ONTARIO MEDICAL RADIATION AND IMAGING TECHNOLOGISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL

Date: April 13, 2026

Tribunal File No.: 26-001-MR

BETWEEN:

College of Medical Radiation and Imaging Technologists of Ontario

College

• and -

Vadim Khachaturov

Registrant

FINDING REASONS

Heard: February 10, 11, and 12, 2026

Panel:

Sophie Martel (panel chair)

Matt Brown (public)

Amanda Lee (medical radiation technologist)

Steven Mota (diagnostic medical sonographer)

Manjit Singh Saini (Bhondhi) (public)

Appearances:

Anastasia-Maria Hountalas and Enniael Stair, for the College

Vadim Khachaturov, self-represented Maureen Salama, counsel appointed to cross-examine the patient

RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Rule 2.2.2 of the HPDT Rules of Procedure and ss. 45-47 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, no one shall publish or broadcast the names of patients or any information that could identify patients or disclose patients’ personal health information or health records referred to at a hearing or in any documents filed with the Tribunal. The above restrictions do not apply to the publication or broadcast of the name of or information that could identify Michelle Jagmohan, unless such information could also identify another patient. There may be significant fines for breaching this restriction.

Introduction

1The registrant is a diagnostic medical sonographer. The allegations concern the echocardiogram he performed on a female patient (the patient) on July 20, 2024. The College of Medical Radiation and Imaging Technologists of Ontario (College) alleges that he touched the patient’s buttocks in a sexual manner, watched while she wiped gel off her chest, and stood in front of the doorway when she left the treatment room such that she had to go around him to exit the room. The College alleges that these actions constitute sexual abuse and abuse of a patient, a failure to maintain the standards of practice of the profession, and disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct.

2The patient and the registrant testified. The registrant testified and made his submissions with the occasional assistance of an interpreter. After considering the credibility and reliability of their evidence, we conclude that the College has not met its burden to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the registrant engaged in the alleged professional misconduct.

Evidence

Background and uncontested evidence

3At the time of the events at issue, the female patient was 20 years old and had a history of pulmonary embolism. The patient’s family physician requested that she undergo an echocardiogram due to possible heart enlargement. The patient had undergone one or two echocardiograms before although not with the registrant.

4The registrant was a physician prior to immigrating to Canada in 2013. He eventually completed the required education to become a diagnostic medical sonographer and started working in this field and registered with the College in 2021. He worked at four different clinics at the time of the events.

5The echocardiogram was performed in a small rectangular treatment room. There was a treatment table (which the witnesses at times referred to as a bed) against the opposite wall to the entrance door, with an ultrasound machine next to the treatment table. The room also had a desk with a computer on the left side of the door.

6The lights were dimmed during the test. The echocardiogram was performed using a transducer with gel on it.

Patient’s evidence

7The patient testified that after she had registered with reception, the registrant came to the waiting room to escort her to the treatment room. She described him as having a rough, agitated and aggressive verbal tone that was not welcoming. He did not smile. In cross-examination, she agreed that she formed a negative impression of him from his verbal tone.

8Once they entered the treatment room, the registrant asked her the relevant medical history questions. After the history, he provided her with a paper gown and instructed her to undress waist up with the gown opened at the front. In cross-examination, the patient agreed that in her written statement to the College, written about one month after the incident, she wrote that she was first asked to change into the gown before the registrant asked her the relevant medical history questions. However, the patient testified that she now believes that they had the history discussion before she changed into the gown.

9The patient testified that the registrant left the room while she undressed. Once she had put on the gown, he re-entered the room and asked her to lie on her left side with her face facing the wall. She rejected the suggestion put to her in cross-examination that she was first instructed to lie on her back for the placement of electrodes. The patient could not remember the electrodes being placed on her body although she remembers that she had at least one electrode on her shoulder. She does not remember if there was an electrode on the right and left side of her waist (subcostal) nor if there were wires coming out of the electrodes. She recalls that the registrant was wearing a glove on one hand.

10The patient testified that the registrant touched her buttocks three times prior to the start of the scan:

a. When she was lying on her side facing the wall, the registrant instructed her to move her body closer to the bed edge. The patient testified that the registrant was standing and she felt his leg, just above his knee, touch the cheek part of her buttocks. She described this touch as uncomfortable but accidental.

b. The patient then felt the palm of the registrant’s hand cup and touch her buttocks cheek for three to four seconds. She described this touch as very intentional.

c. After the registrant had sat down on his chair and was repositioning his chair to perform the test, she felt the side of his thigh brush against her buttocks. She described this touch as accidental.

