A Toronto doctor who pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a 16-year-old boy was “struggling to express his identity” as a gay man, said a discipline panel in deciding to impose no punishment.
A discipline panel at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario ruled in a rare split decision last month that Dr. Farooq Khan should receive no penalty and not have to pay any costs for his discipline proceedings.
In doing so, the majority of the panel rejected a joint submission from both the college’s and Khan’s lawyers that said the doctor should receive a 12-month suspension and pay $20,550 in costs.
Khan had admitted before the panel to an allegation of “having been found guilty of an offence that is relevant to his suitability to practise” — related to the fact that he pleaded guilty in court in 2015 to a criminal charge of sexual assault.
He received an absolute discharge in court, meaning he didn’t get a criminal record as a result of the guilty plea and didn’t have to serve a sentence.
The charge related to a 2009 incident in a which a then-24-year-old Khan, who was a medical resident at the time, was sleeping over at the home of a 16-year-old boy identified as AB in the discipline panel’s decision.
The two were sharing a bunk bed, and one night Khan went down to the bottom bunk and fondled AB while masturbating, believing him to be asleep, according to the panel’s decision.
In the discipline proceedings, three of the panel’s five members — two doctors and one community member — rejected the proposed punishment of a 12-month suspension submitted by both sides.
Joint submissions, whether at the college level or in court, are typically accepted. The Supreme Court of Canada has said they should only be rejected if it “would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest.”
After reviewing evidence from mental health experts, the majority on the panel found that it was a single offence that happened “in the remote past,” that it was “impulsive,” that Khan was at a low risk to reoffend and that he has shown remorse for his actions.
“There is another delicate issue to consider. The assault took place when Dr. Khan was a young gay man struggling to express his identity in particularly trying circumstances,” wrote the three majority members, Drs. Deborah Hellyer and Harvey Schipper and community member Major Abdul Hafeez Khalifa.
They continued: “It is important to be clear that this is mentioned not to excuse the offence, only to contextualize it. Dr. Khan has been forthright and unwavering in that view, supported by ample expert evidence: nobody ‘gets off the hook’ for a criminal action by virtue of their colour, ethnicity or sexual orientation.
“However, the committee gives some recognition to the fact that prejudicial social pressures which, in recent years, our society has made strides in relieving, did play a role here.”…
“The heart of what they’re saying perpetuates one of the most dangerous myths and stereotypes about gay men: which is that in struggling to come to terms with their sexual identity, they are predatorial, assaultive and target young boys,” lawyer Angela Chaisson said.
“I don’t know a queer person who hasn’t struggled with their sexual identity, we all go through that period, but we don’t assault children as part of that figuring out process.” She added: “I think that all queer people would be insulted by this.”…
“This perpetuates that stereotype of ‘doctors will protect doctors,’” said lawyer Simona Jellinek, who specializes in civil sexual abuse cases and who described as “very reasonable” the joint submission on penalty that the majority rejected.
“While I applaud the fact that the college is sensitive to such matters, the fact remains that the college has a bigger duty than to that one physician who may have been struggling with his identity, and that is the protection of the public.”
