Retired doc ordered to pay up to $25K for speculating on mental health of non-patient in divorce case

An Edmonton psychiatrist has been reprimanded and ordered to pay up to $25,000 for inappropriately speculating on the mental health of one of the parties in divorce proceeding.Last Thursday, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta announced that Dr. J. Rowan Scott performed unprofessional conduct for speculating on the behaviour and the potential psychiatric diagnoses of an individual involved a divorce case against one of his patients, despite the fact that the individual was not a patient of Dr. Scott’s and that Dr. Scott never examined the individual.The hearing tribunal of the CPSA released their decision on sanctions on April 23, 2025. The tribunal reached a decision on the merits of the allegations last July, but that hearing was held behind closed doors and the merit decision has not been made available to the public. The exact text of Dr. Scott’s letter, written in February 2020, has also not been made public. However, excerpts from the merit decision that were made available in the sanctions decision revealed that Dr. Scott wrote the letter at the request of his patient. According the decision, Dr. Scott drew conclusions that the individual was “engaging in a pattern of emotional spousal abuse and parental alienation.”The tribunal found that his letter “went beyond the scope of relaying his findings, assessments, advice and treatment given to the patient” and that he “accepted as fact the information relayed by his patient and proceeded to engage in speculation about the behaviour of the complainant and provided potential psychiatric diagnoses.” They also said Dr. Scott’s conduct could constitute libel or slander.“[P]assages clearly show that the investigated person is engaging in speculation and providing potential psychiatric diagnoses about the complainant,” the tribunal wrote.Dr. Scott’s legal counsel submitted that it was “not his intention to diagnose the complainant but rather to describe within the report information that his patient had shared with him” and that the medical report was ultimately not entered as evidence in the divorce proceeding. His lawyer also said there is a lack of guidance from the college on how physicians should prepare expert reports for court cases.In addition, Dr. Scott’s lawyer noted that he had already been retired as a practicing physician for the last four years and argued that a simple reprimand would be sufficient punishment.The tribunal disagreed, and said the seriousness of Dr. Scott’s conduct “outweighs the arguments put forward by” his legal counsel.“The conduct in this case was serious unprofessional conduct considering the risk of misleading many and, as noted in the preceding paragraph, tarnishing the entire profession of psychiatry,” the tribunal wrote.Ultimately, the tribunal issued a reprimand against Dr. Scott and ordered him to pay 25% of the costs of the hearing and the investigation up to a maximum of $25,000. The tribunal also noted that Dr. Scott’s status as a retired non-practicing physician played a role in determining the appropriate sanction. The total cost of the hearing is estimated to be just under $100,000, according to the legal counsel for the college’s complaints director. “Were the conduct attributed to a practicing physician, consideration would certainly have been given to a meaningful suspension and remedial courses,” said the tribunal.

Retired doc ordered to pay up to $25K for speculating on mental health of non-patient in divorce case

Register for free access or login.

Related Topics

Business Topic