11The patient felt but did not see the touches. She maintained in cross-examination that she felt the registrant’s body touch her and not any other object such as the elbow rests of the registrant’s chair. She did not say anything to the registrant about the touching as she felt uncomfortable and afraid. She continued feeling uncomfortable, unsafe and anxious for the remainder of the examination. She remained on her side for most of the imaging with the registrant sitting near the head of the treatment bed (close to her head). Near the end, she was instructed to lie on her back.

12After the test was completed, the registrant, while seated at the ultrasound machine, provided her with a paper towel to clean the gel off her chest. At this time, the patient testified that she was sitting, half naked with her gown open. The registrant walked to the other side of the room to the computer desk. He also turned up the lights. In her evidence in chief, she testified that the registrant was at the desk for one to two minutes watching her before he left the room to give her privacy to clean off the gel and get dressed. She was uncomfortable while the registrant remained in the room. Though she only saw him from her peripheral vision, she felt him watching her. She explained that even though she was sitting on the bed at this time and would have been able to see the registrant, she was not directly looking at him and she only peripherally saw and felt him watching her. In cross-examination, the patient was referred to her statement given to the College in which she wrote that the registrant had only stayed and watched her for four seconds. The patient agreed that the incident lasted four seconds and not one to two minutes as she had described in her evidence in chief.

13Once she had cleaned herself and was dressed, the patient testified that she opened the door to leave, but the registrant was standing by the exit such that she had to brush past him to return to the waiting room. In cross-examination, however, the patient was asked about her written statement in which she never indicated that there had been any physical contact, such as a brush, at the exit. The patient agreed that there was no brush nor other physical contact but that she had to go around the registrant to leave.

14There were also some inconsistencies in the patient’s evidence as to when she first told her mother, who waited for her in the waiting room, what had happened. In her examination in chief, she testified that she first told her mother what had occurred that day in the car in the driveway of their home on their way back from the appointment. In cross-examination, however, she was questioned about her written statement to the College, which indicated that she had told her mother earlier on, while they were still at the clinic, because her mother went back into the clinic to speak to the receptionist. The patient agreed that there was an inconsistency as to when she first reported the incident to her mother and agreed that she did not remember the exact order of events.

Registrant’s evidence

15The registrant testified that he works at multiple clinics five to seven days per week and sees 40 to 50 patients weekly. While he sees many patients, he testified that he remembers the patient and her appointment with him. He found out about the complaint in the first ten days of August. While the appointment was uneventful, he testified that he was able to recall the patient based on the description of the appointment she provided in her complaint.

16On the day of the appointment, he testified that once he was alerted to her arrival, he greeted the patient with a smile, as is his usual practice. He denied being unfriendly.

17Once inside the treatment room, he provided the patient with a gown, instructed her to remove everything from the waist up and to wear the gown with the opening at the front. He left the room while she changed. Once he returned to the room, he took her relevant medical history. He also took her blood pressure and heart rate and entered this data into the ultrasound machine. He then put a latex glove on his right hand and notified the patient he was ready to start the testing. He instructed her to first lie on her back. Once she was on her back, he placed three electrodes: on the upper part of the right shoulder and on the right and left subcostal areas. Once he connected the electrodes and wires with the machine and could see a normal picture, he got up to dim the lights for better image viewing.

18The registrant testified that he sat on an office chair with a back rest and elbow rests while scanning. To the best of his recollection, the up and down adjustments of the chair were not working. He can move the treatment table up and down.

19The registrant testified that he sat on the chair and instructed the patient to roll onto her left side and slide back to him. He explained that while providing these instructions he held the transducer in his right hand.

20The registrant testified that his body never touched the patient’s buttocks either accidentally or intentionally. While he agreed hypothetically that accidental touches can occur, he denied that this occurred. He explained that if there had been an accidental touch he would immediately have apologized. He also hypothesized that the handle or the back of his chair could have touched her but conceded that this was simply a guess. The registrant testified that the patient never indicated that anything was wrong. Furthermore, he explained that he requires a patient’s cooperation to conduct the test, such as following breathing instructions, which she did.

21The registrant testified that the scanning lasts about 35 minutes. In cross-examination it was brought to his attention that in his written response to the College, he had indicated that it was 40 minutes. The registrant explained that his estimates are approximate. He also explained that while it usually takes 40 minutes to conduct the test, in this patient’s case he was unable to obtain a subcostal view. Therefore, the test may have been shorter: closer to 35–37 minutes. He also explained that most of the scanning is done while the patient lies on her left side, but that the last seven to eight minutes are done while she is lying on her back.

22Once the test was complete, he removed the electrodes. There is a box of paper towels/wipes in the back compartment of the ultrasound machine. He reached behind the machine to retrieve two paper towel pieces, one which he gave to the patient and the other which he used to remove the gel from the transducer. After removing the gel from the transducer, he sprayed it with an antiseptic. After cleaning the transducer, he walked to the door, increased the lights and left the room – all while his back was to the patient. While he agreed that he would have walked by the computer desk to exit the room, he denies pausing at the desk. He does not know if the patient was sitting or standing when he left the room.

