NEW – OCFP 2012 Literature Review – 112 pages – 1 reference to 2,4-D Lawn Pesticide – Costa Rican Coffee Farmer

The Ontario College of Family Physicians is at it again.  More Bull CWAP, who funds this group.  Please stop. 

This reveiw has once again nothing to do with lawn pesticides or the use of Cosmetic Pesticides.  Many recent studies and reviews supporting 2,4-D are not even referenced.

Where is the reference to Quebec agreeing that 2,4-d is safe to use?

Where is the BC Legislature findings on Cosmetic Pesticides?

This report will once again be discredited. 

Growing body of evidence, My AZZ.


Kathleen Finlay – Ontario College of Family Physicians Peer Reviewer

About Me
I am a Naturopathic Doctor practicing and living in Owen Sound for the past 13 years.  I did my post secondary education at Brock University completing a Bachelor of Science – Honours in Biology.   I returned to school in Toronto at the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine and graduated in 1998.

I worked on the Owen Sound Pesticide Bylaw Review Committee to help pass a by-law restricting the non-essential use of pesticides in residential settings.  Anne Finlay-Stewart displayed her support by attending committee meetings as a public observer.  I am showing my appreciation for Anne and the local food movement by initiating this campaign.

Make an Action Plan to Get to the Future

So how do we get to the future? We need to do more of what works. We need to become solution oriented. To date our most successful Green campaign was Shane Jolley’s last provincial campaign. It was led by Anne Finlay-Stewart. I remember sitting in a room surrounded by old friends and some complete strangers. We were hopeful and excited and unsure of what would happen. Anne gave us a gift then too. She told us:

“There is no room for chicken littles in this campaign.”  Anne Finlay-Stewart [Campain Manager for the Green Party]

We will win the next federal election. Because you believe that we will. And we will inspire everyone to work their tails off.


MPP disputes paper’s poll numbers

Editor stands by story

Posted 4 years ago

MPP Bill Murdoch sounded off on a local radio station Friday over a Sun Times article he claims incorrectly stated his election rival received more votes in Owen Sound in the provincial election.

But the Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound maverick MPP didn’t provide numbers to back up his claim, telling the radio station he and Green party candidate Shane Jolley were “both in the 40 per cent range” in votes cast by city residents.

The article’s numbers reflected that, saying Jolley earned 43.2 per cent of city votes to Murdoch’s 37.8 per cent.

Murdoch did not respond to repeated telephone requests for an interview.

The purpose of the Sun Times story, which appeared in Wednesday’s newspaper, was to illustrate the Green Party’s strong showing in Owen Sound and the message it sent to municipal politicians about the importance to residents of “greening” initiatives.

The numbers used were from election day only, since votes cast by Owen Sound residents could be separated from overall results. Advance polls were not included because they cover areas beyond the city as well.

Sun Times editor Michael Den Tandt said the newspaper stands by the numbers and the story.

“The story was about the Greens’ performance in Owen Sound specifically, and advance polls were not restricted to Owen Sound. Based on the best numbers we have available to us, Jolley narrowly beat Murdoch in Owen Sound proper. In any case, let’s not split hairs; the point is that the Greens did surprisingly well,” he said.

Murdoch said on the radio the Sun Times is still “taking the green ink out from under their fingernails,” and accused the newspaper of twisting the truth.

The MPP also called an Oracle poll released before the election, which showed his support as 10 per cent lower than his own party’s poll, “phony.”

Den Tandt said Murdoch has been invited to send in a letter to the editor but has declined.

Other election stories have begun to surface in recent days, including one that accuses Murdoch of telling a Green party volunteer days after the vote that “we’re going to fix you.”

Green campaign manager Anne Finlay-Stewart said the volunteer, who canvassed for the Greens but didn’t have anything to do with campaign strategy, told her the story Oct. 12, the day she says it took place.

She wrote in a Sun Times column that the worker told her that Murdoch said: “Don’t talk to me. Don’t come into my constituency office. We’re going to fix you.”

The worker didn’t feel physically threatened and was more surprised than anything, but didn’t want to be identified, Finlay-Stewart said in an interview.

Attempts to contact Murdoch about the allegation were unsuccessful.

Jolley said he had heard of the story, but had no direct knowledge of it.

Other candidates contacted last week said they hadn’t heard of such problems involving any of their workers.

“I have never had a problem with Mr. Murdoch or, frankly, with anyone in his camp,” said Liberal candidate Selwyn Hicks, who called his visit to Murdoch’s office after the election “friendly.”

NDP candidate Paul Johnstone said there was no animosity directed their way from the PC camp.

