His Majesty The King v. Wameed Ateyah, 2023 ONSC 6563

Court File No.: CR-20-00009942-00 Date: 2023-11-23 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Between:

His Majesty The King – and – Wameed Ateyah, Defendant

Counsel: Robert Scott, for the Crown David Humphrey and Jill Makepeace, for the Defendant

Heard: November 6, 2023

Restriction on Publication: The publication and broadcast of this decision is banned pursuant to subsection 486.4 of the Criminal Code. Information that may identify the complainants may not be published, broadcasted or transmitted in any manner. This decision complies with this restriction so that it can be published.

Reasons for Sentence

Cameron J.:

Overview

[1] Wameed Ateyah has been convicted of 16 counts of sexual assault and one count of sexual exploitation [1] in relation to the complaints of 13 women. I have stayed one conviction for sexual assault, count 12, pursuant to the principle in R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729, as it relates to A.R. because Dr. Ateyah has also been convicted of sexual exploitation arising out of the same event.

[2] Dr. Ateyah was a doctor who at the relevant time operated a clinic in Schomberg, Ontario. In addition to his family medicine practice where he saw rostered patients, Dr. Ateyah also saw patients on a walk-in basis. Dr. Ateyah was the only family doctor in Schomberg at the time. His clinic was also the only walk-in clinic in town.

A. Facts Relating to the Offences

[3] Below is a summary of my detailed finding of facts reported in my Reasons for Judgment at 2023 ONSC 5286. In accepting the evidence of each of the complainants, I found that none of the following examinations were medically necessary and that they were done for a sexual purpose.

Counts 1 and 2 – Sexual Assault

[4] C.G. was a long-time, rostered patient of Dr. Ateyah. Dr. Ateyah conducted a breast exam by asking her to lift up her shirt and bra while she was seated on the examination table, without affording her the privacy to change or giving her a gown. He then cupped both breasts and lifted them up one at a time.

[5] On another occasion, during an appointment without a chaperone and without being given privacy to change into a gown, Dr. Ateyah asked C.G. to lie on the examination table in the fetal position facing the wall. He then put his finger in and out of her vagina about five times with his body pushing up against her.

Count 3 – Sexual Assault

[6] S.T. attended for a physical and pap test in March 2018. After the chaperone left the room, Dr. Ateyah returned. He told her to lie on her side. He put his finger or fingers in her vagina and grunted. This took place after a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons (“CPSO”) by another patient and after Dr. Ateyah was required by the CPSO to have a practice monitor with him while seeing female patients.

Count 5 – Sexual Assault

[7] C.W. presented with back pain she thought may be related to her kidneys. Dr. Ateyah told her to undo her pants. He put his hand under her pants on top of her underwear and pressed his whole hand against her vagina and labia and held it there and then put his hand under her underwear. He was not wearing gloves. There was no chaperone present, and she was not given any type of draping.

[8] After she stood up, Dr. Ateyah came behind her and pulled her pants down. His hand went down between her legs on top of her underwear. He pressed his body against hers and rocked her back and forth with his body.

[9] C.W. is the patient who first reported this incident to the CPSO in October, 2016.

Count 6 – Sexual Assault

[10] T.R. attended for an appointment on the same day as her daughter, A.R. She was there for a physical with no specific health concerns. After the chaperone left, Dr. Ateyah told her to roll over onto her stomach and raise her hips into the air so that he could examine her. He felt inside her vagina with one hand.

Count 7 – Sexual Assault

[11] K.S. went to see Dr. Ateyah for a migraine. He told her to lie on the examination table, undo her pants and then he pressed on her vaginal area in the absence of a chaperone while mentioning “something about her ovaries”.

Count 8 – Sexual Assault

[12] E.G. attended Dr. Ateyah’s office complaining of lower abdominal pain. Dr. Ateyah did a bimanual exam with no chaperone present. He told her that her ovary felt inflamed. He also reached into her bra and felt her breasts.

Count 9 – Sexual Assault

[13] L.H. went to see Dr. Ateyah as a walk-in patient for “pink-eye”. He asked her to lie down, undo her pants and then he touched the area around her vagina. When listening to her chest with his stethoscope, he put the stethoscope directly on her nipple. All this was done without the presence of a chaperone.

