DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
on a balance of probabilities that the allegation that
Dr. XYZ engaged in sexual impropriety with Patient
A by giving her a massage and touching her sexually
during the massage, is not proven. The Committee
also finds the allegation that Dr. XYZ engaged in
disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct
in relation to Patient A is not proven.
APPEAL SUMMARY
DR. ROB JOSEPH KAMERMANS
The decision of the Discipline Committee was pub-
lished in Dialogue, Issue 1, 2017.
On August 24, 2016, Dr. Kamermans appealed the
finding and penalty decisions to the Ontario Supe-
rior Court of Justice (Divisional Court). The appeal
was heard on January 15, 2018 and, on February 8,
2018, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal with
$15,000 in costs to the College.
APPEAL SUMMARY
DR. JAVAD PEIROVY
The Court of Appeal for Ontario has released its
decision in the Dr. Javad Peirovy case.
In a decision dated July 17, 2015, the Discipline
Committee found that Dr. Peirovy engaged in sexual
abuse of four patients and disgraceful, dishonorable
or professional behaviour in respect of a fifth patient.
The Committee also found that a criminal conviction
for assault of two patients was an offence relevant to
Dr. Peirovy’s suitability to practice. On penalty, the
Discipline Committee imposed a suspension of six
months and other terms, conditions and limitations
on Dr. Peirovy’s certificate of registration, including
chaperone requirements.
The College appealed the Discipline Committee’s
penalty decision to the Divisional Court. In its deci-
sion dated January 17, 2017, the Divisional Court
84
DIALOGUE ISSUE 2, 2018
allowed the College’s appeal, holding among other
things that the penalty imposed on Dr. Peirovy was
manifestly unfit and out of step with social values
concerning physician sexual abuse of patients.
Both the Discipline Committee and the Divisional
Court decision appeared in Dialogue Issue 1, 2017,
Dr. Peirovy obtained leave to appeal and appealed
the Divisional Court’s decision to a three-member
panel of the Court of Appeal.
In its majority decision, the Court of Appeal al-
lowed Dr. Peirovy’s appeal and restored the penalty
decision of the Discipline Committee. The Court
held that the Discipline Committee is a specialized,
expert tribunal and that the Divisional Court had
failed to show appropriate deference. The Court also
noted that the penalty imposed on Dr. Peirovy was in
keeping with prior penalty decisions of the Discipline
Committee in the area of sexual abuse and that the
Divisional Court erred in substituting its own view
of an appropriate penalty.
In her dissent, the judge concluded that Dr.
Peirovy’s appeal should be dismissed and the Divi-
sional Court’s decision upheld. She concluded that
the penalty imposed by the Discipline Committee
was manifestly unfit. The judge agreed with the Col-
lege’s argument that deference is not required when a
penalty no longer reflects societal values.
Full decisions are available online at www.cpso.on.ca.
Select Find a Doctor and enter the doctor’s name.