We are deeply disappointed with the outcome rendered in R v. Sloka in Kitchener.
This case arises from allegations against former neurologist Jeffrey Sloka that he sexually assaulted women during examinations at his Kitchener office. The allegations first came to light when several former patients filed complaints with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. In those disciplinary proceedings, Sloka admitted to committing sexual misconduct against four former patients. An expert neurologist retained by the College also opined that some of Sloka's conduct was not medically necessary. Following the disciplinary process, Sloka agreed to surrender his medical licence.
In 2017, Sloka was criminally charged with 76 counts of sexual assault involving numerous former patients. The criminal trial proceeded over several years and concluded in November 2025. By the time of judgment, the charges had been reduced to 48 counts of sexual assault.
Judgment was delivered on Friday, April 24, at the Kitchener courthouse by Justice C. Parry, who acquitted Sloka of all 48 charges. Despite the findings and admissions in the College proceedings, Justice Parry concluded that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Sloka's conduct constituted criminal sexual assault. In his oral reasons, His Honour found that some complainants gave evidence that "lacked credibility," while others were, in his view, "deliberately dishonest with the court." Justice Parry instead accepted that Sloka "adequately proposed, identified and explained each examination he acknowledged performing," despite testimony from survivors to the contrary.
This outcome highlights a deeply frustrating inconsistency within our legal system. Because different proceedings operate with different burdens of proof and purposes, decision-makers can reach different conclusions based on the same underlying facts—even where an accused has admitted to sexual misconduct in a regulatory forum. The criminal justice system, with its primary focus on preventing wrongful convictions, offers limited space for survivors' voices and experiences. This outcome reflects a system that is not equipped to fully address survivors' needs. Survivors deserve a system that can recognize and deliver justice both for society and for the individual who has experienced harm.