Manitoba judge strikes sections of damages claim against Ste. Anne doctor who sexually assaulted patients

A Manitoba judge has struck several sections of a civil claim seeking damages against a former Ste. Anne, Man., doctor who was sentenced to 12 years in prison for sexually assaulting multiple female patients during medical appointments and examinations.

In November 2023, Arcel Bissonnette was tried and convicted of sexually assaulting five patients between 2001 and 2017. In February 2024 — a month after his licence was stripped by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba — he pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting two other women in 2005 and 2011.

A statement of claim filed by five former patients seeking damages for sexual assault and battery names Arcel Bissonnette, Centre Medical Seine Inc., Shared Health and Southern Health-Santé Sud as defendants, according to a judgment delivered by Manitoba Court of King’s Bench Associate Judge Jennifer Goldenberg last month.

Each of the defendants had sought to strike out certain sections of the statement of claim, suggesting that it "improperly pleads similar fact evidence," Goldenberg's judgement said.

According to the judgment, the five paragraphs of similar fact evidence state:

• Between 2019 and 2020, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba required the clinic and/or health to post a notice on their premises that Bissonnette must have a chaperone during breast and pelvic exams, the plaintiffs said.

• Bissonnette is currently not listed as a registered physician with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba, the plaintiffs said.

• Bissonnette was investigated and charged with sexual assault in November 2020 in relation to the plaintiffs’ police reports, the plaintiffs said.

• Bissonnette received further charges, was arrested, and is currently in trial proceedings related to the alleged sexual assaults of six other patients. He is also awaiting trial for criminal charges related to the alleged sexual assaults of 10 more patients. All complainants were assaulted at either the clinic or the hospital, the plaintiffs said.

• The plaintiffs said they intend to rely upon these facts and any convictions that come from these criminal proceedings in their claim against Bissonnette.

Bissonnette, who worked at both the Centre Medical Seine Inc. and Hôpital Ste. Anne Hospital in the town located about 40 kilometres southeast of Winnipeg, opposed including those sections of the claim, calling them "scandalous, frivolous and vexatious," the judgment said.

Shared Health, which operates the hospital alongside Southern Health-Santé Sud, said sections of the claim referencing several other patients who were allegedly assaulted would raise patient confidentiality concerns.

Not striking the paragraphs would lead to an "ethical and legal quagmire," Shared Health said in the judgment document.

Centre Medical Seine Inc. also sought to strike four of the five paragraphs in question, except for the one stating Bissonnette is not listed as a registered physician with the provincial college.

The centre said it is also concerned about disclosing the medical records of the 16 additional individuals, while claiming that the allegations are "unnecessary and negatively colour the reputation of Dr. Bissonnette."

The patients behind the claim called the motion to strike similar fact evidence "inappropriate" at this point, suggesting it should be addressed at the pre-trial stage or during the trial instead.

Goldenberg decided that including the similar fact allegations would negatively impact the 16 unnamed individuals by requiring their personal health information to be disclosed. Including the allegations would also result in "protracted discoveries and a prolonged trial," she wrote.

Goldenberg decided to strike the similar fact allegations from the claim.

Bissonnette also sought to strike six additional paragraphs referencing each of the five plaintiffs' initial reports of the assaults, including to police, the medical college and a school guidance counsellor.

Bissonnette claimed these sections are "scandalous, frivolous and/or vexatious." He said including these details is "unnecessary or not relevant to the cause of action."

Goldenberg agreed and struck the sections.