Dr. Richard Hunter

In a professional discipline matter, the registrant sought reconsideration after failing to deliver written submissions on penalty and costs by the agreed deadline.

The Panel held it was functus once it had released its final decision and found no authority in the governing legislation or committee rules to reopen the matter.

In any event, it would not have exercised any such discretion because counsel ignored follow-up communications, sought no extension, and offered no adequate explanation for the delay.

The request to reconsider the released penalty and costs decision was refused.

In a professional discipline penalty and costs decision, the panel addressed the mandatory consequences of a finding that a registrant sexually abused a patient by engaging in sexual intercourse.

Applying the mandatory penalty provisions, the panel held that revocation and a reprimand were required.

The panel also ordered reimbursement to the College for therapy and counselling funding already accessed by the patient and found this to be an appropriate case for a substantial costs order because the member’s conduct unnecessarily prolonged the hearing and increased expense.

The College recovered two-thirds of its actual costs, and the patient-identity publication restriction remained in place.

Following a finding that the member sexually abused a patient by engaging in intercourse, the College brought a written motion for an immediate interim suspension pending penalty and for an expedited penalty hearing.

The member did not oppose the relief sought.

The panel held that s. 51(4.2) of the Health Professions Procedural Code required an immediate suspension where the sexual abuse involved intercourse and left no discretion.

The motion was granted and the penalty hearing was directed to proceed on an expedited basis.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found that a dentist committed professional misconduct by engaging in sexual relations with a patient who was not his spouse within the meaning of the governing health professions legislation.

The panel rejected the respondent’s position that a same-day proxy Islamic divorce and private Islamic marriage rendered the patient his spouse, finding the evidence unreliable and, in any event, insufficient for recognition under Canadian law.

The panel also found a boundary violation where the respondent co-signed a patient’s mortgage and became a co-mortgagee on the property.

The allegations were proven on a balance of probabilities, including sexual abuse of a patient and disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical conduct.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted misconduct arising from unnecessary sedative and repeat restorations, improper in-office lab and emergency exam charges, and widespread recordkeeping deficiencies affecting multiple patients over many years.

The panel found the admitted facts substantiated professional misconduct under the governing dental regulations and the Health Professions Procedural Code.

Applying the usual public-protection rationale for accepting a joint penalty submission, the panel accepted a reprimand, a five-month suspension, extensive remediation and monitoring terms, and a costs order.

Because a publication restriction protected patient identities, the reasons were framed without identifying patients.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted multiple allegations involving deficient records, unsupported restorative claims, and billing orthodontic-related treatment as restorative treatment for insured patients.

The panel found professional misconduct proven on the admitted facts, including failures in record-keeping, false or misleading billing, and failure to take and maintain required clinical photographs.

Applying the public-interest approach to joint penalty submissions, the panel accepted a jointly proposed sanction consisting of a reprimand, a four-month suspension, remediation and mentoring terms, ongoing monitoring, and costs.

The reasons emphasized public protection, deterrence, remediation, and the aggravating feature that the misconduct occurred in the context of discounted Invisalign services and inflated insurer billings.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted altering a patient record to change the treatment date, submitting a false insurance claim, and providing misleading information to an insurer.

The panel found professional misconduct under the Health Professions Procedural Code and the applicable professional misconduct regulation, concluding the conduct was dishonest and reasonably regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, holding that it fell within the appropriate range and served public protection, specific and general deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The member received a reprimand, a two-month suspension, remedial ethics education, practice monitoring conditions, and a $3000 costs order.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted misconduct arising from criminal convictions for impaired operation causing death, dangerous operation causing death, and breach of recognizance.

The panel held that the criminal conduct, although outside a clinical setting, was relevant to the provision of dental care to the public because it demonstrated a serious disregard for public safety and undermined fundamental public expectations of regulated health professionals.

The panel accepted a joint penalty submission imposing a reprimand, a six-month suspension, practice monitoring and treatment-related conditions, and costs.

A publication ban was made permanent over certain personal information in the member’s affidavit.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted multiple acts of misconduct arising from opioid prescribing to several patients over a prolonged period.

The panel found the admissions and agreed facts established failures to document diagnosis and justification, excessive quantities and frequency of opioid prescriptions, inadequate charting, and a lack of professional judgment, particularly concerning one patient.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, emphasizing public protection, general and specific deterrence, and remediation.

The member received a four-month suspension, a permanent restriction on prescribing narcotic and controlled drugs, mandatory courses, practice monitoring, and costs.

Professional discipline decision arising from a member's admissions that she performed or billed for fixed prosthodontic treatment despite an undertaking and remediation order restricting that work, and that she used a business name inconsistent with the register.

The panel held that the agreed facts substantiated all allegations of professional misconduct on a balance of probabilities and emphasized the member's disregard for patient protection and regulatory obligations.

Applying the public-interest standard for joint submissions, the panel accepted a jointly proposed sanction consisting of a reprimand, an eight-month suspension, extensive practice conditions, mentoring, monitoring, and costs.

A publication ban protected the identity of patients named in the notice of hearing and agreed statement of facts.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted misconduct involving deficient recordkeeping, falsified patient records, false or misleading insurance claims and billings, inflated laboratory charges, and unjustified repeat hygiene treatment.

The panel found the admitted conduct constituted professional misconduct under the governing health professions legislation and dentistry regulations, and emphasized that falsifying records and inaccurate billings are incompatible with professional standards.

