Jeffrey Sloka, a former neurologist from Kitchener facing 50 charges of sexual assault, is denying claims of inappropriate contact with patients as ongoing questioning from the Crown progresses.
Accusations against Sloka encompass alleged incidents which transpired at his private office in the Kaufman building at Grand River Hospital, dating between January 2010 and July 2017.
Earlier in the trial, the court listened to testimonies asserting that Sloka had solicited numerous female patients, some of whom were teenagers, to disrobe for physical and skin exams, allegedly resulting in the inappropriate touching of their breasts and genitals.
Approximately two and a half weeks prior, the Crown initiated its cross-examination of Sloka, following a three-week period during which the defense questioned the accused doctor.
Crown attorney Sidney McLean is currently guiding Sloka through the allegations lodged against him by the 50 complainants.
One such complainant, who was pregnant during her visit to Sloka, came into discussion on Thursday morning. McLean quizzed Sloka regarding potential instructions he may have given to the patient to disrobe down to her underwear and don a gown. Sloka was uncertain if he had specified whether she should retain her pants.
The Crown further questioned Sloka over whether the patient was on the examination table when he allegedly lowered her gown’s shoulders to her stomach. However, Sloka denied these allegations.
It was also implied that the patient’s uncovered chest was observable, leading the Crown to query whether Sloka had stepped back to survey her frontal chest area. Once again, he vehemently denied this.
The same patient alleged that Sloka conducted a skin examination of her back, which he rebutted by maintaining he might have been analyzing her back as part of a cardiac examination.
The Crown referenced a different clinic visit, where it was claimed that Sloka conducted sensory and reflex exams in his personal office. Instead of using the examination rooms, Sloka pointed out that even though it was technically feasible, it made no practical sense to bring the requisite tools into his office.
During Thursday’s proceedings, the allegations of another complainant referred to Sloka in 2015 for suspected seizures were also reviewed.
The patient had testified that Sloka had inquired about dermal irregularities, wherein she had pointed out a mole and birthmark. The mole was reportedly situated in her breast region, and the birthmark was on her hip.
The Crown questioned Sloka about his interest in the birthmark, and particularly about the patient’s description of the birthmark as red, countering that Sloka generally gravitated towards brown marks. Sloka responded that patient interpretations of colors may not align with his.
Another point of contention arose about Sloka’s instructions regarding wearing the gown. McLean referred to the patient’s testimony, “She said you asked her to undress to her comfort level. Is that possible?” Sloka refuted this claim, stating his instructions were typically explicit.
Sloka also denied allegations concerning an examination of a mole within the patient’s cleavage and possible breast exam.
During the questioning, Justice Craig Parry intervened, requesting clarity from the Crown about Sloka’s charting habits and inconsistencies in patient reports. Differences in Sloka’s charting practices were put into question by McLean. The Justice, however, found the line of questioning unfounded, leading to a subsequent shift in the discussion.