Counts 10 and 11 – Sexual Assault

[14] Dr. Ateyah inserted a finger into E.B.’s vagina after a pap test and after the chaperone left the room. On another occasion, Dr. Ateyah massaged her genital area near her clitoris while telling her to relax as this was a treatment for her Ani Levator Syndrome. Prior to this appointment, E.B. had recently told Dr. Ateyah that she had been sexually assaulted and reported this to the police.

Count 13 – Sexual Exploitation

[15] A.R. went to an appointment with Dr. Ateyah on July 26, 2016 because she was having very bad menstrual cramps and was considering taking the birth control pill. With her mother in the next room, Dr. Ateyah asked her to pull down her pants. Dr. Ateyah then moved her underwear to the side and put a finger or fingers inside her vagina without a glove on. There was no chaperone in the room and she was not given a gown or other draping. A.R. testified that after the exam, Dr. Ateyah did not wash his hands.

Counts 16 and 17 – Sexual Assault

[16] M.R. was experiencing back pain. Dr. Ateyah told her to stand up while he grabbed both sides of her legs all the way up to her pelvic area. As Dr. Ateyah went up her legs with his hands, he brushed his hand against her vagina over her clothing.

[17] During either this appointment or a subsequent appointment, Dr. Ateyah advised M.R. that he wanted to do a pelvic examination. He told her to spread her legs. He reached under the sheet with one hand, moved her underwear to the side and felt the entrance of her vagina. He was not wearing gloves. He pushed on the area of her labia but did not penetrate her vagina.

[18] M.R. had 53 appointments with Dr. Ateyah. He was her family doctor. During the time she was his patient she was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis.

Count 18 – Sexual Assault

[19] J.H.(2) went to see Dr. Ateyah as she was having dull lower right abdominal pain. Dr. Ateyah told her to lie down on her stomach with her legs bent in the opposite direction (with her head towards the stirrups) so that he could examine her right side. While she was in this position he told her to put her ankles together and spread her knees so that it would be easier for him to examine her. He felt her right side with one hand and with the other hand he inserted two fingers into her vagina.

Count 19 – Sexual Assault

[20] S.H. attended an appointment with Dr. Ateyah for a physical. After her pap test, while a chaperone was leaning up against the wall adjacent to where she was lying, Dr. Ateyah positioned himself at the side of the bed and inserted a finger into her vagina. He removed his finger and inserted it again. This happened three to four times. S.H. then began to count. She counted Dr. Ateyah inserting and removing his finger an additional five times.

[21] After the chaperone left the room, Dr. Ateyah examined her breasts while she sat on the edge of the examination table. He told her to take down her gown. He stood back and looked at her breasts and told her that there was something wrong with her nipples. He touched her left breast and pushed it up.

Count 20 – Sexual Assault

[22] J.H.(1) went to see Dr. Ateyah because she was suffering from depression and her parents and boyfriend were concerned about her mental health. Dr. Ateyah asked her to lie down on the examination table and undo her pants. As she did so, he put his hand inside her pants and pressed on her vaginal area over her underwear.

B. The Facts Relating to the Offender

[23] Dr. Ateyah is 52 years old. Although he was qualified to practice medicine in Iraq, when he immigrated to Canada he was required to take further qualifications. As of December 2005, he was qualified to practice family medicine in Canada without restrictions. In 2007 he opened his family medicine and walk-in practice in Schomberg, Ontario. At that point he had approximately 2,000 rostered patients. He operated that practice until October 2018 when he moved his practice to Beeton, Ontario.

[24] Dr. Ateyah provided 99 letters of support. These letters were from close family members, including his former spouse and adult son, his brothers, many friends, colleagues and former patients. They are an impressive collection of testaments to a man well-loved, well respected and an accomplished physician who worked hard to build up a successful practice and a positive reputation in the community.

C. The Position of the Parties

[25] The Crown submits that an appropriate sentence in this case is nine years in jail. The Crown also asks for a number of ancillary orders under the Criminal Code of Canada, which are: a DNA order under s. 487.051; a SOIRA order for life pursuant to s. 490.012(1); an order prohibiting the possession of firearms under s. 109(1)(a) for 10 years; and an order under s. 743.21 that while in custody, he have no contact directly or indirectly with the complainants in this case.

