Mr. Manohar Kanagamany

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.

A discipline panel accepted the member's admissions to professional misconduct arising from extensive recordkeeping deficiencies and improper billing practices over several years.

The misconduct included illegible crossed-out entries, use of pencil and white-out in records, failure to retain insurance claims, delayed insurance billing using false service dates, and an inappropriate claim for a bridge where implant treatment had been provided.

Applying the public-interest standard for joint submissions, the panel accepted a jointly proposed penalty consisting of a reprimand, remedial education, 24 months of practice monitoring, and costs.

The panel emphasized rehabilitation, specific and general deterrence, and public protection, while treating the guilty plea, remorse, restitution, and prior remediation as mitigating factors.

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 this professional discipline penalty decision, the panel determined the appropriate sanction after findings that the member repeatedly breached an undertaking restricting his practice, contravened terms on his certificate, misled the regulator, failed to respond appropriately to College inquiries, and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional and unethical conduct.

The panel held that the misconduct demonstrated prolonged and escalating refusal to accept the regulator’s authority and rendered the member ungovernable.

Emphasizing public protection, the panel found that remedial measures would not be effective and directed revocation of the member’s certificate of registration.

A publication ban protecting patients’ identities remained in force.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found that the member repeatedly breached a practice undertaking and certificate restrictions by initiating and providing prosthodontic and implant-related treatment after agreeing not to do so.

The panel also found that the member gave inaccurate information to the regulator about the scope of post-undertaking treatment and failed to respond appropriately to a written records request concerning a patient file.

Applying the civil balance of probabilities standard, with clear, convincing and cogent evidence, the panel accepted the investigators' evidence and rejected the member's interpretation that screw-retained prostheses fell outside the undertaking.

Findings of professional misconduct were entered on all pursued allegations in both notices of hearing.