skip to content

Kunynetz, Rodion Andrew

CPSO#: 30157

Revoked: Discipline Committee as of 20 Feb 2018
None as of 20 Feb 2018
Flag: Indicates a concern or additional information


Former Name: No Former Name

Gender: Male

Languages Spoken: English, Ukrainian

Education:University of Toronto, 1977

Practice Information

Primary Location of Practice
Practice Address Not Available

Medical Records Location

Address: Suite 200 6-14845 Yonge Street Aurora, ON L4G 6H8
Date Received: 22 Feb 2016


Specialty Issued On Type
Dermatology Effective: 23 Nov 1982 RCPSC Specialist

Registration History

Action Issue Date
First certificate of registration issued: Postgraduate Education Certificate Effective: 01 Jul 1977
Transfer of class of registration to: Independent Practice Certificate Effective: 04 Jul 1978
Transfer of class of certificate to: Restricted certificate Effective: 13 Aug 2015
Terms and conditions imposed on certificate Effective: 13 Aug 2015
Suspension of registration imposed: Inquiries, Complaints and Repo Effective: 01 Oct 2015
Revoked: Discipline Committee. Effective: 20 Feb 2018

Pending Hearings Flag: indicates a concern or additional information


Allegations of Dr. Kunynetz’s professional misconduct have been referred to the Discipline Committee of the College. It is alleged that Dr. Kunynetz engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct, the sexual abuse of and/or sexual impropriety with patients by, among other things, rubbing/leaning/pressing himself against patients; touching patients in an inappropriate and sexual manner; failing to provide patients with appropriate privacy or a proper gown/covering during patient encounters; conducting a patient encounter in an inappropriate manner and setting and proceeding with patient encounters, including moving/removing patients’ clothing and touching patients, without proper warning, explanation or consent. It is alleged that Dr. Kunynetz engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct by failing to disclose, on an application for reappointment and on a clinical faculty annual activity report and/or reappointment application that he was the subject of a College investigation.

Notice of Hearing: Download Full Notice (PDF)

Hearing Date(s): adjourned

Hearing Status: Adjourned

Previous Hearings Flag: indicates a concern or additional information

Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 21 Mar 2017

On March 21, 2017, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Rodion Andrew Kunynetz, 
committed an act of professional misconduct in that:  he engaged in sexual abuse of a 
patient; he has engaged in conduct or 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; and, he contravened a term, 
condition or limitation on his certificate of registration. 
Dr. Kunynetz is a dermatologist. 
Sexual Abuse of Patient B by Touching of Breasts  
Patient B alleged that during a dermatological examination, Dr. Kunynetz put his hands 
inside her bra and "fondled” her breasts. He did so after he had examined her legs and 
had established that she did not have a wheal in response to stroking (a positive Darier's 
sign), and after she had told him that other physicians had failed to elicit such a finding. 
Dr. Kunynetz responded in 2008 after her initial complaint that he merely would have 
lifted her bra straps to look at the skin underneath. He also said that he might have asked 
Patient B to lift her breast herself, in order to examine underneath them. He repeated this 
at the time of his application for judicial review of his interim suspension in 2015. 
However in testimony at this hearing, he said that he would have stroked each breast, 
with one hand under her bra, while stabilizing it from beneath with the other hand. His 
rationale for doing this, he said, was to attempt to elicit Darier's sign. 
No justification was provided for the examination of the breasts in urticaria pigmentosa 
and there was no mention of it in the patient’s chart. Moreover the Committee noted that 
there was no mention of Darier's sign in the chart, and indeed the first time that this was 
mentioned by Dr. Kunynetz occurred only after reference had been made to it by a report 
from an expert in 2015; the expert did not testify in this hearing. 
The change in explanation by Dr. Kunynetz, with no clinical notes at the time to support 
it, provided the Committee with serious doubts about his credibility on this issue. The 
Committee did not have similar doubts about Patient B's credibility.  
The Committee found there is no clinical justification for the touching by Dr. Kunynetz 
of Patient B’s breasts in the manner described by Patient B, which the Committee found 
did occur. The Committee did not accept as credible Dr. Kunynetz’s rationalization for 
doing so in the circumstances of this case. Therefore, the Committee found that Dr. 
Kunynetz engaged in sexual abuse in his touching of the breasts of Patient B. 
Disgraceful, Dishonourable or Unprofessional Conduct  
i)    Removal of clothing of Patients A and D without due warning or consent 