“We had a good relationship with Bill during the election and still have a good relationship,” he said.

“I know he was upset with some of the Green tactics during the election,” he said, noting an argument at an all-candidates meeting in Meaford about a visit Jolley made to a Wiarton school and whether a Murdoch supporter had complained about it with Murdoch’s knowledge. Supporters of both camps started arguing in the audience.

Hicks said the only problem he had during the campaign was with someone he identified as a Green supporter who ripped out some Liberal signs.

“I’m not saying at all that it would have been condoned by Mr. Jolley. In fact I know he never would have condoned (it). It was just somebody who thought that was the best way to support his candidate.”

Jolley said he doubts it was someone with his campaign team.


Abelsohn, Alan Ralph – Ontario College of Family Physicians Peer Reviewer

Was Involved with Dr. Cathy Vakil – 2004 OCFP Pesticide Review (Non Peer Reviewed)


 Finally, we are deeply indebted to those who volunteered their time to provide reviews and editing of reference lists or chapters of the report. Our peer and expert reviewers and editors provided important comments and suggestions and new perspectives during writing of the report.
Peer reviewers were Alan Abelsohn, Neil Arya and Kathleen Finlay. Expert reviewers were Tye Arbuckle from Health Canada, Patricia Harper from Sick Childrens’ Hospital Toronto, Linn Holness from University of Toronto and Judith Kaur from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester.
The Project Team:
Margaret Sanborn, MD, CCFP, FCFP,McMasterUniversity
Donald Cole, MD, FRCP(C),UniversityofToronto
Kathleen Kerr, MD, Dip. Env. Health, Environmental Health Clinic, Sunnybrook & Women’s
College Health Sciences Centre
Cathy Vakil, MD, CCFP, Queen’s University
Luz Helena Sanin, MD, MPH, ScD,UniversityofToronto, and Autonomous University of
Kate Bassil, MSc, PhD(c),UniversityofToronto

Committee: Discipline
Appeal Status: No Appeal   Appeal Decision Date: 
Hearing Date:  01 Dec 2003    Decision Date: 03 Aug 2004
Publication Date: October 2005
Decision Summary:


It was alleged that Dr. Abelsohn committed an act of professional misconduct, in that:

  1. he sexually abused a patient; and
  2. he engaged in acts relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

It was also alleged that Dr. Abelsohn was incompetent, in that his care of a patient displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or disregard for the welfare of the patient of a nature or to an extent that demonstrated that he is unfit to continue to practise or that his practice should be restricted.

Response to the Allegations

Dr. Abelsohn denied the allegations.


After lengthy deliberation, the Committee found Dr. Abelsohn committed an act of professional misconduct, in that he sexually abused a patient by engaging in touching of a sexual nature of the patient, and by engaging in behaviour of a sexual nature towards the patient. The Committee also found that Dr. Abelsohn had committed acts of professional misconduct by engaging in acts relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofes-sional. The Committee also found that Dr. Abelsohn was incompetent, in that his care of a patient displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or disregard for the welfare of the patient of a nature or to an extent that demonstrated that he is unfit to continue to practise or that his practice should be restricted. The Committee was divided on whether Dr. Abelsohn “encouraged” the patient to masturbate in his presence, and the Committee therefore made no finding that there was encouragement to masturbate within the meaning of the Code.

Issue #1 – Allegation of Sexual Abuse

The Committee found that Dr. Abelsohn had sexually abused the patient by touching her and by engaging in behaviour of a sexual nature and that he had therefore committed an act of professional misconduct.

The panel considered a number of events that occurred over the two and a half year period when Dr. Abelsohn was treating the complainant in psychotherapy sessions.

Dr. Abelsohn had engaged in regular hugs at the end of sessions. These hugs were brief in duration but regular and repetitive, and occurred at the end of many sessions. The patient introduced the concept of cradling hugs where the patient would lie on the floor in between Dr. Abelsohn’s legs with her head on his chest and he would wrap his arms around the patient holding her for a prolonged period of time, often five to ten minutes. Dr. Abelsohn made a practice of engaging in these cradling hugs on numerous occasions.

The patient also requested what she described as scanning or rewiring forms of therapy. In the therapy sessions, Dr. Abelsohn, under the guidance of the patient, would place his hands on top of her hands as she moved her hands across her dressed body, often touching her breasts, her buttocks, her pubic area, her face and her lips. On other occasions, she guided his hands over the same areas.

