Lisa Kelly

College discipline proceeding arising from a member's treatment of a patient involving multiple tooth extractions, temporomandibular joint-related care, inadequate recordkeeping, and failure to obtain informed consent.

The member admitted professional misconduct allegations under the Health Professions Procedural Code and the dentistry misconduct regulation, including unjustified extractions, failure to refer to specialists earlier, deficient charting, and disgraceful or unprofessional conduct.

The panel found the admissions voluntary and unequivocal, accepted the agreed facts, and held that the evidence substantiated the misconduct.

The panel accepted an amended joint penalty submission imposing a reprimand, educational courses, practice restrictions, monitoring, publication on the register, and $2,500 in costs.

A discipline panel found a dentist guilty of professional misconduct after he admitted failing to complete a specified continuing education or remediation program ordered by the complaints committee and failing to respond appropriately to repeated regulatory communications.

The panel held that the admitted facts established both a failure to reply within a reasonable time to a written enquiry and conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty and costs, the panel imposed a reprimand, 24 months of practice monitoring, counselling at the member's expense, and costs.

The panel emphasized public protection, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the importance of compliance with regulator-ordered remediation.

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.