'I did not do that': Former Kitchener neurologist denies conducting breast exams during cross-examination questions

A former Kitchener neurologist charged with sexual assault is denying touching patients inappropriately as cross-examination by the Crown continues.

Jeffrey Sloka faces 50 counts of sexual assault from alleged incidents at his private office at the Kaufman Building at Grand River Hospital between January 2010 and July 2017.

Previously during the trial, court heard Sloka allegedly asked female patients, including some teenagers, to take off their clothes for physical and skin exams, and touched their breasts and genitals.

About two and a half weeks ago, the Crown began its cross-examination of the doctor. Sloka spent the three weeks before that on the stand being questioned by his defence.

Crown attorney Sidney McLean is walking Sloka through the allegations made against him by the 50 complainants.

One complainant discussed on Thursday morning was pregnant when she visited Sloka.

McLean asked Sloka if he would have instructed the patient to undress down to her underwear and get into a gown for an examination.

He said he’s not sure whether she would have been instructed to leave her pants on or not.

The Crown asked Sloka if “at some point during the examination, [the patient] was sitting on the exam table and you pinched the shoulders of her gown and lowered it to her stomach?”

“No, I disagree,” Sloka responded.

The Crown said the patient’s bare breasts would have been exposed, and asked if Sloka had stepped back to observe the front of her chest.

“I did not do that,” Sloka said.

That patient also alleged the doctor looked at her back as part of a skin exam, but Sloka said he could have been observing her back as part of his cardiac exam.

The Crown referred to testimony from the same patient that alleged at a different appointment, Sloka performed sensory and reflex exams in his office, instead of in the exam room.

Sloka said although it was physically possible to conduct the exams in his office, it wouldn’t make sense for him to bring the tools needed into his office instead of moving the patient into the next room.

ANOTHER ALLEGATION

Another complainant discussed on Thursday was referred to Sloka in 2015 for episodes that appeared to be seizures.

The patient had testified that the doctor asked her about any skin irregularities or markings, and she told him about a mole and a birth mark she had.

Court heard that the mole was in her breast area and the birth mark was on her hip.

The Crown asked the doctor why he would be interested in the birth mark, since the patient told him it was red and marks of concern to him would be brown.

“When you describe a birthmark that’s red, I’m not sure what she means by that,” Sloka said, implying the patient could interpret the marking as a different colour than he would.

The Crown argued there’s a distinguishable difference between the two colours.

McLean then asked about Sloka’s gown instructions for that patient.

“She testified that you told her to undress to her comfort level and get into a gown," McLean said. "Is that possible?”

“No, my instructions are usually specific. I don’t think I would have used that language. It doesn’t make sense,” he responded, saying he doesn’t believe he would have told her to remove her pants based on the exams he was about to perform.

Sloka was asked if he examined the mole in between the patient’s breasts.

“I’m going to suggest to you that her breasts were exposed when you looked at that mole,” the Crown said.

“Just the left breast would have been exposed for the cardiac exam,” Sloka responded.

The Crown asked if he had told the patient he wanted to perform a breast exam. Sloka denied that he would have done that.

“I’m going to suggest that you performed a breast examination on her with her laying on the examination table,” the Crown said.

“No,” Sloka responded.

The patient alleged Sloka put his hands up her gown and used his fingertips to feel her breasts. He denied that happened.

JUDGE INTERVENTION

McLean started down a line of questioning about Sloka’s charting habits.

She asked him about language he appeared to use in some patients reports but not in others – specifically referring to the patient who presented with a red birth mark.

McLean argued the patient was not presenting with symptoms for the specific illness Sloka had been looking for, but he didn’t articulate that clearly in his records.

She asked him if there was a difference in his charting. Then, Justice Craig Parry spoke up, saying he did not understand the questioning.

“Do you write your notes the exact same way every time you write a note on a subject,” Parry asked the Crown, saying she was presupposing consistency in Sloka’s note-keeping but there was no factual foundation to argue it.

McLean moved on in her questioning.