Judge finds Winnipeg doctor guilty of sexually assaulting 6 former patients

A judge has found a Winnipeg doctor guilty of sexually assaulting half a dozen of his former patients in what Crown prosecutors describe as a medical professional abusing his position of power and trust.

Manitoba Court of Queens Bench Justice Ken Champagne ruled Dr. Amir Ravesh was guilty on six counts of sexual assault and not guilty of three counts of sexual assault. He was also found not guilty of communicating for the purposes of obtaining sexual services and two other charges were stayed. 

All were in the context of a doctor-patient relationship.

Throughout the day on Monday, Champagne slowly moved through his 160-page decision, which was full of accounts from 11 women who alleged Ravesh, whose full name is Amir Houshang Mazhariravesh, sexually assaulted them during appointments over a four-year period.

The trial before a judge alone of Ravesh, 51 at the time the allegations surfaced in 2017, began in May and ended earlier this fall. Two complainants opted against testifying, and the Crown stayed two of the 11 sexual assault charges as a result.

In the three cases where Champagne ruled Ravesh wasn't guilty of sexual assault, Champagne sided with aspects of the defence team's argument. The defence raised questions over the recall of events — appointment dates and the nature of visits, for example — and the reliability of the testimony of the women in those cases, among other concerns.

The allegations stem from appointments at You Medical Clinic, an Elmwood walk-in where he worked, from 2013 to 2017.

Some visits were for tests for sexually transmitted infections, abdominal or anal pain, while some were for colds, prescription refills or other routine medical checks, court heard.

He was arrested in November 2017 but released on bail in November 2018. Since then, he has had to follow certain conditions and hasn't been allowed to practise medicine. 

Court heard after Winnipeg police arrested Ravesh in 2017 on suspicion of sexual assault, several other women patients came forward with allegations against him. 

Ravesh's defence lawyers suggested media coverage may have led victims to collude indirectly, Champagne said, summarizing aspects of the defence's position during the trial.

'This wouldn't have happened'

In one case, a woman saw Ravesh in September and October 2017 at separate appointments, including to fill a prescription.

At the second appointment, she told court the conversation became "sexually charged" as Ravesh admitted to going to see escorts and asked if she had considered doing that work.

She said Ravesh pressured her into getting an anal exam, despite her repeatedly telling him "there was nothing wrong down there."

The exam went on regardless for what she estimated to be over a 20-minute period.

She regretted not coming forward sooner, saying "this wouldn't have happened" to others.

At trial, Ravesh's defence lawyer, Martin Minuk, suggested the violation never happened and that she was in fact grooming Ravesh to prescribe her depression medication because she saw him as "an easy mark," court heard. The woman gave Minuk the finger in response.

"She was angry and she was upset by the cross examination, in my view, properly so,' said Champagne. "Her character was under attack."

'Special patient'

In another case where he was found guilty, a woman saw Ravesh for rectal pain on Oct. 19, 2017.  In a previous visit she had mentioned she was having trouble with her sex drive.

Court heard Ravesh touched her inappropriately while she was bent over and on her stomach. She told court he undid her bra and put his hand in her mouth while saying "you have a nice ass, you should use it."

She "was shocked and felt like she couldn't move," Champagne said.

She then described Ravesh forcing her to touch him and putting her on his lap. He told her not to tell anyone and that she was a "special patient," the woman said.

Not guilty

In one of the cases in which Champagne found Ravesh not guilty, Champagne discussed evidence from defence lawyers and Crown prosecutors' expert witness, a family doctor who weighed in on witnesses' descriptions of what they termed unnecessary, unorthodox, inappropriate and in some cases traumatizing medical exams.

One woman was "adamant an unnecessary exam and violation" happened in Ravesh's offices in July 2016, court heard. No records of that visit could be found and that raised concerns over the accuracy of her testimony, Champagne said, as he found Ravesh not guilty in that case.

In another case heard at trial, a woman told court she visited Ravesh in September 2017 for a test for sexually transmitted infections. She testified it was unlike any test she'd had before, alleging Ravesh took longer than usual, had her in a vulnerable position she felt was unusual and was making noises.

After hearing from the Crown doctor and expert witness, along with other details from the defence, Champagne said it was dangerous to conclude that what happened in that case was sexual assault. He found Ravesh not guilty of that count.

In another decision, Champagne found Ravesh wasn't guilty of an improper vaginal exam, but did find fault in a breast exam during the same visit. The woman alleged Ravesh asked her a question during the breast exam about whether her "boyfriend sucked on her nipples and boobs" and proceeded to flick her nipple ring, court heard.

"The manner of this breast examination was beyond inappropriate," Champagne said.

Ravesh is expected to be sentenced by June 2020.