Is there any case law where a doctor inappropriately touched the rectum of a man who was not wearing a protective covering over his ears, nose or throat?

10. It is plain on all of the evidence that the accused did not go to see the surgeon about his ears, nose, or throat. Instead, he was bleeding rectally, experiencing pain on voiding his bladder, and also experiencing abdominal pain. Whether the doctor explained that there was going to be palpation of all of the various anatomical areas relevant to those complaints is not important. What is important is that the doctor told him he wanted to examine him, and asked him to strip and lay on the examining table, and he did both. In short, he consented to being examined. It follows that the doctor’s touching of the accused was not in law a battery: see Reibl v. Hughes (1980), 1980 CanLII 23 (SCC), 114 D.L.R. (3d) 1 , (S.C.C.).