[26] The Crown submits that consecutive sentences for the offences relating to each complainant should be imposed. The correct approach would then be to reduce the total sentence pursuant to the principle of totality. For each offence involving digital penetration, the Crown submits that an 18-month sentence is appropriate. For each offence involving vaginal touching underneath the clothing where there was no penetration, it is the Crown’s position that the sentence should be 12 months. For each offence of vaginal touching over the underwear, the Crown submits the sentence should be nine months. Finally, for the offence of sexual exploitation, where the complainant who was 17 years old at the time was digitally penetrated without gloves, the Crown submits that the appropriate custodial sentence is three years.

[27] It is the position of the Crown that there should be no credit for pre-sentence custody as Dr. Ateyah only spent five days in jail after his three arrest dates, and had basically no restrictions on his release other than to reside with his surety with whom he was already residing. His release order prohibited him from practicing medicine; however, this would have been a likely consequence of his arrest due to the policies of the CPSO.

[28] The Defence submits that Dr. Ateyah should be sentenced to three years in jail. It is the position of the Defence that given the breach of trust there is a need for the sentence to address the principles of general deterrence and denunciation, but specific deterrence is not a concern in this case. Dr. Ateyah, who will be stripped of his medical licence, does not pose a risk of danger to the community.

[29] It is the position of the Defence that the proper approach to be taken when apportioning sentence is to decide what total period of incarceration is appropriate, and then group like-offences together and impose concurrent sentences on those and consecutive sentences on those that are dissimilar, arriving at the total number of years deemed appropriate.

[30] The Defence does not take issue with the ancillary orders requested by the Crown.

D. Sentencing Principles

[31] In fashioning a fit sentence, I must weigh all of the aggravating and mitigating factors in this particular case. The principles of sentencing are set out in ss. 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code. I am bound by these principles. The most fundamental principle of sentencing is proportionality. The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offences and the degree of responsibility of the offender. I must also consider the principle of restraint, recognizing that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances. All available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community, should be considered for all offenders.

The Aggravating Factors

Breach of Trust

[32] The most aggravating factor in this case is the fact that in committing these offences, Dr. Ateyah abused his position of trust towards patients seeking medical treatment. In becoming a doctor, a person takes an oath. In the oath, the physician pledges to prescribe only beneficial treatments, according to their abilities and judgment; to refrain from causing harm or hurt; and to live an exemplary personal and professional life.

[33] When these women sought medical treatment from Dr. Ateyah, they relied on the promise that a medical doctor would only take action to help them and to treat their ailments. They trusted Dr. Ateyah with their most intimate concerns: depression; issues with their reproductive systems; their breasts and their bodies. He capitalized on their vulnerabilities as his patients, none of whom had any medical training, to coerce them into examinations that afforded him the opportunity to exploit their bodies for his own sexual gratification. In addition to feeling violated, these unnecessary examinations caused the women concern that something was wrong with them.

The Number of Victims

[34] Thirteen women were subjected to unnecessary intimate examinations for Dr. Ateyah’s sexual gratification. Thirteen women are living with the aftermath of having been sexually violated by their doctor.

The Impact on the Victims

[35] Eight of the thirteen complainants provided Victim Impact Statements. Some delivered those statements orally in court. Their statements are heart-wrenching. The devastating effects of Dr. Ateyah’s actions are palpable. I admire their bravery in describing the very personal effects of what has happened to them. The complainants have suffered in many ways. Their trust in medical professionals has been eroded. Some have difficulty seeking medical treatment and therefore are forced to experience illness and injuries without medical intervention. They have described their emotional pain, their depression and the agony of their shame. Some describe the feelings of guilt for not coming forward sooner and the struggle they had coping with the realization that a doctor could do this to them while at the same time not wanting to believe it could be true. Some have suffered financially due to an inability to work or an inability to work to their full potential.

[36] It is impossible to summarize the magnitude of suffering that has occurred because of Dr. Ateyah’s actions. It is not just the complainants who are affected, but the spouses, children and loved ones of these 13 women. I recognize that no sentence can erase or even lessen in any way the damage done.

