BY KEITH LACEY
A Sudbury doctor was found guilty of two counts of indecent assault and two counts of sexual assault Friday.
Richard Nanka-Bruce, 61, showed little emotion as a judge found him guilty on four of the eight counts he was facing. He was found not guilty on one count of indecent assault and three other counts of sexual assault. One count of sexual assault was stayed during the trial late last fall.
Nanka-Bruce?s 35-year medical career could be over soon following his conviction by Justice Ian Gordon of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
All complainants in this case made similar allegations Nanka-Bruce attempted to sexually stimulate them while he was performing internal examinations over a 30-year time period.
Nanka-Bruce vehemently denied sexually or indecently assaulting any female patient.
Assistant Crown attorney Diane Fuller said the Crown ?will be seeking a lengthy period of incarceration? against Nanka-Bruce when he?s sentenced Wednesday, March 29.
Nanka-Bruce will be able to continue his medical practice with conditions imposed against him by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons in December 2003. Nanka-Bruce admitted to a college disciplinary hearing he performed too many internal examinations of patients without proper
medical records.
Without admitting any sexual impropriety, the college?s disciplinary hearing ordered Nanka-Bruce not perform any internal examination unless in the presence of a third party approved by the college. Those restrictions remain in place.
Kathryn Clarke, senior communications co-ordinator for the college, said Nanka-Bruce faces an extensive disciplinary hearing starting the second week in March (March 6-10). Further dates have been set aside to continue the hearing from April 3-6 and 17-21.
Clarke didn?t know what would happen to the later dates if Nanka-Bruce?s sentence includes a jail term following his sentencing hearing.
Despite what happened in court Friday, the college ?doesn?t automatically suspend? physicians following criminal convictions, said Clarke.
?The college is mandated to conduct its own investigation...the college process is different,? she said.
?The courts have made their decision and that will be part of the process and the issue of suitability to continue to practice medicine is something any doctor could be charged with.?
In his ruling, Gordon allowed ?similar fact? evidence to be introduced by four complainants and the sister of one complainant saying the similarities in allegations were overwhelming.
Defence lawyer Richard Humphrey?s suggestions several of these witnesses colluded with each other or were tainted by media reports were not supported by the evidence, said Gordon.
If there was collusion, the woman would not have been so straightforward in their evidence and would have shown obvious signs of malice or disdain for Nanka-Bruce, but that was not evident, he ruled.
The women were very clear they knew what Nanka-Bruce was doing to them wasn?t right and they had objected to others immediately, said Gordon.
Nanka-Bruce?s ?simple denial? was only to be expected in allegations of this nature, said Gordon.
Nanka-Bruce?s suggestions he remembered most of the complainants specifically before denying any impropriety didn?t ring true as he admitted he had thousands of patients and most of these allegations date back 20 and 30 years, said Gordon.
?I have considerable skepticism about his ability to recall? what happened with specific patients, he said.
Nanka-Bruce?s admission to the college he conducted too many internal examinations without proper medical records is another factor the judge
said he considered.
