Manohar Kanagamany

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.

In a dental discipline proceeding, the panel accepted the member’s guilty plea and agreed statement of facts regarding cosmetic dental treatment in which crowns and a bridge were provided after discussions and documentation referring to veneers.

The panel found professional misconduct for over-preparing teeth, failing to obtain informed consent, charging excessive fees above recommended rates without explanation or consent, and providing inaccurate information to the regulator during the investigation.

The panel held that the patient had not consented to the actual treatment provided and that the member’s conduct caused significant clinical harm and raised serious integrity concerns.

A joint submission on penalty was accepted, resulting in an 18-month suspension, extensive remedial and practice restriction terms, and 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 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.