The accused, a neurologist practising in an urgent neurology clinic, faced 48 remaining counts of sexual assault arising from allegedly inappropriate medical examinations of female patients over a lengthy period.
After a very long trial, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the impugned touching was objectively sexual in nature, failed to prove that the accused used medical examinations as a fraudulent ruse to gain sexual access to patients' bodies, and failed to displace the reasonable alternative inference that the examinations were carried out for medical purposes.
The court admitted the Crown's expert neurology evidence and the cross-count similar fact evidence, but assigned the expert's opinion little or no weight on key issues because of scope problems, inconsistencies, anecdotal foundations, and situational bias, and found the similar fact evidence ultimately incapable of carrying the Crown's burden.
The court repeatedly found complainant evidence unreliable or tainted by media and CPSO publicity, accepted the accused's evidence that he proposed, explained, and performed the examinations in accordance with his training and standard methods, and concluded that the proven examinations were medical examinations to which the patients consented.
All 48 remaining counts resulted in acquittals.
