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of registration was revoked.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