Dr. Richard Hunter

In a dental discipline proceeding, the member admitted professional misconduct arising from diagnosing and providing unnecessary restorative treatment, failing to use appropriate radiographic technique, prescribing antibiotics without adequate diagnostic foundation, failing to identify substandard restorations performed under supervision, and deficient recordkeeping.

The panel found the admissions voluntary, informed and unequivocal, and was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the misconduct was established.

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

A one-month suspension, remedial coursework, practice monitoring, reprimand, and $3,000 in costs were ordered.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted extensive misconduct involving substandard endodontic and restorative treatment, deficient recordkeeping, false and excessive insurance claims, failures of informed consent, and inadequate responses to the regulator’s inquiries across multiple patient files.

The panel accepted an agreed statement of facts and found the misconduct established as alleged in two Notices of Hearing.

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

A six-month suspension, practice restrictions, remedial education, practice monitoring, reprimand, and costs were ordered.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the member admitted allegations arising from delayed diagnosis and inadequate management of a patient’s cancerous oral lesion, together with deficient recordkeeping.

The panel accepted the agreed statement of facts and found professional misconduct under the Health Professions Procedural Code and the applicable dentistry regulations.

Accepting a joint submission, the panel imposed a reprimand, a one-month suspension, practice conditions including monitoring and inspections for up to twenty-four months, and costs.

A publication ban protected the identity of the patient.

In a professional discipline hearing, the College alleged sexual abuse of patients and disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical conduct by a dentist involving a long-term intimate relationship with a patient, sexualized comments and touching toward a patient-employee, and inappropriate touching of another patient-employee.

The member admitted the allegations and signed an agreed statement of facts, and the panel found the admissions informed, voluntary and unequivocal.

The panel held the admitted conduct constituted sexual abuse and professional misconduct under the Health Professions Procedural Code and the Dentistry Act Regulation.

Accepting a joint penalty submission, the panel ordered a reprimand and mandatory revocation of the member's certificate of registration effective April 25, 2017.

No costs were ordered.