23In cross-examination, the registrant was also questioned as to whether it would be necessary for the patient to open her gown to remove the gel from her chest. The registrant believed that it would be possible to wipe the gel off without exposing the chest, although at some point the patient would need to remove the gown and verify if there was any remaining gel, which she could then remove with the paper gown.

24After leaving the treatment room, the registrant testified that he waited outside the door two metres away from the door. In cross-examination, he agreed that this was an approximate distance. He denied the suggestion that the patient had to make any manoeuvres to exit the room to walk to the waiting room. In cross-examination, it was suggested to him that his testimony was inconsistent with his written response to the complaint, in which he simply answered “no comment” to the patient’s allegation that she had to go around him to exit the room. It was suggested that this response meant that he had no memory of where he stood when the patient exited the room. The registrant denied this suggestion and explained that when he wrote his response, he did not believe that this allegation was a serious one that merited a response.

Burden of proof, credibility and reliability

25We must decide whether the College has proven on a balance of probabilities that the alleged events happened based on clear, cogent and reliable evidence.

26As can be seen from the above, some of the evidence from the patient and the registrant is contradictory. Given their conflicting evidence, we must assess the credibility and reliability of the patient and the registrant’s evidence regarding what happened at the appointment of July 20, 2024. Credibility refers to a witness’ sincerity and willingness to tell what they believe to be the truth. Reliability refers to the ability of a witness to accurately observe, recall and recount the events in question.

27In assessing the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, we have considered their ability to observe and recall the events, any interest or bias on their part, whether their evidence was internally consistent and consistent with other evidence, the plausibility of their evidence such as whether it accords with common sense and their appearance and demeanour (Re Pitts and Director of Family Benefits Branch of the Ministry of Community & Social Services, 1985 CanLII 2053 (ON SC) at pages 16-17). We recognize that demeanour alone is an unreliable predictor of the accuracy of the evidence of a witness. We also note that we may believe all, part of, or none of what a witness has said.

28Furthermore, we are mindful of not judging credibility and reliability based solely on the patient’s behaviour or by employing stereotypes about victims of sexual abuse, including how they are expected to behave during or following an instance of sexual abuse.

Analysis

29The patient described three touches to her buttocks. However, she characterized two of these touches as accidental. At the completion of her evidence, the College advised that it was no longer alleging that the accidental touches were sexual in nature. Similarly, the College also advised that it was no longer alleging that the registrant’s instruction to the patient that she wear the medical gown with the opening at the front was part of the pattern of sexual conduct. The College conceded that it was necessary for the registrant to have access to the chest area for clinical purposes.

30As a result of these acknowledgements, we are left with three allegations, which together the College submits amount to professional misconduct including sexual abuse of a patient: cupping the patient’s buttocks for three to four seconds, watching her while she cleaned herself after the procedure, and standing in front of the doorway in a way that required the patient to go around the registrant to exit the room.

General credibility and reliability comments

31We have concerns about the overall reliability of the patient’s evidence and her description of the appointment. For example, the patient maintained that she was first instructed to lie on her side, not on her back, and could not recall the registrant placing electrodes on her even though she remembered having one electrode on her right shoulder. The registrant’s evidence that he first instructed the patient to lie on her back was more credible than the patient’s evidence: it is more plausible that he would require the patient to be in a supine position for him to place the necessary electrodes on her shoulder and subcostal areas.

32The patient gave conflicting evidence about whether the medical history discussion occurred before or after she put on the gown. There was also an inconsistency as to when she first reported the incident to her mother. In any event, we find these two inconsistencies of limited relevance. Ultimately, it is the patient’s unreliability in respect of the allegations material to this application that are of greater concern.

33We also have some reservations about the registrant’s ability to recall some of the more detailed aspects of the appointment, such as how he greeted the patient and where he stood outside the door at the end of the appointment. The registrant testified that at the time of the patient’s appointment, he worked at four different clinics and saw 40 to 50 patients weekly. In our view, it is likely that some of the registrant’s testimony was based on his usual practice. For example, when he described greeting the patient, he testified that he greeted the patient with a smile as is his “usual” practice. While the registrant clarified that his testimony was based on an actual recollection of the appointment, we doubt that he could recall every part of that appointment, especially since he also testified that before receiving the complaint, he had viewed the patient’s appointment as being uneventful.

34We now address the three allegations.

