Dialogue Volume 15, Issue 3 2019 - Page 67

DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Thomas waived his right to an appeal and the Committee administered the public reprimand. Appeal DR. RODION KUNYNETZ On January 23, 2019, the Divisional Court heard an appeal from a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in respect of Dr. Rodion Kunynetz, a Barrie derma- tologist, which found that Dr. Kunynetz had com- mitted sexual abuse, disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct and had breached an interim chaperone order. In a February 20, 2018 decision of the Discipline Committee, Dr. Kunynetz’s certificate of registration was revoked. In reasons released July 24, 2019, the Divisional Court granted the appeal, overturning two findings of the Discipline Committee and sustaining two others. The Divisional Court quashed the penalty decision. Specifically, the Divisional Court held: • The Discipline Committee’s finding that Dr. Kuny- netz committed an act of professional misconduct by moving or removing clothing in the absence of adequate warning or explanation in respect of Patients A and D was reasonable. This finding was upheld. • The Discipline Committee’s finding that Dr. Kuny- netz breached or contravened a term, condition and limitation on his certificate of registration, namely, by breaching his chaperone order on two occasions, was reasonable. This finding was upheld. • The Discipline Committee’s finding that Dr. Kunynetz engaged in sexual abuse by touching the breasts of Patient B in a manner that was not consistent with the clinical exam is unreasonable. The Divisional Court quashed this finding and dismissed the allegations. • The Discipline Committee’s finding that Dr. Kuny- netz engaged in professional misconduct by allow- ing his abdominal fat pad to contact the body of Patients C and D is unreasonable. The Divisional Court quashed this finding and dismissed these allegations. • The Divisional Court quashed the Discipline Com- mittee’s order for revocation, reprimand, reim- bursement for funding for therapy and costs. The Divisional Court found the penalty was unreason- able. In this case, the Divisional Court did not remit the matter back to the Discipline Committee for a re-hearing with respect to penalty regarding the findings that were sustained. Instead, the Di- visional Court ordered a suspension from October 1, 2015 (the date of Dr. Kunynetz’s interim suspen- sion) to, the date of the release of the Divisional Court’s decision. The Divisional Court held that the amendments to the Code arising under the Protecting Patients Act, 2017 did not apply retrospectively to events occur- ring before the amendments came into effect. Notably, the Divisional Court declined to rule on Dr. Kunynetz’s assertion that the findings should be quashed as an abuse of process for delay during the investigation, and delay in the release of the Disci- pline Committee’s decision on liability and reasons on various motions. The Divisional Court agreed with the Discipline Committee that this was one of the most complex cases that a College Discipline Committee has heard. ISSUE 3, 2019 DIALOGUE 67