The Intrusive Nature of the Offences

[37] Dr. Ateyah conducted four inappropriate breast examinations; seven internal vaginal examinations (four with the complainants on their side or stomach and two where he put his finger in and out of the complainant’s vagina multiple times); and five instances where he touched a patient’s vaginal area over or under her clothing. In all but one of these instances, the sexual assaults occurred with no chaperone present including once after he was required to have a chaperone present due to an investigation of sexual misconduct by the CPSO. In three instances where Dr. Ateyah touched the complainants’ vaginal areas he was not wearing gloves.

[38] It is difficult to rank sexual assaults on a spectrum of more egregious to less so because by its very nature a sexual assault is a violation of a person’s bodily integrity. This is especially difficult given that the sexual assaults took place in a doctor’s office by a trusted medical professional. Suffice it to say, asking patients to undress in front of him; asking them to expose their intimate body parts and then touching them, in some cases without gloves, and in some cases digitally penetrating them on their back, stomach or side, ranks highly on a scale of seriousness.

[39] The Defence submits that Dr. Ateyah’s actions were not planned and deliberate in the usual sense but were crimes of opportunity. It is the position of the Crown that the sexual assaults were not spontaneous or opportunistic. Although I accept the position of the Defence that these were, in a sense, crimes of opportunity, I find that they were calculated acts. Dr. Ateyah took advantage of the lack of medical training of these patients to manipulate them into agreeing to pelvic examinations that were not medically necessary. For example, in the cases of K.S., L.H., J.H.(1), C.W. and M.R. who presented with a migraine, “pink-eye”, depression and back pain respectively, Dr. Ateyah linked their conditions with possibly being hormonal or related to their reproductive systems. To that end, he explained to them that he needed to check their ovaries or do an internal exam and asked them to undo their pants so he could touch their vaginas. In the cases of S.T., T.R. and E.B., Dr. Ateyah waited until the chaperone left and went back into the room to sexually assault them. These were calculated and manipulative actions consciously undertaken to exploit his position of power. I agree with the Crown that they were not spontaneous or simply opportunistic.

The Falsification of Medical Records to Justify an Examination or Avoid Detection

[40] Dr. Ateyah created false records to either justify an unnecessary examination or in some cases to avoid detection. For example:

(a) He noted a discussion with K.S. about high blood pressure that did not occur;

(b) He noted a “sister with breast cancer” on a requisition form for a breast ultra-sound in the case of C.G. when her sister has never had cancer;

(c) He noted that L.H. was there for a respiratory illness and that she had been coughing for several days, when L.H. actually went to see him for “pink-eye” and was otherwise fine;

(d) He noted that S.H. reported an issue with bladder incontinence when she did not have such an issue;

(e) In the case of E.G., he noted that there was no “PV” or internal examination done when she was subjected to an internal exam;

(f) In several cases he noted the presence of a chaperone when there was no chaperone for all or part of the examination; and

(g) In the case of J.H.(1) and A.R., he noted that he had done a breast exam when he did not.

The Mitigating Factors

Lack of Criminal Antecedents

[41] Dr. Ateyah has no criminal record.

Otherwise Good Character

[42] Dr. Ateyah has tremendous support from his family, a large number of friends and colleagues, as well as former patients. This is a factor that supports his prospects of rehabilitation. It is clear from the letters filed in support of Dr. Ateyah that he has been a good father, husband, colleague and friend. To many, he was also a good doctor. The letters filed in support of Dr. Ateyah outline his many positive character traits, such as his sense of humour and kindness and his positive reputation in the community.

[43] However, I must be mindful that it is those good qualities and his reputation in the community that enhanced a relationship of trust between Dr. Ateyah and the patients he sexually assaulted. Therefore, where these would normally be mitigating on sentence, this mitigation is attenuated. R. v. Lavigne, 2015 ONCA 915, at para. 9.

Collateral Consequences

[44] Dr. Ateyah’s actions have not only had criminal consequences. They will result in the revocation of his licence to practice medicine and the loss of his livelihood. I appreciate the argument of the Crown that this is not a mitigating factor nor a collateral consequence of his convictions. However, I do accept that losing his licence to practice medicine will have a deterrent effect on Dr. Ateyah and therefore does factor into my assessment of an appropriate sentence.

Physical and Mental Health Issues

[45] Dr. Ateyah suffers from depression. This has worsened since the commencement of criminal proceedings and throughout the trial. He takes medication as a result.

