Mr. Rod Stableforth

In a professional discipline matter, the registrant sought reconsideration after failing to deliver written submissions on penalty and costs by the agreed deadline.

The Panel held it was functus once it had released its final decision and found no authority in the governing legislation or committee rules to reopen the matter.

In any event, it would not have exercised any such discretion because counsel ignored follow-up communications, sought no extension, and offered no adequate explanation for the delay.

The request to reconsider the released penalty and costs decision was refused.

In a professional discipline penalty and costs decision, the panel addressed the mandatory consequences of a finding that a registrant sexually abused a patient by engaging in sexual intercourse.

Applying the mandatory penalty provisions, the panel held that revocation and a reprimand were required.

The panel also ordered reimbursement to the College for therapy and counselling funding already accessed by the patient and found this to be an appropriate case for a substantial costs order because the member’s conduct unnecessarily prolonged the hearing and increased expense.

The College recovered two-thirds of its actual costs, and the patient-identity publication restriction remained in place.

Following a finding that the member sexually abused a patient by engaging in intercourse, the College brought a written motion for an immediate interim suspension pending penalty and for an expedited penalty hearing.

The member did not oppose the relief sought.

The panel held that s. 51(4.2) of the Health Professions Procedural Code required an immediate suspension where the sexual abuse involved intercourse and left no discretion.

The motion was granted and the penalty hearing was directed to proceed on an expedited basis.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found that a dentist committed professional misconduct by engaging in sexual relations with a patient who was not his spouse within the meaning of the governing health professions legislation.

The panel rejected the respondent’s position that a same-day proxy Islamic divorce and private Islamic marriage rendered the patient his spouse, finding the evidence unreliable and, in any event, insufficient for recognition under Canadian law.

The panel also found a boundary violation where the respondent co-signed a patient’s mortgage and became a co-mortgagee on the property.

The allegations were proven on a balance of probabilities, including sexual abuse of a patient and disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical conduct.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted altering a patient record to change the treatment date, submitting a false insurance claim, and providing misleading information to an insurer.

The panel found professional misconduct under the Health Professions Procedural Code and the applicable professional misconduct regulation, concluding the conduct was dishonest and reasonably regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, holding that it fell within the appropriate range and served public protection, specific and general deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The member received a reprimand, a two-month suspension, remedial ethics education, practice monitoring conditions, and a $3000 costs order.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted misconduct arising from criminal convictions for impaired operation causing death, dangerous operation causing death, and breach of recognizance.

The panel held that the criminal conduct, although outside a clinical setting, was relevant to the provision of dental care to the public because it demonstrated a serious disregard for public safety and undermined fundamental public expectations of regulated health professionals.

The panel accepted a joint penalty submission imposing a reprimand, a six-month suspension, practice monitoring and treatment-related conditions, and costs.

A publication ban was made permanent over certain personal information in the member’s affidavit.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted multiple acts of misconduct arising from opioid prescribing to several patients over a prolonged period.

The panel found the admissions and agreed facts established failures to document diagnosis and justification, excessive quantities and frequency of opioid prescriptions, inadequate charting, and a lack of professional judgment, particularly concerning one patient.

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

The member received a four-month suspension, a permanent restriction on prescribing narcotic and controlled drugs, mandatory courses, practice monitoring, and costs.

Professional discipline decision arising from a member's admissions that she performed or billed for fixed prosthodontic treatment despite an undertaking and remediation order restricting that work, and that she used a business name inconsistent with the register.

The panel held that the agreed facts substantiated all allegations of professional misconduct on a balance of probabilities and emphasized the member's disregard for patient protection and regulatory obligations.

Applying the public-interest standard for joint submissions, the panel accepted a jointly proposed sanction consisting of a reprimand, an eight-month suspension, extensive practice conditions, mentoring, monitoring, and costs.

A publication ban protected the identity of patients named in the notice of hearing and agreed statement of facts.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted misconduct involving deficient recordkeeping, falsified patient records, false or misleading insurance claims and billings, inflated laboratory charges, and unjustified repeat hygiene treatment.

The panel found the admitted conduct constituted professional misconduct under the governing health professions legislation and dentistry regulations, and emphasized that falsifying records and inaccurate billings are incompatible with professional standards.

Applying the public-interest approach to a joint penalty submission, the panel accepted a proposed sanction consisting of a six-month suspension, reprimand, extensive terms and conditions, practice monitoring, remedial courses, and costs.

The decision also maintained a publication restriction protecting patient identities.