Ian Brockhouse

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.

The discipline panel considered a registrant's admission that he falsely told a patient he had consulted an oral pathologist who agreed that a tongue lesion was non-urgent hyperkeratosis.

The panel held that the dishonesty, coupled with the lack of documentation and the resulting delay in cancer diagnosis, constituted professional misconduct under s. 51(1)(c) of the Code and s. 2(59) of Ontario Regulation 853/93.

Applying the public-interest test governing joint submissions on penalty, the panel accepted a jointly proposed disposition centered on public protection, general deterrence, and the registrant's undertaking to resign permanently from practice in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada.

The panel ordered a reprimand and costs of $7,500.

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.