Osama Soliman

The Registrant, a dentist, faced allegations of professional misconduct relating to clear aligner therapy provided to seven patients through an online platform.

The Registrant admitted to failing to maintain standards of practice, treating beyond his competence, failing to obtain informed consent, and failing to keep required records.

The Discipline Committee accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts and found the Registrant committed professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a 12-month suspension, a permanent restriction from providing orthodontic treatment, coursework, 12 months of clinical supervision, 36 months of practice monitoring, and $10,000 in costs.

In a dental discipline proceeding alleging professional misconduct in insurance billing practices involving multiple patients, the College moved with the registrant's consent to adjourn the hearing sine die after the registrant signed a binding undertaking and had already resigned his certificate of registration.

The panel held that it had jurisdiction to control its own process and to grant the requested adjournment, relying on its procedural authority and the terms of the undertaking.

It found the public interest was adequately protected because the registrant agreed never to practise or reapply for registration in Ontario, and the College retained the ability to reinstitute the hearing if the undertaking were breached.

The panel also emphasized transparency through publication on the register and deterrence to other registrants.

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.