Dr. Kunynetz said that he commonly moved or shifted items of clothing such as bra 
straps to view the skin beneath, or lifted clothing that obscured a portion of the skin that 
needed to be inspected. He said that he usually gave the patient a reason for this, but he 
also admitted that his explanations were brief and often occurred during the displacement 
of clothing. The Committee concluded that the removal of clothing occurred during the 
process of a clinical examination, and that Dr. Kunynetz was justified in needing to 
examine the skin underneath the clothing.  
The material that had been provided to Dr. Kunynetz by the College investigator 
emphasized the importance of explaining to a patient ahead of time the nature and reason 
for any portion of a physical examination. While this may not constitute formal seeking 
of consent in the way in which this term is usually used, the process of explanation 
demands that the physician take reasonable steps to ensure that the patient comprehends 
why something is being done, particularly if the actions are relevant to, or involve, 
sensitive parts of the body. This was clearly not done before the shifting of clothing 
performed by Dr. Kunynetz. 
The Committee finds that the absence of adequate warning or explanation to Patients A 
and D by Dr. Kunynetz before moving or removing their clothing, constitutes conduct 
that would be reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or 
ii)   Physical contact between Dr. Kunynetz’s lower abdomen and Patients C and 
      D without warning, apology or excuse  
Two of the complainants (Patients C and D) testified that Dr. Kunynetz pressed himself 
against their legs in such a way that they could feel his penis pressing against them. Of 
the three similar fact witnesses, two alleged that they felt Dr. Kunynetz's penis pressing 
against them, and one could feel his testicles pressing against her legs. 
The events described by the patients were, in some respects, similar, and in other 
respects, dissimilar as outlined in the Committee’s decision and reasons. There were 
inconsistencies in their individual testimonies, both between statements made on 
examination-in-chief and those made in response to cross-examination, and between 
statements made earlier to College investigators and those made at the hearing. These 
inconsistencies related to events or descriptions that would reasonably be less 
consequential to an observer (such as the lay-out and furnishing of the examination 
rooms, the precise wording used by them or by Dr. Kunynetz, or the exact timing - to the 
second - of the contact with Dr. Kunynetz). Similarly, memories of the dates of 
appointments, or the number of appointments with Dr. Kunynetz, and even at which of 
three appointments the alleged contact occurred, were variable. What remained consistent 
even under vigorous cross examination were the details and the certitude with which they 
expressed their experience of unwanted contact.  
Dr. Kunynetz's response to the allegations was two-fold. First, he vehemently denied that 
he ever had or would deliberately push his genitalia against a female patient, and second, 

that he could not physically do so, even by accident because of his size, and in particular, 
the presence of a “pannus” or fat apron, which would be interposed between his genitalia 
and the patients legs, and thus prevent his penis being felt in the way it was described by 
the complainants. 
In support of this defence, Dr. Kunynetz submitted photographic evidence and underwent 
two examinations by experts in urology, who provided opinion evidence about the 
possibility (or impossibility) of the complainants having felt Dr. Kunynetz's penis. The 
Committee concluded that the impossibility of contact, between the doctor's penis and a 
patients skin (through clothing), was not established. 
After reviewing the totality of the evidence, the Committee found that there had been 
contact between the patients and that part of Dr. Kunynetz's lower abdomen at the level 
of his pelvis, and that the patients were distressed by this. The Committee did not find on 
the evidence that there was intentional touching of Dr. Kunynetz’s genitalia against the 
body of Patients C and D. 
However, the Committee remained concerned that there was contact between a portion of 
Dr. Kunynetz body, in the area of his large abdominal panniculus, or abdominal fat pad, 
and this contact was not accompanied by any form of warning, apology or excuse. The 
Committee was of the view that a reasonable physician would make every attempt to 
ensure that this did not occur, and that failure to make such attempts or to apologize if it 
occurred accidentally, or incidentally, represented an unacceptable level of insensitivity 
on the part of Dr. Kunynetz, without care or concern for the patients. 
Therefore, the Committee found that the contact which occurred between Dr. Kunynetz 
and Patients C and D was conduct that, having regard to all the circumstances, would be 
reasonably regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. 
Contravened a Term, Condition and Limitation  
The allegation that Dr. Kunynetz contravened a term, condition or limitation on his 
certificate of registration arose from Dr. Kunynetz seeing two female patients without the 
presence of a chaperone, after he had signed an undertaking to see female patients only in 
the presence of a chaperone. Dr. Kunynetz defence of the breach of the undertaking was 
that it was an unintentional, non-deliberate lapse occasioned by his focusing on the 
patients' problems, and also by the failure of the system that he had put in place to ensure 
such lapses did not occur. 
Dr. Kunynetz admitted that he saw and provided advice to two female patients after he 
had executed an undertaking to only see such patients in the presence of an approved 
chaperone. While the Committee accepted that this was not a premeditated or deliberate 
flouting of the College's authority, the Committee found that Dr. Kunynetz's explanation 
that his staff neglected to place a blank sheet of paper on the door of the examination 
room (in one instance) was both an inadequate and ingenuous excuse. Dr. Kunynetz’s 
point that he adhered to the undertaking in some 700 patients was given as mitigation; 

however it can equally be viewed as evidence that Dr. Kunynetz was very aware of the 
conditions expected by the College. The Committee found that Dr. Kunynetz contravened 
a term, condition and limitation on his certificate of registration in respect of two 
breaches of his undertaking to the College to see female patients only in the presence of a 
On February 20, 2018, the Committee ordered and directed that:  
-   the Registrar revoke Dr. Kunynetz's certificate of registration, effective immediately. 
-   Dr. Kunynetz appear before the panel to be reprimanded within thirty (30) days of 
    this Order becoming final. 
-   Dr. Kunynetz reimburse the College for funding provided to patients under the 
    program required under Section 85.7 of the Code, and to post an irrevocable letter of 
    credit or other security acceptable to the College to guarantee payments of such 
    amounts within thirty (30) days of the date this order becomes final, in the amount of 
-   Dr. Kunynetz pay to the College costs of the hearing in the amount of $145,460.00, 
    within six (6) months of this Order becoming final. 
On April, 20, 2017, Dr. Kunynetz appealed the decision of the Discipline Committee to 
the Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court). 
On March 21, 2018, Dr. Kunynetz appealed the decision on penalty, on costs, and certain 
motion orders of the Discipline Committee to the Superior Court of Justice (Divisional 
Pursuant to s.71 of the Code, the Discipline Committee’s decision remains in effect 
despite the appeal.

Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Hearing Date(s): Motion date: November 10, 2015. Hearing dates 2016: January 6-8, January 18-22, January 25-28, March 14-17, March 28, 30, 31, April 1, April 29, May 3-6, May 9, 13, May 16, 26, 27, June 3, June 13-16, June 28, 2016, July 11 - 12, 2016 Motion Date: July 10, 2017 Penalty Hearing: July 11, 2017, August 14, 15, 2017