skip to content

Kerfoot, Karin Elaine

CPSO#: 96461

MEMBER STATUS
Revoked: Discipline Committee as of 27 Jan 2020
CPSO REGISTRATION CLASS
None as of 27 Jan 2020

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum ac diam sit amet quam vehicula elementum sed sit amet dui. Vivamus suscipit tortor eget felis porttitor volutpat. Curabitur non nulla sit amet nisl tempus convallis quis ac lectus. Curabitur aliquet quam id dui posuere blandit. Vivamus suscipit tortor eget felis porttitor volutpat. Curabitur arcu erat, accumsan id imperdiet et, porttitor at sem. Vestibulum ac diam sit amet quam vehicula elementum sed sit amet dui. Donec sollicitudin molestie malesuada. Pellentesque in ipsum id orci porta dapibus.

Former Name: No Former Name

Gender: Female

Languages Spoken: English

Education:University of Calgary, 2001

Practice Information

Primary Location of Practice
Practice Address Not Available

Specialties

Specialty Issued On Type
Psychiatry Effective:30 Jun 2006 RCPSC Specialist

Registration History

Action Issue Date
First certificate of registration issued: Independent Practice Certificate Effective: 01 Jul 2011
Suspension of registration imposed: Inquiries, Complaints and Repo Effective: 21 Sep 2017
Revoked: Discipline Committee. Effective: 27 Jan 2020

Previous Hearings

Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 27 Jan 2020
Summary:

On January 27, 2020, on the basis of an Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of 
No Contest, the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) of the College of Physicians 
and Surgeons of Ontario (“the College”) found that Dr. Karin Elaine Kerfoot (“Dr. 
Kerfoot”) committed an act of professional misconduct, and set out its penalty and costs 
order.  
 
Dr. Kerfoot is a 45-year old psychiatrist who received her certificate of registration 
authorizing independent practice from the College in July 2011. At the relevant time, Dr. 
Kerfoot practised psychiatry in London, Ontario at the London Health Sciences Centre, 
on both an in-patient and an out-patient basis.  
 
Patient A was Dr. Kerfoot’s patient at the London Health Sciences Centre between 2015 
and 2016. 
 
Dr. Kerfoot’s Treatment of the Patient – 2015 to 2016 
 
In 2015, Patient A attended the Emergency Department at the London Health Sciences 
Centre. Patient A was admitted voluntarily to the in-patient Adult Mental Health Care 
Program for just over six weeks. Dr. Kerfoot was his attending physician throughout his 
admission. Patient A left the hospital but presented at the Emergency Department the 
following day. Patient A remained on a Form 1 until he was discharged two days later  
from the Emergency Department by the psychiatry on-call emergency team, with 
communication to Dr. Kerfoot asking her to follow up with Patient A in the near future in 
the out-patient setting.  
 
Dr. Kerfoot continued to act as Patient A’s treating psychiatrist on an out-patient basis 
following this discharge.  
 
Approximately seven months later, Patient A was re-admitted voluntarily to London 
Health Sciences Centre’s Adult Mental Health Care Centre after an Emergency 
Department attendance. Dr. Kerfoot continued as his attending psychiatrist throughout 
this admission, which lasted over a month. 
 
Shortly after discharge, Patient A entered a twelve-week residential eating disorders 
treatment program, but was discharged during the second week, after he left the 
residence in breach of the rules. After his discharge from the program, Dr. Kerfoot 
continued to treat Patient A on an out-patient basis at the hospital   
 
Patient A was re-admitted voluntarily to London Health Sciences Centre’s Adult Mental 
Health Care Centre in 2016 after attending at the Emergency Department. Dr. Kerfoot 
continued to be his attending psychiatrist. Patient A was discharged about a month and 
a half later, after concerns were raised about his conduct during the admission.  
 
                         
 

Sexual Contact between Dr. Kerfoot and Patient A – 2015 to 2016 
 
A few months after Patient A’s first 2015 discharge, Dr. Kerfoot and Patient A arranged 
to get together and go to a bar, which they did. Later that night, they went to a motel 
and had oral sex and sexual intercourse.  
 
