such actions are not appropriate, given the power imbalance
between a physician and a patient or the individual who acts as guardian of a minor patient.
While forming conclusions regarding Allegations 2 and 3 and whether or not the Dr. Healley still
held a position of power and influence typical of the physician-patient relationshiop, the Tribunal
carefully took into consideration the evidence presented plus case law presented by Mr. Boyer in
his closing arguments. In particular, in the case of Branigan v. Yukon Medical Council the Court
found evidence supporting a finding against a physician which included the physician providing
medical care to children whose mother he was having a sexual relationship with. In the case of
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Boodoosingh, the investigated physician
appealed a finding by stating the doctor-patient relationship had ended before he had a sexual
relationship with a patient. However, the Court rejected this argument and stated whether or not
the doctor-patient relationship formally ended, the physician still had the influence of doctor over
the complainant which he improperly took advantage of. Finally, in the case of McKee v. College
of Psychologists of British Columbia, the investigated member admitted to a sexual relationship
with a client, but only after the professional relationship had ended between the two of them.
However, the Board rejected this argument and found that there was neither the sufficiency in the
passage of time, nor sufficiency in any formal steps taken to bring the professional relationship to
an end prior to the initiation of a sexual relationship. The Court in this case noted that the
professional relationship between a client and psychologist does not necessarily end upon
termination of a course of treatment and that whether the professional relationship has been
terminated must depend on evaluation of all the circumstances. The Tribunal found these cases
relevant to the present hearing.
VII
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal’s findings with respect to the allegations are as
follows:
Allegation 1(a) – proven
Allegation 1(b) – not proven
Allegation 1(c) – proven
Allegation 1(d) – proven
Allegation 2 – proven
Allegation 3 – proven
22
The Hearing Tribunal will receive submissions on sanction from the parties. The parties are
encouraged to discuss the possibility of making submissions on sanction in writing, so as to
ensure that this matter can be concluded expeditiously. If either party wishes to make oral
submissions on sanction please advise so that a date can be scheduled. The Tribunal suggests a
deadline of 3 (three) weeks from receipt of this decision for provision of the Complaints
Director's written submissions on sanctions to Dr. Healley and a further 1 (one) week for Dr.
Healley to respond. The Tribunal acknowledges that these deadlines are suggestions only and the
parties should agree on alternate deadlines or seek further direction from the Tribunal if necessary
Dated at the City of Edmonton in the Province of Alberta this
day of
, 2012.
Signed on behalf of the Hearing Tribunal by the Chair
_____________________________
Dr. Don Yee
23
COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ALBERTA
IN THE MATTER OF
A HEARING UNDER THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS ACT,
R.S.A. 2000, c. C-7
AND IN THE MATTER OF A HEARING REGARDING
THE CONDUCT OF DR. WILLIAM HEALLEY
DECISION OF THE HEARING TRIBUNAL OF
THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS
AND SURGEONS OF ALBERTA REGARDING PENALTY
The Hearing Tribunal has carefully considered the written submissions regarding penalty
from both Mr. Craig Boyer (on behalf of the College) and Mr. David Steele (on behalf of
Dr. Healley), including the case law presented in their written submissions.
After consideration of the submissions from both parties, the Hearing Tribunal hereby
makes the following orders pursuant to s. 82 ofthe HPA:
1. Dr. Healley's practice permit will be subject to a suspension of sixteen (16)
months, of which Dr. He alley will serve a period of ten (1 0) months of active
suspension starting on a date determined by the Complaints Director and six (6)
months held in abeyance pending fulfillment of the additional terms of the
sanction order.
2. Dr. Healley will complete a boundaries course acceptable to the Complaints
Director. The Hearing Tribunal acknowledges that Dr. Healley has satisfied this
requirement by completing the boundary course offered by the College of
Physicians & Surgeons of British Columbia in October 2010, which is one ofthe
courses deemed acceptable by the Complaints Director.
3. Dr. Healley, at his own cost, will attend and fully participate in a multidisciplinary assessment at the Gabbard Center in Texas, under the directorship of
Dr. Glen Gabbard, or such other assessment program as is acceptable to the
Complaints Director.
4. If the Assessment determines that Dr. Healley is not fit to return to the practice of
medicine, that his practice permit will continue to be suspended until he is found
fit to return to practice, even if the original period of active suspension is expired.
5. Conditions will be imposed on Dr. Healley's Practice Permit based on any
recommendations from the multi-disciplinary assessment, as determined by the
Complaints Director. If there is disagreement as to the nature, scope or duration of
any condition on the practice permit, clarification would be sought from Dr.
Gabbard, and failing agreement of the parties, that the issue would be determined
by a Hearing Tribunal.