Cupping the patient’s buttocks

35We accept that the patient believes that the registrant cupped her buttocks for three to four seconds. The patient’s testimony in this respect was straightforward, credible and without exaggeration. She readily acknowledged that two of the three touches to her buttocks felt accidental. While we accept that she honestly believes that the registrant cupped her buttocks with his hand, we do not find this belief reliable.

36The patient could not see the registrant. Therefore, she is basing her evidence on feel alone. She was clothed from the waist down, which means that there was a clothing barrier between the touch and her skin such that she may have misconstrued the touch. Based on the overall evidence, it is just as likely that some other object touched her buttocks such as the elbow rests of the registrant’s chair or the transducer. At the time that the touch allegedly occurred, the registrant had already placed electrodes on her chest and was wearing a glove and had the transducer in his right hand; it is improbable that his right hand, which was the hand closest to her buttocks, was free to touch her.

37The patient agreed that she formed a negative impression of the registrant from the time that he first greeted her. While we accept the registrant’s evidence that he usually greets patients with a smile, we accept the patient’s evidence that she felt that the registrant’s voice was rough, aggressive and unwelcoming when she first met him. This initial negative impression may then have inadvertently clouded her perceptions afterward.

38In conclusion, we find that the College has not proven this allegation on the balance of probabilities based on clear, cogent and reliable evidence. Our other concerns about the reliability of the patient’s evidence are further discussed in respect of the next two allegations.

Watching the patient remove gel from her chest

39We find the patient’s evidence that the registrant watched her while she removed the gel from her chest unreliable for several reasons. She herself admitted that she only felt the registrant watching her from her peripheral vision. She did not directly observe him watching her. It is also not clear why the patient only had a peripheral view of the registrant. The incident occurred in a small rectangular room with no obstacles impeding her vision. The patient testified that she was sitting on the treatment bed at the time such that she would have been able to see the registrant from that vantage point. It does not make sense that she would only have a peripheral vision of the registrant while he was at the computer desk. Most significantly, the patient’s evidence of how long the alleged incident occurred was inconsistent. In her evidence in chief, she testified that the registrant watched her for one to two minutes. However, in cross-examination, she acceded that it only lasted about four seconds. There is a significant time difference between one to two minutes and four seconds. This material discrepancy negatively impacts the reliability of the patient’s evidence.

40The registrant’s evidence was that after he gave the patient a paper towel wipe, he used another wipe to remove the gel from the transducer and then sprayed it with an antiseptic. He then walked over to the exit, lightened the room and left. While the registrant testified that he did not stop at the computer desk, we have some reservations about his ability to recall this level of specificity, as noted earlier. While we accept that it is his regular practice to leave the room after cleaning the transducer, it is also possible that he briefly stopped at the computer desk. However, even if he did so, according to the patient’s own evidence, this lasted for only four seconds. Furthermore, even if the registrant briefly stopped to observe paperwork or the computer screen, his eyes would have been on that paperwork and computer screen rather than on the patient.

41In conclusion, we do not accept that the registrant stayed in the treatment room for the purposes of watching the patient remove the gel from her chest. According to the patient’s own evidence, it was a matter of seconds from the time the test ended until the registrant left the room, and she never directly observed him watching her.

Registrant’s positioning at the door exit

42The patient’s evidence was that the registrant positioned himself at the exit in such a way that prevented her from leaving the room without going around him. Again, we have concerns about the patient’s credibility in this respect because of inconsistencies in her evidence. In her evidence in chief, she testified that she had to brush against the registrant to leave. However, in cross-examination, she agreed that she did not have to brush against him and that there was no physical contact. This discrepancy negatively impacts the reliability of her evidence, especially of her perception about what she viewed to be the deliberateness of the registrant’s positioning.

43We have the same reservations we described earlier about the registrant’s ability to recall his exact location while he waited outside the treatment door. While we accept the registrant’s evidence that he usually waits approximately two metres away from the door, we have reservations about his ability to remember exactly where he waited for this patient on July 20, 2024. In our view, it is possible that he was closer to the door than he remembers. However, even if he was closer than he remembers, we do not accept the patient’s perception that he intentionally positioned himself to make her go around him.

44In conclusion, we do not accept the patient’s evidence that the registrant deliberately positioned himself in a way that prevented her from exiting without having to go around the registrant. The patient exaggerated this part of her evidence by initially testifying that she had to brush against the registrant. There was at least room enough for her to exit without touching the registrant. Furthermore, given our conclusions on the other allegations, this allegation on its own, even if proven, does not amount to professional misconduct.

No professional misconduct

45We conclude that the College has not proven on a balance of probabilities that the registrant touched the patient’s buttocks in a sexual way, that he watched her while she removed the gel from her chest or that he deliberately positioned himself to prevent the patient from exiting without going around him. Based on these factual conclusions, we make no finding of professional misconduct.