Dr. Kerfoot and Patient A continued to have sexual relations, including sexual 
intercourse, during the next 13 months. Throughout this period, Dr. Kerfoot was Patient 
A’s treating psychiatrist.  
 
During this time period, the relationship between Dr. Kerfoot and Patient A included 
sexual contact, including sexual intercourse, at the following locations: 
 
      -Dr. Kerfoot and Patient A attended a hotel. Dr. Kerfoot paid for a room in cash.   
   
      -Dr. Kerfoot and Patient A travelled to Toronto. The Committee received records 
      from Via Rail confirming return train travel between London and Toronto on the 
      relevant dates, in the names of Karin Kerfoot and Patient A. The logbook from a 
      hotel in Toronto confirmed that Dr. Kerfoot checked into the room, provided her 
      telephone number and paid for the room with her MasterCard. 
                                               
      -Dr. Kerfoot and Patient A attended a motel. Patient A also stayed at a motel, 
      with Dr. Kerfoot joining him there on approximately two occasions. The 
      Committee received documentation confirming the room bookings for those 
      dates in Patient A’s name.  
 
      -Dr. Kerfoot and Patient A attended a Provincial Park on two occasions, using the 
      names of [redacted] and Karin Kerfoot when booking. Records from Ontario 
      Parks of the reservation show the associated vehicle licence. Vehicle registration 
      information shows that the vehicle licence associated with the reservation was 
      registered to Dr. Kerfoot and a second person.  
 
      -Dr. Kerfoot and Patient A attended a hotel. Records from the hotel confirmed 
      their booking. The room is booked for “Karen Diamond” (a variation on Dr. 
      Kerfoot’s full name) and includes Dr. Kerfoot’s home address. 
 
      -Dr. Kerfoot and Patient A attended a hotel. Records show that the room was 
      originally reserved in Patient A’s name, then changed to that of Dr. Kerfoot on 
      checking in.  
 
      -Dr. Kerfoot’s MasterCard records show that Dr. Kerfoot’s credit card was used 
      for: 
       
      - Pre-authorization for Dr. Kerfoot’s and Patient A’s hotel attendance on specific 
      dates in 2015;  
 

      -Payment for Dr. Kerfoot’s and Patient A’s stay at a hotel on a specific date in 
      2015;  
      -Payment for the Parks Ontario booking made for Dr. Kerfoot’s and Patient A’s 
      attendance at the Provincial Park;  
      -Payment for Dr. Kerfoot’s and Patient A’s hotel attendance on a specific date. 
 
Electronic Communications between Dr. Kerfoot and Patient A 
 
During the relevant times, Dr. Kerfoot’s cell phone number was [redacted]. During the 
relevant times, Patient A’s cell phone number was [redacted]. Cell phone records for Dr. 
Kerfoot’s cell phone number obtained from Rogers Communications were used to 
prepare a summary of the records of contact between Dr. Kerfoot’s cell phone number 
and Patient A’s cell phone number.  
  
Dr. Kerfoot and Patient A used the messaging app, “WhatsApp”, to communicate. Dr. 
Kerfoot was given the name “C” by Patient A in his cell phone contacts. A screen shot of 
Patient A’s WhatsApp contacts, shows Dr. Kerfoot’s cell phone number with an image of 
Dr. Kerfoot, named as contact “C”. The College obtained the “chat history” of messages 
exchanged between Dr. Kerfoot and Patient A using WhatsApp, for a period of just 
under a month in 2016.  
 
Patient A provided his memory cards and his cell phone to the College for forensic 
examination at the College’s request. Matthew Musters (“Mr. Musters”), a forensic 
examiner at Computer Forensics Inc., extracted information including photographs of 
Dr. Kerfoot and Dr. Kerfoot’s garden. Dr. Kerfoot sent these photographs to Patient A.  
 
In the course of his forensic examination of Patient A’s cell phone, after Patient A 
provided it to the College, Mr. Musters did not locate any written communications, 
including text (SMS) or WhatsApp messages, to or from Dr. Kerfoot. Any deleted written 
communications were no longer available for review or analysis. 
 
