Doctor found ways to assault female patients: Crown

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 26/05/2023 (881 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Family doctor Arcel Bissonnette used his position of “trust and authority” to create opportunities to sexually assault five female patients during medical exams, prosecutors told a Manitoba judge Friday.

“He conducted intimate physical exams that surprised and shocked these women,” Crown attorney Patrice Miniely told King’s Bench Justice Sadie Bond.

“They did not understand what was happening because he did not explain what he was doing,” Miniely said. “In this way he was able to create space to commit sexual assault and at the same time create uncertainty in the complainants’ minds about what was happening to them.”

Miniely’s comments were made during a “similar fact” application by the Crown. If accepted, Bond could use the evidence of each alleged victim to corroborate the evidence of the others.

Bissonnette, 63, is charged with five counts of sexual assault involving five female patients he treated at the Seine Medical Centre and Ste. Anne Hospital between 2001 and 2017.

The five women have testified Bissonnette performed medical examinations they say amounted to sexual assaults. Three of the women say they saw or may have seen Bissonnette with an erection during or following the examinations.

Four of the alleged victims testified Bissonnette, during routine physicals, performed lengthy pelvic exams, during which he repeatedly inserted and withdrew his fingers from their vagina.

One woman testified Bissonnette placed fingers in both her vagina and rectum at the same time, what is known as a pelvirectal exam, with no advance warning or instruction. Another woman testified Bissonnette positioned her on her knees and elbows before inserting a metal instrument into her anus, with no warning.

Four of the women testified Bissonnette conducted long or unnecessary breast exams and left them unnecessarily exposed or “completely naked” during physical exams.

All of the alleged victims testified Bissonnette provided little or no verbal instructions as to what he was doing or why.

Miniely argued the women’s testimony “establishes a pattern of behaviour” and “shows a modus operandi that the accused used in committing offences.”

“We are not saying that because there are many allegations it is more likely an individual has committed an offence,” Miniely said. “What we are saying is the similarities in these allegations tend to support the likelihood these individuals are telling the truth.”

Similar fact evidence is presumed to be inadmissible and is only allowed in the “clearest of cases,” said defence lawyer Lisa LaBossiere.

“The potential for prejudice is great,” LaBossiere said. “The court needs to be hyper-vigilant about the kind of prejudice this evidence can cause.”

Court has heard all five women stepped forward after police issued a media notice in November 2020 announcing Bissonnette’s arrest on charges that involved six other female patients.

LaBossiere said two of the victims testified they told family members about the examinations before they went to police, but the Crown did not call them as witnesses to corroborate the claims.

“That is a red flag,” she said.

Bissonnette testified last week his examinations were all “medically indicated” and appropriate, and conformed with his training. He said he communicated with the patients “every step of the examination.”

Earlier in the trial, a medical expert called by the Crown testified pelvirectal exams are rarely done in family practice, given the availability of photo imaging.

“I would say I have never done one in my family medical career,” said Dr. Kimberly Wintemute. “I can’t imagine a time in our current medical world where I would absolutely have to do that kind of exam.”

Later, Dr. Allan Covens, a gynecological oncologist called by the defence, testified pelvirectal exams and rectal exams are routine procedures he performs dozens of times a week.

Miniely argued what would be an appropriate examination for a gynecologist investigating a possible case of cancer would not be appropriate for a family physician treating a patient with no related complaint.

Bond reserved her decision on the similar fact application.

The trial will resume June 15 for closing arguments.

dean.pritchard@freepress.mb.ca