[46] Dr. Ateyah has had a non-cancerous growth on his pituitary gland since 2016. It does not require treatment but is being monitored. It has shown signs of improvement since his diagnosis and he does not have any active symptoms. It was also detected in 2016, that Dr. Ateyah has some early white matter degeneration of his brain.

[47] Dr. Ateyah is in need of a knee-replacement. He suffers from sleep apnea and sleeps with a CPAP machine.

[48] I agree with the Crown that all these medical conditions can be managed while he is incarcerated.

E. The Relevant Case Law

[49] I will review what I find to be the most factually relevant case law.

[50] In R. v. Mazhari-Ravesh, 2022 MBCA 63, a doctor was convicted after trial of sexually assaulting six patients. The sexual assaults included massaging breasts, digital penetration, forcing the patients’ hands onto his erect penis, doing an unnecessary and painful rectal exam, and making degrading sexual comments. The trial judge held that a sentence of 12 years reduced to 7 years for totality was appropriate. The sentence was upheld by the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

[51] In R. v. Duncan, an unreported decision of the Ontario Court of Justice from June 2022, a doctor was convicted after trial of sexually assaulting five women. Three of the women were his patients, one was a female staff member and one was his 16 year old niece. The sexual assaults on his patients involved grabbing or squeezing their breasts and twisting their nipples. The sexual assaults on the staff member included squeezing her breast, attempting to expose her breast by pulling her top up and attempting to kiss her. The sexual assault of his niece involved improper breast touching during the course of a hug. The trial judge held that a 15 month jail sentence plus 3 years probation was appropriate. The accused was 78 years old.

[52] In R. v. Nadon, another unreported decision from the Ontario Court of Justice from December 2018, a doctor plead guilty to sexual assault and voyeurism in relation to 49 female patients. After a plea and joint submission he was sentenced to eight years in jail.

[53] In R. v. Jovel, 2018 MBQB 111, a doctor was convicted after trial of sexually assaulting one patient. He repeatedly conducted vaginal examinations and touched her breasts for no valid medical reason. On one occasion he pressed his erect penis against her hip. On another occasion, with his hand on her clitoris, he attempted to kiss her. When she got up he followed her, groped her from behind and pressed himself up against her with his erect penis. He was sentenced to 30 months in jail.

[54] In R. v. Sanchez, 2017 ONCA 994, a pediatrician was convicted after trial of sexually assaulting two patients. The sexual assaults included multiple instances of digital penetration and fondling of breasts. The Court of Appeal overturned the convictions and indicated that they would have overturned the 18 month jail sentence and substituted a 15 month conditional sentence. The accused was 82 years old with mild cognitive impairment and the offences were reported over 30 years after they occurred.

[55] In R. v. Doodnaught, 2014 ONSC 1196, an anesthesiologist was convicted after trial of sexually assaulting 21 patients while in a state of conscious sedation and undergoing surgery. The sexual assaults included placing his penis in the patients’ mouths and hands as well as fondling their breasts and kissing them. He was sentenced to 10 years in jail.

[56] In R. v. Slingerland, an unreported decision from December 16, 2013, a pediatrician was convicted of indecent assault on four male patients. The allegations involved the touching of genitals to stimulate them on one or two occasions. The accused was sentenced to two years in jail, he was 90 years old at the time.

[57] In R. v. Kadirsahib, [2013] M.J. No. 433 (Q.B.), a doctor was convicted after trial in relation to one patient encounter in which he conducted a breast exam which included rolling and flicking her nipples. He also put his hand down her pants and rubbed her vaginal area. The accused was sentenced to 6 months in jail and 18 months of probation. The sentence was upheld on appeal.

[58] In R. v. Poon, 2012 SKCA 76, a doctor was convicted after trial of sexually assaulting two female patients. The doctor touched the clitoris, vagina and breasts of both patients. He was sentenced to two years less one day in jail.

[59] In R. v. Buckingham, 2008 NUCJ 21, [2008] N.J. No. 23 (S.C.T.D.), a doctor was convicted after trial of sexually assaulting five patients as well as trafficking in prescription drugs. The sexual assaults included sexual intercourse and fellatio in exchange for drugs. He was sentenced to seven years and nine months in jail.

