Carol Janik

At a penalty and costs hearing following findings that the registrant sexually abused two patients and committed multiple additional acts of professional misconduct, the discipline panel held that revocation was mandatory under the Health Professions Procedural Code because the sexual abuse included sexual intercourse.

The panel rejected arguments alleging bias in the earlier merits reasons, held it was functus officio and could not revisit its findings, and found no merit in the contention that the patient relationships were merely incidental to employment or sexual relationships.

The panel also held that a victim impact statement was not a precondition to imposing penalty under s. 51(6).

It ordered a reprimand, immediate revocation, security for therapy and counselling funding for two patients, and substantial costs reflecting roughly two-thirds of the College's actual investigation and hearing expenses.

In a multi-notice professional discipline proceeding, the panel found that the registrant engaged in false and misleading insurance billing by causing claims for his own dental services to be submitted under other dentists’ names and provider numbers, and in one instance on a false service date.

The panel also found extensive professional misconduct in opioid prescribing and recordkeeping, including prescribing without documented justification, exceeding College guideline quantities and frequencies without rationale, failing to document informed consent, diagnoses, treatment plans, and root canal safeguards.

The panel further found that the registrant engaged in sexual relationships with two employees who were also his patients, amounting to sexual abuse and disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional and unethical conduct.

A separate allegation of inappropriate touching involving another employee-patient was not proven.

Most allegations were upheld, with limited exceptions under one notice.

A discipline panel found a dentist guilty of professional misconduct for describing himself on his website as a specialist in orthodontics and as a specialist orthodontist while registered only as a general dentist.

The panel held that the member was responsible for misleading advertising published on his website even if the web provider made the error, and found the conduct unprofessional and unethical, particularly in light of a prior undertaking arising from similar conduct.

The panel imposed a reprimand, a six-week suspension, ethics remediation, and advance approval conditions for promotional materials.

The panel also ordered costs of $15,000 payable to the College.

Discipline proceeding arising from a complaint and investigation concerning a dentist’s long-term treatment of four members of the same family.

The panel accepted a guilty plea and agreed statement of facts establishing supervised neglect, failures in diagnosis and treatment, inadequate recordkeeping, absence of documented informed consent, and improper lorazepam prescribing for one patient.

The panel found professional misconduct on all allegations except one disputed particular under the prescribing allegation.

On penalty, the panel accepted a joint submission after the member voluntarily undertook to permanently resign, and ordered a reprimand and $5,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel accepted the member's guilty plea and agreed facts establishing that he allowed an unregistered and unregulated individual to perform intra-oral procedures, prescribe medication, and access his prescription pad in his dental office.

The panel held that the member knew or ought to have known the individual was not authorized to practise and that his failure to investigate credentials was conduct reasonably regarded by the profession as wholly unprofessional.

On a joint submission, the panel imposed a reprimand, required successful completion of the ProBE ethics program, ordered practice monitoring, and ordered costs of $5,000.

A publication ban protected the identities of patients referred to in the hearing.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted extensive misconduct across two Notices of Hearing involving substandard treatment, treatment without informed consent, improper billing practices, pervasive recordkeeping failures, deletion of radiographic images, inaccurate information provided to the regulator, and breach of a written undertaking.

The agreed facts described repeated endodontic, restorative, crown and extraction deficiencies affecting numerous patients, together with prior remediation and monitoring that had failed to correct the practice problems.

The panel held that the admitted conduct clearly established professional misconduct, including conduct reasonably regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional and unethical.

Accepting a joint submission, the panel imposed a reprimand, immediate revocation of the member's certificate of registration, and costs of $2,500.