The patient also requested that the physician participate in re-enacting a rape situation, which the patient had claimed had occurred to her at the hands of her father. On two of these occasions, the physician stood behind the patient, placed his hands around the patient’s neck or his hand across her mouth. The patient relived the episode and then imagined the physician rescuing her from this horrendous event.

Near the end of the two and half year therapy sessions, the patient requested that she be able to masturbate in the physician’s office. Dr. Abelsohn acceded to her requests. Dr. Abelsohn admitted that he and the patient had discussions before each of these events, that he would then rise from his desk go over and place a pillow on the floor for the patient, sit beside the patient on the floor and that the patient would then masturbate. This occurred on six occasions. On at least two of these occasions, the physician had his hands placed on the patient’s chest and, on at least one occasion, he had eye contact with the patient while she masturbated.

The panel accepted that this touching and behaviour constituted sexual abuse, in that it was touching and behaviour of a sexual nature, for which there was no justification, i.e., the touching and behaviour were not of a clinical nature appropriate to the psycho­therapy service provided. This touching and behaviour, including the masturbation, is all documented in Dr. Abelsohn’s notes and was admitted in his testimony.

The Committee also took into account that the patient had told Dr. Abelsohn on numerous occasions that she was in love with him and wished to have a relationship with him. Notwithstanding this, Dr. Abelsohn continued his therapy sessions with her and engaged in the conduct described.

The Committee weighed carefully the evidence that, after the termination of therapy sessions, Dr. Abelsohn continued to meet this patient in public places such as bars and restaurants and she continued to convey her wishes to have a relationship outside of the office setting.

The Committee assessed that there were more than 30 occasions where, because of the various touching and behaviour of a sexual nature, sexual abuse occurred. The Committee concluded that Dr. Abelsohn on each occasion had to make a professional judgment about whether to participate in these various encounters. Each time, Dr. Abelsohn failed to display any evidence of the professional character required of a physician. He failed in his fiduciary responsibilities to the patient by choosing to participate in behaviour that constituted sexual abuse of a patient. His only excuse appeared to be that he felt his participation might help the patient. However, he did appear to recognize that his conduct was not in accordance with professional standards and he ultimately recognized that there was no benefit to this patient during her therapy.

It was quite apparent that Dr. Abelsohn terminated therapy only after the patient had followed him to Ottawa when he had travelled there for a conference.

He recognized the relationship that had developed during the psychotherapeutic sessions would soon become apparent to others. While the patient had displayed increasingly erratic behaviour during the prior six months of her therapy, she was described as remarkably improved and therapy was terminated. There was no documentation to support that the patient had actually improved. It was apparent that therapy had ended as a reaction to the patient following Dr. Abelsohn to Ottawa.

Dr. Abelsohn continued to meet the patient approximately every six months in a public setting. This was despite the fact that Dr. Abelsohn knew and could no longer deny the patient’s infatuation with him and desire to have a relationship with him. Despite her repeating these requests, even during these meetings, Dr. Abelsohn continued to meet with her.

The fact that the patient had masturbated six times in the physician’s office in the presence of the physician was inexcusable. Dr. Abelsohn had a fiduciary responsibility to his patient to respect her sexual integrity, and by his conduct he violated that duty. Permitting or encouraging her to masturbate in his presence reflected gross misconduct and blatant sexual abuse of the patient that could not be interpreted in any other fashion.

The Committee felt that Dr. Abelsohn could not shirk his responsibility as a physician because the patient was difficult, strong-willed and manipulative. The fact that he had failed to seek medical help in managing this difficult and very ill patient does not excuse his own behaviour. Dr. Abelsohn used the excuse that he believed that he was helping the patient. Although this may have been his intention, there was absolutely no evidence in the chart or by the expert witnesses that this was occurring or that such behaviour as exhibited by Dr. Abelsohn would help her.


While it was clear to the panel that Dr. Abelsohn engaged in behaviour of a sexual nature when he allowed the patient to masturbate in his presence, the Committee also addressed the issue whether Dr. Abelsohn had provided encouragement to the patient to masturbate in his presence. This issue was of special importance as it related to the penalty that would be prescribed. If Dr. Abelsohn was found to have provided encouragement to the patient to masturbate in his presence, the mandatory penalty of revocation of Dr. Abelsohn’s certificate of registration would be imposed for a finding of sexual abuse of this nature.

The panel was equally divided on this issue, and accordingly no finding was made that Dr. Abelsohn had encouraged his patient to masturbate in his presence. Two panel members believed that Dr. Abelsohn, by his words and conduct, encouraged the patient to masturbate in his presence. They found that Dr. Abelsohn’s actions, by discussing the behaviour prior to it happening, by remaining present in the room while it happened, by positioning himself on the floor beside the patient during the activity, by placing a pillow on the floor for her head, by maintaining eye contact on at least one occasion, and on two occasions allowing his hand to be held to the patient’s chest while she masturbated, and by discussing with her afterwards how it helped her, constituted encouragement.