Applying the public-interest approach to a joint penalty submission, the panel accepted a proposed sanction consisting of a six-month suspension, reprimand, extensive terms and conditions, practice monitoring, remedial courses, and costs.

The decision also maintained a publication restriction protecting patient identities.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted allegations involving sexual impropriety with a patient who was also an employee, and longstanding sexual harassment and degrading conduct toward staff in a dental practice.

The panel found professional misconduct proven on the member’s admissions and the agreed statement of facts.

Applying the public-interest standard governing joint submissions on sanction, the panel accepted a joint submission for reprimand, immediate revocation of the certificate of registration, and $10,000 in costs.

The panel held that revocation was necessary for public protection, denunciation, deterrence, and maintenance of public confidence in the profession.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel accepted the member’s admissions to multiple allegations arising from complex implant treatment, consent failures, disclosure of patient information, deficient records, and breach of a remediation and mentorship program.

The admitted facts included lengthy surgery on an elderly patient, treatment-planning inconsistencies, undocumented changes in implant number and prosthetic materials, inadequate informed consent, unauthorized distribution of patient photographs, and failure to follow a mentor’s recommendations in two implant cases.

The panel found all misconduct allegations proven and accepted a joint submission on penalty.

The sanction imposed a six-month suspension, reprimand, extensive remedial terms and monitoring, and costs of $10,000.

A dental discipline panel found professional misconduct where the registrant planned and performed unnecessary oral surgery on a minor under general anaesthesia after reviewing another patient's CBCT scan and failing to review the patient chart.

The panel also found that informed consent was not obtained because the discussion of the procedure was insufficient, the written consent referred to the wrong tooth, and consent was not re-confirmed on the day of surgery.

Accepting a joint submission, the panel ordered a reprimand, completion of an informed-consent course, practice monitoring, and costs.

A publication ban protected the identity of patients named in the notice of hearing and agreed statement of facts.

In a dental discipline proceeding, the member admitted professional misconduct arising from deficient recordkeeping and improper use of billing codes that resulted in insurance claims and related documents containing improper statements for multiple patients.

The tribunal accepted an agreed statement of facts and found the misconduct proven under s. 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code and paragraph 28 of section 2 of Ontario Regulation 853.

Applying the joint penalty submission, the tribunal imposed a reprimand, mandatory remedial courses in recordkeeping and billing, practice monitoring for twenty-four months after course completion, and costs.

A publication restriction protecting patient identities was also ordered under s. 45(3).

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found professional misconduct where the member failed to comply with a prior Discipline Committee order requiring an unconditional pass in an ethics remediation program.

The member admitted the allegation, and the College withdrew a separate governability-related allegation.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty and costs, holding that the proposed sanction was within the appropriate range and consistent with the public interest.

The order imposed a reprimand, mentorship as a term on the certificate of registration, and costs of $2,500.

Following liability findings for multiple forms of professional misconduct in dental practice, the discipline panel addressed penalty and costs on an uncontested joint submission.

The misconduct included unnecessary dental services, false or misleading documentation and claims, excessive or unreasonable fees, failure to collect co-payments properly, deficient records, and misconduct tied to financial benefit.

The panel accepted a joint submission imposing a reprimand, a 12-month suspension, extensive suspension and practice conditions, remedial coursework, and monitoring.

The panel held that the proposed sanction was fair and reasonable, served specific and general deterrence, protected the public, and supported rehabilitation.

Costs of $200,000 were also ordered, representing approximately one third of the College’s hearing costs.

A professional discipline panel found that the member committed professional misconduct arising from a systemic pattern of unnecessary radiographs, false and misleading insurance billings, billing for services not performed, charging excessive or unreasonable fees, failing to collect co-payments, and failing to provide complete patient records to the regulator.

Applying the civil standard of proof from F.H. v McDougall, the panel relied heavily on documentary records and found the billing discrepancies too numerous and persistent to be explained as innocent clerical mistakes.

The panel rejected the position that responsibility for billing errors could be delegated to staff, holding the clinic owner responsible for the conduct of the office and the claims submitted under his name.

The publication restriction protecting patient identities remained in force.

In this professional discipline proceeding, the member admitted multiple allegations arising from false or misleading insurance claims, false or misleading patient-related documents, inadequate and altered records, and unethical conduct affecting numerous patients.

The panel accepted the admissions and Agreed Statement of Facts and found professional misconduct proved under the Health Professions Procedural Code and Ontario Regulation 853.

The panel also accepted a joint submission on penalty and costs, holding that it served specific and general deterrence, remediation, and public protection.

The disposition included a four-month suspension, a reprimand, remedial education, practice monitoring, and costs.

In a dental discipline proceeding, the member admitted allegations of unnecessary dental services, excessive or unreasonable fees, recordkeeping deficiencies, and improper insurance claims affecting multiple patients over many years.

The panel accepted an agreed statement of facts and found professional misconduct under the governing health-professions legislation and regulations.

On penalty, the panel raised concerns about the member’s prior discipline history, the remediation evidence, and the proposed suspension length, but ultimately applied the joint-submission standard from Anthony-Cook and accepted the proposed sanction.

The order imposed a reprimand, a two-month suspension, education in recordkeeping and billing, practice monitoring, suspension-related restrictions, and $5,000 in costs.