Male doctor denies allegations in response to female colleague’s lawsuit
A doctor is suing a fellow doctor, with the lawsuit alleging he sexually assaulted her after a work party at which she was so “visibly and obviously severely intoxicated” she was unable to sit up, walk without help or speak coherently.
Recommended Videos
Dr. Averil Ivsins and Dr. Jonathan McGrogan, both emergency room doctors at Lions Gate Hospital in North Vancouver, attended a work party with free alcohol for ER doctors on Nov. 8, 2023, at an east Vancouver restaurant, according to the case filed by Ivsins in B.C. Supreme Court.
Ivsins alleges she was sexually assaulted and battered, and that she suffered bruises on her arms and thighs, abrasions to her genitals and injuries to her perineum.
The lawsuit says she did not consent to any sexual touching or activity and further “did not have the capacity to consent due to her level of intoxication.”
McGrogran denied the allegations in a response to the lawsuit filed the same day, in which he said he also was intoxicated and said their sexual encounter was consensual.
The party started at 6:30 p.m. and by 11 p.m., her “intoxication was, or ought to have been obvious” to everyone present, according to the lawsuit.
McGrogan was aware how drunk she was and “on at least one occasion he commented on her consumption of alcohol,” she said in the lawsuit.
Ivsins alleges McGrogan held her against her will while assaulting her by withholding her keys after they took an Uber to her building from a bar where they and others went after leaving the restaurant.
She further alleges that 11 months later, the defendant parked his car outside a gym where she was working out and stood in the rain under an umbrella and stared at her for 20 minutes.
She called it “flagrant, outrageous, extreme” and “calculated to cause” or exasperate a “recognizable psychiatric illness” in her.
McGrogan denied the assault or knowing she was severely intoxicated and alleged “a consensual physical encounter” happened on the way home in a shared Uber ride, which stopped first at her place.
He didn’t enter her apartment or constrain her and the contact “occurred outside the building, in the lobby and in the elevator,” according to his response.
He also denies staring at her outside her gym.
Ivsins considered McGrogan her superior as head of the department they both worked at and the person responsible for her pay, putting him in a “position of power, authority and trust” over her, the lawsuit said. He therefore owed her a duty of care, it said.
McGrogan denied being her boss and said he was head of an association that negotiated with Vancouver Coastal Health Authority for the amount VCH paid to the association so it could pay the doctors.
There was no duty of care because he had no ability to impact her “interests, job or income,” he said in the response.
McGrogan texted her the next day and she thanked him for helping her home because she didn’t recall anything after leaving the restaurant, his response said.
A day later while on shift together, he told her what happened after the party, according to his response. She said she didn’t recall details and “they both apologized for what happened,” it said.
But four days later, Ivsins sent him an email “advising that, after thinking about things, she was upset” and she asked him to stay away from her at work, and he complied, he said in his response.
McGrogan also denied each of her allegations and said if she didn’t or lacked the capacity to consent, “which is vehemently denied, … (he) had a reasonable belief in her consent.”
None of the allegations have been proven in court. Neither party’s lawyer returned a request for comment.
Ivsins told Global News in an interview: “I did not want to be anonymous because I want to show other women that it’s not their fault.”
VCH is also named as a defendant. The lawsuit said it organized the work party and the party was paid for by the emergency department.
Ivsins also alleges VCH breached B.C.’s Evidence Act. She says she reported the conduct to an internal committee that investigated the incident and the committee disclosed its report to the defendant, which “was intended to cause (her) further harm and loss.”
VCH said in an email that it was preparing a response to the lawsuit and had no immediate comment.