The Committee felt that the level of encouragement required for a finding of “an encouragement to masturbate” was high, because of the mandatory revocation provision. Again, two members of the Committee believed that the conduct of Dr. Abelsohn met that threshold, and that Dr. Abelsohn, by his words and actions, promoted and assisted (i.e., encouraged) the patient to masturbate in his presence. The other two members of the Committee did not find that this threshold was met.

Issue #2 – Allegation of Disgraceful, Dishonourable or Unprofessional Conduct

The panel found, on the expert evidence and Dr. Abelsohn’s admissions, that this allegation of professional misconduct was proved, in that he engaged in acts relevant to the practice of medicine that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

The College expert and the defense expert agreed that there had been boundary violations, that Dr. Abelsohn’s failure to seek supervision was inappropriate, and that his therapy had no scientific or clinical basis. The Committee also considered the fact that Dr. Abelsohn had continued to meet the patient after the therapy had terminated, and after the patient had conveyed to him that she was in love with him and wished to have an affair with him.

Issue #3 – Allegation of Incompetence

The Committee found Dr. Abelsohn to be incompetent, in that his care of a patient displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or disregard for the welfare of the patient of a nature or to an extent that demonstrated that he is unfit to continue to practise or that his practice should be restricted.

The Committee accepted Dr. Abelsohn’s testimony in which he conceded that he lacked the knowledge, skill and judgment to treat the patient with her severe pathology. The expert witnesses, the defense expert and the College expert, testified that there was no acceptable therapeutic basis for the physical contact. The frequent hugs, cradling or parenting hugs, the scanning or rewiring behaviour, the re-enactment of the rape scenarios, which included the therapist, as well as the episodes of masturbation in the presence of the therapist, had no therapeutic basis and could be of no benefit to the patient. Both experts agreed that Dr. Abelsohn was responsible for actions that occur in therapy. Both the defense expert and the College expert agreed that Dr. Abelsohn had a duty to seek supervision in these circumstances and that, while he was aware of this duty to seek supervision, Dr. Abelsohn did not attempt to do so.

Dr. Abelsohn did not discuss his problems managing this patient with a physician with whom he worked. He did not discuss the management problems of this patient with the other therapist that he studied cases with in a group. Dr. Abelsohn failed to turn for medical advice regarding a patient even though he was aware he was no longer able to manage the patient professionally. Both experts recognized that there were many warning signs to his failure to manage this patient, including the patient’s frequent unexpected visits to the physician’s office and her demands on both the physician and his staff. The experts both recognized that Dr. Abelsohn was unable to maintain appropriate boundaries with this patient and that Dr. Abelsohn committed repeated boundary violations. Dr. Abelsohn was also unable to manage the transference and counter transference that occurred throughout the psychotherapy.

Reasons for Penalty

Counsel for the College and counsel for Dr. Abelsohn made a joint submission on penalty. In the view of the Committee, the penalty proposed is appropriate and just. The Committee concluded that the proposed penalty meets the need for general deterrence as well as specific deterrence against such behaviour by this physician. The Committee considered that the serious findings against this physician were deserving of a serious penalty, and also took into account that the findings were of specific and aberrant behaviour that occurred in this physician’s practice. The expert evidence before the Committee indicated that the likelihood of further similar behaviour from this physician was low.


The Discipline Committee directed that:

  1. The Registrar suspend Dr. Abelsohn’s certificate of registration for a period of 12 months;
  2. The Registrar impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on Dr. Abelsohn’s certificate of registration for an indefinite period of time:
    1. Dr. Abelsohn must successfully complete a boundaries course acceptable to the College at his own expense;
    2. Dr. Abelsohn is prohibited from providing individual psychotherapy to patients, and from providing or billing for any service, which should be billed under the OHIP codes applicable to individual psychotherapy, including K006 and K007. With respect to billing code K005, Dr. Abelsohn shall maintain a separate log by patient name of all services billed under code K005, to be submitted to the Registrar within five days of the end of each month. Dr. Abelsohn may provide family or marital therapy to patients, but may only provide such treatment in the presence of two or more family members or individuals;
    3. Dr. Abelsohn will consent to the release of his OHIP billing information to the College; and
    4. Dr. Abelsohn will cooperate with any medical inspector chosen by the College who may conduct random inspections of Dr. Abelsohn’s OHIP billings and their supporting chart entries for specified codes.
  3. Dr. Abelsohn attend before the panel to be reprimanded, with the fact of the reprimand to be recorded on the register.