Dr. Kerfoot advised the College during the investigation that she had deleted messages 
exchanged with Patient A from her cell phone before the investigation began. Dr. 
Kerfoot did not provide the College with her cell phone but provided it to her counsel on 
March 5, 2018. Her counsel provided the cell phone to a computer forensic examiner, 
Steve Rogers of Digital Evidence Incorporated, on March 5, 2018, and requested that 
Mr. Rogers create an image of the phone capable of being forensically analysed, then 
return the phone to Dr. Kerfoot’s counsel. Forensic examination by Mr. Rogers of the 
image created of Dr. Kerfoot’s cell phone determined that there were no messages still 
present on the cell phone from prior to March 5, 2018. All messages still present on the 
cell phone had been sent or received on March 5, 2018, with the exception of one 
unsent message (no recipient noted) from December 2015. There were 23 messages 
on Dr. Kerfoot’s phone (all from March 5, 2018), plus four deleted messages. None of 
the messages on Dr. Kerfoot’s cell phone were to or from Patient A. There were 17,803 
deleted messages that were no longer available for review or retrievable. It was not 
possible to determine when they were deleted.    
 

 
Dr. Kerfoot’s responses to Patient A’s allegations 
 
In June 2016, Patient A met with hospital staff at London Health Sciences Centre to 
state that Dr. Kerfoot had engaged in a sexual relationship with him. Dr. Kerfoot denied 
Patient A’s allegation to the hospital.  
 
In August 2016, Patient A contacted the College to report he had a sexual relationship 
with Dr. Kerfoot. Patient A made a formal complaint in 2016. In her response to Patient 
A’s complaint in January 2017, Dr. Kerfoot denied having had a sexual relationship with 
Patient A.  
 
In August 2017, in the course of the College’s investigation, the College investigator 
sent Dr. Kerfoot’s counsel the fruits of his investigation to that date. On September 15, 
2017, Dr. Kerfoot admitted having had a sexual relationship with Patient A.  
 
Summary 
 
Dr. Kerfoot engaged in sexual abuse of and violated appropriate doctor-patient 
boundaries with Patient A.  
 
Dr. Kerfoot was dishonest regarding her relationship with Patient A to the hospital and 
to the College.  
 
FACTS ON PENALTY  
 
Dr. Kerfoot was suspended by the College’s Inquiries, Complaints and Reports 
Committee on an interim basis pending the completion of its investigation and the 
conclusion of any resultant discipline referral, effective September 21, 2017.  
 
DISPOSITION 
 
On January 27, 2020, the Discipline Committee ordered that:  
 
- The Registrar revoke Dr. Kerfoot’s certificate of registration effective immediately. 
 
- Dr. Kerfoot attend before the panel to be reprimanded. 
 
-Dr. Kerfoot reimburse the College for funding provided to patients under the program 
required under section 85.7 of the Code, by posting an irrevocable letter of credit or 
other security acceptable to the College, within thirty (30) days of the date of the Order 
in the amount of $16,060.00. 
 
-Dr. Kerfoot pay costs to the College in the amount of $10,370.00, within thirty (30) days 
of the date of this Order. 
 
 

DECISION AND REASONS 
 
On  April  20,  2020,  the  Committee  released  its  Decision  and  Reasons  in  this  matter, 
available on the College’s website.


Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Hearing Date(s): January 27, 2020

Concerns

Source: ICR Committee
Active Date: October 15, 2018
Expiry Date:
Summary:
Caution-in-Person:

A summary of a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee in which the disposition includes a "caution-in-person" is required by the College by-laws to be posted on the register, along with a note if the decision has been appealed. A “caution-in-person” disposition requires the physician to attend at the College and be verbally cautioned by a panel of the Committee. The summary will be removed from the register if the decision is overturned on appeal or review. Note that this requirement only applies to decisions arising out of a complaint dated on or after January 1, 2015 or if there was no complaint, the first appointment of investigators dated on or after January 1, 2015.

See PDF for the summary of a decision made against this member in which the disposition includes a caution-in-person.
Download Full Document (PDF)