[60] In R. v. Nanka Bruce, an unreported decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on March 29, 2006, a doctor was convicted after trial of sexually assaulting four patients by conducting inappropriate vaginal examinations. He was sentenced to two years in jail.

[61] In R. v. Stewart, 2004 BCCA 56, a doctor was convicted of 10 counts of indecent assault and sexual assault of 9 female patients over an almost 20 year period ending in 1996. He assaulted the patients by massaging or fondling their breasts and rubbing their clitoris’ during pelvic examinations. He engaged in sexual intercourse with one patient three times. He was sentenced to four years in jail.

F. Analysis

[62] Dr. Ateyah has no criminal record and is a much admired and adored member of his family and community. Apart from these offences, he has contributed greatly to his community. This bodes well for his prospects of rehabilitation.

[63] Although rehabilitation and other sentencing objectives are important, it is settled law that denunciation, deterrence and protection of the public are the prominent sentencing objectives for cases of sexual assault. R. v. T. (K.), 2008 ONCA 91, at para. 41. Given Dr. Ateyah’s actions in violating the trust of his patients and manipulating them into allowing non-medically necessary intimate examinations, I find that deterrence and denunciation must be the dominant factors in fashioning a fit sentence. As Dr. Ateyah has no criminal record, I must also consider that even where a custodial sentence is appropriate, a first sentence of imprisonment should be as short as possible and tailored to the individual circumstances of the defendant rather than solely for the purpose of general deterrence. R. v. Priest, [1996] O.J. No. 3369 (C.A.).

[64] It is clear from a review of the case law that sentencing is a highly individualized process. Although the sentencing range for like offences is helpful in determining the appropriate sentence, the ultimate question is whether or not the imposed sentence is fit. R. v. S.M.C., 2017 ONCA 107 at para. 7 and R. v. Niyongabo, [2020] O.J. No. 3450 at para. 49.

[65] The Defence submits that the crimes committed in Doodnaught are markedly more serious from the facts in this case, therefore a proper sentence for Dr. Ateyah should be much lower than the 10 year sentence given to that doctor. I disagree. The crimes committed by Dr. Ateyah are similar to those committed in Mazhari-Ravesh, a much more recent case. The doctor in Mazhari-Ravesh was sentenced to seven years in jail for sexually assaulting six patients.

[66] In recent years, the clear message from the Supreme Court of Canada and the Ontario Court of Appeal is that all sexual assaults are serious acts of violence. As stated by Justice Fairburn in R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487, 162 O.R. (3d) 721, at para. 74:

[Sexual assaults] reflect the wrongful exploitation of the victim whose personal autonomy, sexual integrity and dignity is harmfully impacted while being treated as nothing more than an object. Whether intimate partners or strangers, victims of sexual violence suffer profound emotional and physical harm and their lives can be forever altered. So too can the lives of their loved ones.

[67] Since the decision in Doodnaught, societal understanding of the harm caused by sexual assault has deepened. In my view, sentencing on sexual assault cases must reflect this greater understanding of the devastating effects of sexual assault. Support for this proposition is found in A.J.K., at para. 71, as well as R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, [2021] S.C.J. No. 46, at para. 22; R. v. Smith, 2017 BCCA 112, [2017] B.C.J. No. 471, at para. 36, and R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2019] S.C.J. No. 100, at para. 108. Dr. Ateyah has also been convicted of sexual exploitation of A.R. who was only 17 years old at the time he digitally penetrated her without warning and without gloves.

[68] Dr. Ateyah has been convicted of sexual assaults on 13 women. Each of these sexual assaults are separate and distinct from each other to justify consecutive sentences. They do not have a close factual nexus that would make concurrent sentences appropriate. R. v. W.Q., [2006] O.J. No. 2491.