At the completion of the hearing, Dr. Abelsohn waived his right to appeal and the reprimand was administered. 

Doctor Sheela Basrur – Ontario Chief Medical Officer – Scared Public with Mispercetions

Ex Ontario Cheif Medical Officer discredited for her lack of understanding and promoting public misperceptions relating to Public Health

[scribd id=78887987 key=key-146yhvbk2gcdxfzcoqwx mode=list]

The full report can be found here:

Cathy Vakil – Ontario College of Family Physicians

Cathy Vakil Co-Author of OCFP 2004 Pesticide Review Discredited by HEALTH CANADA:



Information Note: Ontario College of Family Physicians Report

Consumer Product Safety

August 4, 2004

On April 23, 2004, the Ontario College of Family Physicians (OCFP) released a literature review on epidemiology studies on pesticides. The review linked pesticides to various illnesses, and stated that children are especially vulnerable to pesticides. In light of the public interest in this report, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) prepared this document to help Canadians better understand how human health and the environment are considered by the pesticide regulatory system in Canada. PMRA is the federal regulatory body responsible for the regulation of pesticides in Canada.

          Pesticide Regulation in Canada

Pesticides are stringently regulated in Canada. Before a product is registered for use, it must undergo a comprehensive and rigorous scientific assessment to ensure the product does not pose unacceptable risks to human health or the environment and to assess its efficacy to ensure that the lowest rate possible is used. If the assessment does not indicate that a product can be used safely it is not registered for use in Canada. Currently, all pesticides registered prior to 1995 are being re-evaluated by using the most modern scientific risk assessment approaches to ensure they remain safe and effective for use.

The human health risk assessment looks for the short- and long-term potential of a pesticide to cause adverse health effects such as cancer, birth defects and endocrine disruption. All sources and routes (oral, dermal, inhalation) of potential exposure are assessed, including exposure from the diet, drinking water and from contact with treated areas like lawns and gardens. As well, occupational exposures, both during and after pesticide application, are specifically considered.

Pesticides are only registered if there is a wide enough margin of safety between what people are exposed to and the highest dose that causes no effects according to scientific research.

As the OCFP report notes, some population groups, such as children and pregnant women, may be more susceptible to potential effects of pesticides. This is why PMRA assessments include the application of extra safety factors to ensure that the most sensitive sub-populations are protected. For example, the PMRA pays special attention to the unique exposures and physiological characteristics of children, ensuring that factors such as their unique behaviours, different diets and lower body weights are considered.

Scientific Approaches to Understanding Pesticide Risk

The OCFP report is a review of epidemiology studies selected from the public scientific literature. There are many such studies published which suggest that there may or may not be associations between adverse health effects and pesticide exposure. As the report acknowledges, epidemiology studies are hard to interpret because of biases and confounding factors that make it very difficult to either establish or definitively rule out links between pesticide exposures and effects. For example, other chemical and physical environment effects are usually encountered at the same time as pesticide exposures and biases in the exposures remembered by study participants may affect the result. Without an actual exposure calculation, it is difficult to assess whether pesticides could have been responsible for an adverse health outcome.

When determining the acceptability of a pesticide, PMRA scientists critically examine the totality of the scientific database for pesticide active ingredients and end-use products, including the types of studies in the OCFP report. When new studies in the public literature are released, the PMRA examines them to determine if further regulatory action is required on the pesticides mentioned in the study.

Currently, much of the information submitted to the PMRA for pesticide risk assessments is protected under the Access to Information Act as confidential business information. Under the new Pest Control Products Act, the public will be able to view the data used in making pesticide registration decisions.

          Responsible Pest Management

The PMRA agrees with the recommendation of the OCFP report that Canadians can and should seek opportunities to minimise their exposure to and reduce their reliance on pesticides. As such, the PMRA supports Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices. IPM is an approach that combines biological, cultural, physical and chemical tools to manage pests so that benefits of pest control are maximized and health and environmental risks are minimized.

If Canadians choose to use pesticides, they should use products only for their intended and registered use while following all instructions on the label. The label instructions specify the conditions by which products can be used safely. The PMRA also agrees that, to prevent accidents, pesticides must always be stored out of the reach of children.

The PMRA provides information on IPM approaches to lawn and garden care. The PMRA also distributes a number of publications, including Pest Notes that provide information on the safe use of pesticides and on controlling common household pests using the principles of IPM.

OCFP 2004 Literature Review Located Here: