Doctor who accused NOSM staff of sexual harassment loses defamation suit

Dr. Anahita Safavi-Naini was a medical resident in the internal medicine training program at NOSM in 2018 when she alleged she was sexually harassed. An external firm investigation concluded that no harassment took place. Anahita Safavi-Naini then sued the firm for defamation, but the case was dismissed. (File)

A doctor who made high-profile sexual harassment accusations against two doctors at the Northern Ontario School of Medicine has lost a defamation suit.

Dr. Anahita Safavi-Naini took the unusual step of hiring a publicist in 2018 to push her case to the media, even sending out a news release.

Safavi-Naini was a medical resident in the internal medicine training program at NOSM in 2018 when she alleged she was sexually harassed.

To investigate, the medical school hired Katherine Montpetit, a senior investigator with expertise in sexual violence and sexual harassment investigations with the law firm Rubin Thomlinson LLP.

“The complaints primarily concerned Dr. Stephane Gauthier, the North Bay site director of NOSM’s internal medicine program at the time of the complaints, but also raised concerns about Dr. Scott Shulman, a NOSM faculty member,” said the court transcript of the case in the Ontario Court of Appeal.

It was the executive summaries released as part of that investigation that prompted the defamation suit.

When it came to allegations involving Gauthier, Montpetit concluded that Safavi-Naini “was not a credible or reliable witness and found Gauthier credible.”

“As a result, Ms. Montpetit concluded that she did ‘not find that Dr. Gauthier behaved in the manner alleged by (Dr. Safavi-Naini)’ or that he ‘engaged in sexual harassment towards (Dr. Safavi-Naini) or otherwise breached NOSM policy,” the transcript said.

Montpetit also found no basis for allegations against Shulman. For example, Safavi-Naini alleged the two doctors made a bet that Gauthier could “loosen her up.”

“Ms. Montpetit found that there was no bet,” the transcript said.

“Second, Dr. Safavi-Naini alleged that she entered into a sexual relationship with Dr. Shulman. Based on the evidence, Ms. Montpetit concluded that Dr. Safavi-Naini was flirting with Dr. Shulman and that they did not have a romantic relationship.”

Safavi-Naini launched her defamation suit in March 2021 against Rubin Thomlinson LLP and Montpetit, but a judge dismissed the case.

She lost an appeal of that ruling in a decision released Feb. 8.

*The appeals judge ruled there was no basis for a defamation case because the report was in the public interest, that NOSM needed “frank communication about an important topic” and that there “was no evidence to support a finding of malice against Ms. Montpetit.”

Her lawyers argued that the judge erred in ruling that the case was a matter of public interest. The appeals judge disagreed.

“The appellant argues that the fact that she hired a publicist to ‘try to shame NOSM into conducting a workplace investigation into her allegations does not convert this private matter into a matter of public interest,’” the transcript said.

“We disagree. The act of retaining a publicist to assist in an attempt to ‘shame’ a public education institution in a relatively small community is the antithesis of trying to keep the matter private. Moreover, the news release circulated by the publicist was successful; it provoked news coverage from national, provincial and local media.”

PUBLIC SAFETY 

Further, the appeals judge wrote that Safavi-Naini herself raised the issue of public safety.

In one of her media interviews, she “acknowledged the patient safety concerns surrounding her allegations, stating that these matters ‘affect patient care every day,’” the transcript said.

“The concern for patient safety in a public institution is not a private matter. It directly engages the interest of the community and is indicative of why the executive summaries are within the scope of the public interest.”

The appeals judge also rejected another grounds for appeal – that there was malice involved in the judge dismissing her defamation case.

“The appellant’s third ground of appeal, anchored in malice, is groundless,” the transcript said.

“The motion judge found that there was no evidence of malice. There is no basis to interfere with that finding.”

Read the full transcript here.