[69] Having considered all of the aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as the relevant jurisprudence, prior to taking into account the principle of totality, I would sentence Dr. Ateyah as follows:

• On counts 1 and 2, the sexual assaults on C.G., I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 18 months in jail concurrent to each other;
• On count 3, the sexual assault on S.T., I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 18 months in jail consecutive to counts 1 and 2;
• On count 5, the sexual assault on C.W., I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 12 months in jail consecutive to counts 1-3;
• On count 6, the sexual assault on T.R., I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 18 months in jail consecutive to counts 1-3 and 5;
• On count 7, the sexual assault on K.S., I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 12 months in jail consecutive to counts 1-3 and 5-6;
• On count 8, the sexual assault on E.G., I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 18 months in jail consecutive to counts 1-3, 5-7;
• On count 9, the sexual assault on L.H., I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 9 months in jail consecutive to counts 1-3 and 5-8;
• On counts 10 and 11, the sexual assaults on E.B., I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 18 months in jail on each count concurrent to each other but consecutive to counts 1-3 and 5-9;
• On count 13, the sexual exploitation of A.R., I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 3 years in jail consecutive to counts 1-3 and 5-11;
• On counts 16 and 17, the sexual assaults on M.R., I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 9 months in jail concurrent to each other but consecutive to counts 1-3, 5-11 and 13;
• On count 18, the sexual assault on J.H.(2), I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 18 months in jail consecutive to counts 1-3, 5-11, 13 and 16-17;
• On count 19, the sexual assault on S.H., I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 18 months in jail consecutive to counts 1-3, 5-11, 13, and 16-18; and
• On count 20, the sexual assault on J.H.(1), I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 12 months in jail consecutive to counts 1-3, 5-11, 13 and 16-19.

[70] This is a sentence of 18 years. Having considered the principle of totality, I find that an appropriate sentence is one of nine years in jail. Dr. Ateyah will be given credit for the five days he spent in pre-trial custody. With credit for this time on a 1.5 day to 1 day scale, Dr. Ateyah’s sentence will be reduced by eight days. Given the non-restrictive conditions of Dr. Ateyah’s release, I am declining to further mitigate his sentence for the time he spent on bail. Therefore, Dr. Ateyah’s sentence will be eight years and 357 days.

[71] This will be apportioned and recorded on the indictment as follows:

• On counts 1 and 2, the sexual assaults on C.G., I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 9 months in jail concurrent to each other;
• On count 3, the sexual assault on S.T., I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 9 months in jail consecutive to counts 1 and 2;
• On count 5, the sexual assault on C.W., I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 6 months in jail consecutive to counts 1-3;
• On count 6, the sexual assault on T.R., I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 9 months in jail consecutive to counts 1-3 and 5;
• On count 7, the sexual assault on K.S., I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 6 months in jail consecutive to counts 1-3 and 5-6;
• On count 8, the sexual assault on E.G., I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 9 months in jail consecutive to counts 1-3, 5-7;
• On count 9, the sexual assault on L.H., I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 4.5 months in jail consecutive to counts 1-3 and 5-8;
• On counts 10 and 11, the sexual assaults on E.B., I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 9 months in jail on each count concurrent to each other but consecutive to counts 1-3 and 5-9;
• On count 13, the sexual exploitation of A.R., I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 18 months in jail consecutive to counts 1-3 and 5-11;
• On counts 16 and 17, the sexual assaults on M.R., I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 4.5 months in jail concurrent to each other but consecutive to counts 1-3, 5-11 and 13;
• On count 18, the sexual assault on J.H.(2), I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 9 months in jail consecutive to counts 1-3, 5-11, 13 and 16-17;
• On count 19, the sexual assault on S.H., I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 9 months in jail consecutive to counts 1-3, 5-11, 13, and 16-18; and
• On count 20, the sexual assault on J.H.(1), I sentence Dr. Ateyah to 6 months in jail consecutive to counts 1-3, 5-11, 13 and 16-19, less 8 days in consideration of his pre-trial custody.

Ancillary Orders

[72] Sexual assault is a primary designated offence under s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code, therefore I am ordering Dr. Ateyah to provide a sample of his DNA.

[73] Pursuant to s. 490.012(1), I am ordering Dr. Ateyah to comply with the Sexual Offender Information Registry Act on each count. Given Dr. Ateyah’s conviction for sexual exploitation, I make this order for life.

[74] Dr. Ateyah will have no contact with any of the complainants while he is incarcerated pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code.

[75] Finally, Dr. Ateyah will be prohibited from the possession of firearms for a period of 10 years pursuant to s. 109(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

Justice J. Cameron

Released: November 23, 2023

[1] In Reasons for Judgment reported at 2023 ONSC 5286, there is an error in paragraph 1. Dr. Ateyah was charged with Sexual Exploitation, not Sexual Interference. I convicted him of this count.