6. In addition to any practice permit conditions recommended from the multidisciplinary assessment, Dr. Healley' s practice permit is to have a condition that
he must have a chaperone present with all female patients over the age of 14 years
attending for themselves and with any female guardian of a minor patient under
the age of 14 years. The chaperone must be aware of the findings and order of the
Hearing Tribunal and have successfully completed the College's chaperone
training course.
7. Dr. Healley is required to participate in the College's boundary violators'
aftercare program for a minimum of 5 years.
8. In the event that the Complaints Director believes that Dr. Healley has not
complied with the terms of the Hearing Tribunal's order, the matter is to be
brought back to a Hearing Tribunal to determine if Dr. Healley should be required
to serve all or a portion of the suspension that is being held in abeyance.
9. Dr. Healley is responsible for the full costs of the investigation and the hearing
before the Hearing Tribunal.
In making these orders, the Hearing Tribunal has carefully considered the written
submissions of the parties, and has specifically considered the factors referenced in
Jaswal v. Newfoundland Medical Board, which were addressed to some extent by both
parties. The only point Dr. Healley disputes with respect to the sanctions sought by the
Complaints Director is the length of suspension. The reasons for the order as it pertains to
the length of suspension are as follows:
The Hearing Tribunal found that the conduct in this case was very serious. The
physician-patient relationship and associated power imbalance between Dr. Healley
and Patient X never ended during the proven period of unprofessional conduct. Dr.
Healley's acts of having sexual relations with Patient X are an egregious and severe
breach of the public's expectations for physicians and Dr. Healley's actions harmed
the integrity of the medical profession. Additionally, his inappropriate actions and
comments during medical appointments with Patient X while lesser in severity than
his sexual relationship with Patient X, are still components of an overall pattern of
behavior he had towards Patient X where he attempted to groom an intimate
relationship during medical appointments with the aim of ultimately having sexual
intercourse with Patient X. The Tribunal feels the sum total of these behaviors bring
harm to the integrity and reputation of the medical profession.
The Hearing Tribunal feels that a suspension of sixteen ( 16) months with six (6)
months in abeyance is an appropriate suspension time and is in proportion to the
severity ofDr. Healley's transgressions. Additionally, a suspension of sixteen (16)
months is within the range of previous Hearing Tribunal and other decisions
involving physicians who had sexual relationships with their patients.
As counsel for Dr. Healley indicated Dr. Healley did not dispute the other sanctions
sought by the Complaints Director, the Tribunal will make only brief comments about
those other sanctions. The Tribunal accepts that the boundaries course, the
multidisciplinary assessment and the resulting practice permit conditions, the chaperone
condition and the requirement to participate in the boundary violators' aftercare program
are appropriate in cases of boundary violations such as this one. These sanctions are all
directly related to Dr. Healley's proven unprofessional conduct and are predominantly
remedial in nature.
On the issue of costs, the Tribunal notes that the Complaints Director is seeking the full
costs of the investigation and hearing. The Tribunal notes that Dr. Healley acknowledges
the normal imposition of this sanction. The Tribunal notes that all three of the allegations
were proven in this case and that only allegation 1(b) was not found proven. All of the
witnesses gave relevant and useful evidence. The Tribunal also felt that all of the hearing
time was used effectively and that Dr. Healley should bear the full costs of this case.
Overall, the Tribunal acknowledges that this penalty is significant, but the Tribunal also
feels it is in proportion to the severity of the proven unprofessional conduct. Patient X
was in an emotionally vulnerable state when Dr. Healley began to groom her for a sexual
relationship and she gave evidence that she suffered emotional anguish as a result of her
relationship with Dr. Healley. Additionally, the boundary violations continued over a
long period oftime between
and Dr. Healley has not acknowledged
the impropriety of the intimate relationship given that he never formally terminated his
physician-patient relationship with patient X and he continued to provide care for patient
X' s children while he was intimately involved with her.
The Tribunal acknowledges that Dr. Healley has started to take steps to rehabilitate
himself by completing the College ofPhysicians & Surgeons of British Columbia
Boundaries course. The Tribunal also acknowledges that Dr. Healley has expressed his
willingness to fully cooperate with the rest of the recommended sanctions sought by the
Complaints Director. Further, the Tribunal acknowledges that Dr. Healley has been
practicing since 1980 and since 1997 in Canada and that he has no prior discipline
history.
However, the Hearing Tribunal feels that the proven unprofessional conduct in the case
represents severe boundary violations and as such, sanctions in proportion to the severity
of Dr. Healley' s unprofessional conduct are warranted.
Dated this 22nd day of October, 2012
Signed on behalf of the Hearing Tribunal by the Chair
Dr. Don Yee