Nancy Di Santo

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.

In a professional discipline hearing, the registrant admitted falsifying dental records and backdating insurance-related documents for multiple patients so they could maximize year-end benefits.

The panel found professional misconduct proven under s. 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code and paragraphs 26, 28, 33, and 59 of s. 2 of Ontario Regulation 853/93.

Applying the public-interest test governing joint submissions on penalty, the panel accepted a joint penalty and costs submission.

The order imposed a five-month suspension, remedial coursework, 24 months of practice monitoring, a prohibition on employing the registrant’s wife in the practice, and $10,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found that the registrant persistently failed to comply with mandatory continuing education and reporting obligations under the quality assurance regime, despite repeated directions, reminders, extensions, and investigative follow-up.

The panel also denied a last-minute adjournment request brought through the registrant's daughter, finding insufficient evidence of inability to participate and no indication the registrant would engage later.

Applying the balance of probabilities standard, the panel held that the registrant failed to cooperate with the Quality Assurance Committee, breached the continuing education reporting requirements, failed to respond appropriately to written College enquiries, and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical conduct.

A further hearing was directed on penalty and costs.

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.