Trial continues for former Ont. neurologist accused of sexually assaulting patients

Jeffrey Sloka’s sexual assault trial resumed with lawyers focusing on the former neurologist’s duties as a doctor. CTV’s Krista Simpson reports.

Warning: this story contains descriptions of testimony in a sexual assault trial that some may find upsetting.

A former neurologist accused of sexually assaulting his female patients was back in court Monday, more than four years after his trial first began in Kitchener, Ont.

Jeffrey Scott Sloka has been charged with 50 counts of sexual assault. The alleged incidents took place between 2010 and 2017. All the complainants were patients at Sloka’s private neurology practice which was located in the Kaufman Building at Waterloo Regional Health Network @ Midtown, which was called Grand River Hospital at the time.

This case is considered one of the largest sexual assault trials in Ontario.

Sloka’s trial began in September 2021.

Some of his former patients testified that they sought help from Sloka for neurological concerns. They also described receiving breast and vaginal exams during their appointments. Some of the women described being examined by Sloka while not properly draped or while they were completely naked.

Sloka also took the stand over several weeks to defend his actions. He testified that there were medical reasons for the exams he performed on the women.

The evidence portion of the trial ended in October 2023. Since then, lawyers on both sides have provided hundreds of pages of written submissions which had to be reviewed by Justice Craig Parry, who is presiding over the case.

On Monday, lawyers began making oral arguments and addressed specific questions raised by Justice Parry.

One of Sloka’s lawyers, Jill Makepeace, was first to speak. She laid out the defence’s argument that if the Crown has not established there was a sexual purpose or motive behind Sloka’s actions, he must be acquitted on all counts.

The defence argued that there were medical purposes for Sloka’s conduct.

“Doctors touch people. Physical examinations are an inherent part of what they do. Some of these examinations involve exposure of intimate arts of the body. Some of these examinations involve touching of intimate parts of the body. And there are legitimate medical reasons for doctors touching intimate parts of the body,” Makepeace told the court.

Makepeace argued that sexual assault allegations in the medical context are different than in cases where coaches, tutors, parents or others are accused of sexual assault.

Makepeace argued if the Crown can only prove Sloka was professionally negligent, that’s insufficient to convict him of sexual assault.

Makepeace cited a few cases involving doctors accused of sexual assault, saying, “These cases turn on whether or not the Crown establishes a sexual purpose.”

Crown Julia Forward argued that just because doctors are permitted to touch intimate body parts under some circumstances, that does not mean it is appropriate in all cases.

Forward said that while patients may have agreed to be examined, the issue is that they did not consent to sexual touching.

“Many of the women felt their sexual integrity was violated,” Forward said.

Forward went on to say that during these exams, patients alleged Sloka often didn’t explain what he was doing or why.

Sloka also almost never recorded these exams in his notes, Forward went on to say, noting there’s “an absence of any explicit recording of vaginal, breast and naked skin exams with the odd exception.”

Forward told court that Sloka’s patients were vulnerable, often desperate for answers to their medical problems.

Forward described one 20-year-old patient who went to see him for concussion and headache concerns.

“She ended up with a vaginal exam. She ended up with a breast exam, and perhaps more,” Forward said.

Sloka told court during his testimony that he was worried the patient had cancer that had metastasized, based on something he had seen on her brain MRI.

However, Sloka never mentioned to her mother, who was present at parts of the appointment that he was going to do, or did perform, those exams.

“Even if he legitimately thought he was doing something for medical good, what he did violated her sexual integrity,” Forward said.

Sloka’s lawyers are also arguing that expert evidence given by neurologist Dr. Vera Bril should now be declared inadmissible.

Sloka’s lawyer David Humphrey said she was not sufficiently impartial, independent or unbiased to be considered a properly qualified expert.

Bril told court “neurologists do not do breast exams.”

Humphrey said that didn’t take into account that Sloka had training on how to do breast exams, as well as internal exams.

He also said Dr. Bril once did a breast exam on one of her own patients after her patient demanded it.

The trial continues Tuesday.