DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
that Dr. Kunynetz contravened a term, condition and
limitation on his certificate of registration.
ORDER
The Discipline Committee ordered: the revocation
of Dr. Kunynetz’s certificate of registration; a rep-
rimand; reimbursement to the College for funding
provided to patients under the program required
under Section 85.7 of the Code in the amount of
$16,060; and payment of costs in the amount of
$145,460.
DISSENTING REASONS - RETROSPECTIVITY
A majority of the panel agreed that the amendments
to the RHPA make revocation mandatory for the
sexual abuse engaged in by Dr. Kunynetz and ac-
cepted the College’s position that the amendments
have retrospective effect. One member of the panel
wrote dissenting reasons on the issue of retrospectivity,
disagreeing that the amendments have retrospective
effect. The Committee, including the dissenting mem-
ber, found that revocation was appropriate in this case
even without taking into account the amendments.
For complete details, please see the full decision at
www.cpso.on.ca. Select Find a Doctor and enter the
doctor’s name.
DR. KELVIN WING-MING LEUNG
PRACTICE LOCATION: Toronto
AREA OF PRACTICE: General Practice
HEARING INFORMATION: Admission; Agreed Statement of
Facts; Joint Submission on Penalty
On December 11, 2017, the Discipline Committee
found that Dr. Leung committed an act of professional
misconduct, in that: he failed to maintain the standard
of practice of the profession; and, he engaged in an act
or omission relevant to the practice of medicine that,
having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably
be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable,
or unprofessional.
2014 MANDATORY REPORT
In December 2014, the College received a mandatory
report from a family physician expressing concern
about Dr. Leung’s treatment of hemorrhoids in an
18-year-old patient who had attended Dr. Leung’s
office for a follow-up for chlamydia.
PATIENT A
In December 2014, Patient A presented at Dr.
Leung’s office with left knee pain. On examining her
left hip and lower abdomen, Dr. Leung queried a
potential ovarian abnormality. Dr. Leung conducted
a vulvar, pelvic and visual peri-anal examination of
Patient A, during which he noted an internal hemor-
rhoid, which he proceeded to incise and cauterize.
In January 2015, following Patient A’s complaint,
the medical expert retained by the College opined
that while the recommended plan to use anti-in-
flammatories and to participate in physical therapy
seemed appropriate, Dr. Leung did not meet the
standard of practice of the profession in his care of
Patient A including: poor record-keeping, examining
the patient’s lower abdomen when not indicated, a
pelvic exam when not indicated, a peri-anal exam in
an asymptomatic patient, and subsequently recom-
mending and performing a hemorrhoid treatment
that was neither indicated nor evidence-based. The
medical expert concluded that Dr. Leung’s treatment
of Patient A fell below the standard of practice of the
medical profession and that providing this patient
with a non-indicated pelvic exam and subsequently
a non-indicated hemorrhoid treatment exposed this
patient to harm. He further concluded that Dr.
Leung`s knowledge and judgment with respect to
hemorrhoid treatments and performing non indi-
cated peri-anal and pelvic exams falls well below the
standard of practice of the profession.
INVESTIGATION
When advised of the investigation and the potential
concerns regarding the appropriateness of his hem-
orrhoid procedures, Dr. Leung voluntarily stopped
performing all hemorrhoid procedures. He has not
performed any hemorrhoid procedures since that
time and has agreed not to perform any such proce-
dures in the future.
Upon reviewing 10 female patients’ charts, the
ISSUE 4, 2018 DIALOGUE
69