Richard Hunter

A discipline panel found a dentist guilty of professional misconduct for describing himself on his website as a specialist in orthodontics and as a specialist orthodontist while registered only as a general dentist.

The panel held that the member was responsible for misleading advertising published on his website even if the web provider made the error, and found the conduct unprofessional and unethical, particularly in light of a prior undertaking arising from similar conduct.

The panel imposed a reprimand, a six-week suspension, ethics remediation, and advance approval conditions for promotional materials.

The panel also ordered costs of $15,000 payable to the College.

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.