Dr. George Mashour

An anesthesiologist was convicted at trial of 21 counts of sexual assault against female patients who underwent surgery under conscious sedation at a hospital.

The appellant appealed on three grounds: (1) that the trial judge erred in finding he had the opportunity to commit the offences; (2) that the trial judge mishandled expert evidence regarding the effects of anesthetics on patient awareness and memory, including evidence about anesthetic-induced hallucinations and the bite-down reflex; and (3) that the trial judge improperly relied on evidence of similar acts to establish guilt on individual counts.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge's factual findings were grounded in evidence, free from misapprehension, and entitled to deference.

The court emphasized that the appellant had exclusive opportunity to commit the offences, that the trial judge properly assessed conflicting expert evidence, and that evidence of similar acts was properly used as circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, an anesthesiologist, was charged with 21 counts of sexual assault against female patients.

The assaults allegedly occurred while the patients were under conscious sedation during various surgeries.

The defence argued that the accused lacked the opportunity to commit the offences undetected and that the anesthetic drugs caused sexual hallucinations, rendering the complainants' memories unreliable.

The court rejected these arguments, finding that the operating room draping provided sufficient concealment and that the drugs administered do not cause hallucinations of sexual assault.

Relying on the objective improbability of coincidence as similar fact evidence, the court found the accused guilty on all 21 counts.

The accused, an anesthesiologist, was charged with 21 counts of sexual assault against female patients under his care during surgeries.

The Crown alleged that the accused used the cover of surgical draping and the patients' state of conscious sedation to commit the assaults undetected.

The defence argued that the assaults were physically impossible, could not have occurred without detection, and that the patients' memories were unreliable due to drug-induced hallucinations.

The court rejected the defence arguments, finding that the accused had the opportunity to commit the offences and that the drugs administered do not cause sexual hallucinations.

Relying on the objective improbability of coincidence as similar fact evidence, the court found the accused guilty on all 21 counts.