Susan Davis

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted misconduct arising from failure to refund a $1,600 deposit for dental treatment never performed, delay in producing patient records, breach of a prior discipline order, and failure to respond appropriately to the regulator’s inquiries.

The panel accepted the admissions and the agreed statement of facts, but made no finding on the allegation that the member was ungovernable.

The panel accepted a joint submission focused on remediation and public protection, emphasizing the absence of patient-care concerns, the member’s psychiatric treatment, mentoring, and monitoring history.

The member was reprimanded, made subject to detailed ongoing treatment, mentoring, and monitoring conditions, and ordered to pay $12,500 in costs.

In this professional discipline proceeding, the member admitted multiple allegations arising from false or misleading insurance claims, false or misleading patient-related documents, inadequate and altered records, and unethical conduct affecting numerous patients.

The panel accepted the admissions and Agreed Statement of Facts and found professional misconduct proved under the Health Professions Procedural Code and Ontario Regulation 853.

The panel also accepted a joint submission on penalty and costs, holding that it served specific and general deterrence, remediation, and public protection.

The disposition included a four-month suspension, a reprimand, remedial education, practice monitoring, and costs.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel accepted the member’s admissions to multiple misconduct allegations involving deficient recordkeeping, excessive or unreasonable fees, false or misleading insurance accounts, and failure to collect patient co-payments.

The misconduct arose from treatment and billing practices across multiple dental offices over several years, including inaccurate charting, missing documentation, incorrect billing codes, claims using treatment dates that did not match actual service dates, and routine write-offs of co-payments.

The panel found the admitted facts substantiated professional misconduct under the governing health-professions regime and accepted a joint penalty submission notwithstanding concern about the member’s prior similar discipline history.

The penalty included a reprimand, a four-month suspension, remedial education, practice monitoring, suspension-related restrictions, and $5,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted billing a publicly funded children's dental program for restorative treatments on two minor patients that were not completed, and admitted related recordkeeping and billing misconduct.

The panel found professional misconduct under s.51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code and paragraphs 31, 33, and 59 of s. 2 of Ontario Regulation 853.

Accepting a joint submission, the panel imposed a reprimand, a four-month suspension, educational remediation, practice monitoring, and costs.

The panel held that the sanction met the goals of deterrence, rehabilitation, and public protection, while recognizing cooperation, remorse, and restitution.

In a dental discipline proceeding, the member admitted professional misconduct arising from diagnosing and providing unnecessary restorative treatment, failing to use appropriate radiographic technique, prescribing antibiotics without adequate diagnostic foundation, failing to identify substandard restorations performed under supervision, and deficient recordkeeping.

The panel found the admissions voluntary, informed and unequivocal, and was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the misconduct was established.

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

A one-month suspension, remedial coursework, practice monitoring, reprimand, and $3,000 in costs were ordered.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted extensive misconduct involving substandard endodontic and restorative treatment, deficient recordkeeping, false and excessive insurance claims, failures of informed consent, and inadequate responses to the regulator’s inquiries across multiple patient files.

The panel accepted an agreed statement of facts and found the misconduct established as alleged in two Notices of Hearing.

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

A six-month suspension, practice restrictions, remedial education, practice monitoring, reprimand, and costs were ordered.

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.

In a dental discipline proceeding, the panel accepted the member’s guilty plea and agreed statement of facts regarding cosmetic dental treatment in which crowns and a bridge were provided after discussions and documentation referring to veneers.

The panel found professional misconduct for over-preparing teeth, failing to obtain informed consent, charging excessive fees above recommended rates without explanation or consent, and providing inaccurate information to the regulator during the investigation.

The panel held that the patient had not consented to the actual treatment provided and that the member’s conduct caused significant clinical harm and raised serious integrity concerns.

A joint submission on penalty was accepted, resulting in an 18-month suspension, extensive remedial and practice restriction terms, and costs.

Discipline proceeding arising from a complaint and investigation concerning a dentist’s long-term treatment of four members of the same family.

The panel accepted a guilty plea and agreed statement of facts establishing supervised neglect, failures in diagnosis and treatment, inadequate recordkeeping, absence of documented informed consent, and improper lorazepam prescribing for one patient.

The panel found professional misconduct on all allegations except one disputed particular under the prescribing allegation.

On penalty, the panel accepted a joint submission after the member voluntarily undertook to permanently resign, and ordered a reprimand and $5,000 in costs.

College discipline proceeding arising from a member's treatment of a patient involving multiple tooth extractions, temporomandibular joint-related care, inadequate recordkeeping, and failure to obtain informed consent.

The member admitted professional misconduct allegations under the Health Professions Procedural Code and the dentistry misconduct regulation, including unjustified extractions, failure to refer to specialists earlier, deficient charting, and disgraceful or unprofessional conduct.

The panel found the admissions voluntary and unequivocal, accepted the agreed facts, and held that the evidence substantiated the misconduct.

The panel accepted an amended joint penalty submission imposing a reprimand, educational courses, practice restrictions, monitoring, publication on the register, and $2,500 in costs.

Professional discipline decision arising from a dentist’s admitted failure to respond appropriately to repeated written enquiries from the regulator, failure to produce and maintain a patient record, and failure to cooperate with an investigation.

The panel accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found all misconduct allegations proven, except that the College did not seek a finding that the member was ungovernable.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty imposing an immediate suspension until the patient record is produced, followed by a consecutive three-month suspension, remedial education, practice monitoring, and costs.

A publication restriction protected the identities of patients named in the notice of hearing and agreed statement of facts.

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.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted extensive misconduct across two Notices of Hearing involving substandard treatment, treatment without informed consent, improper billing practices, pervasive recordkeeping failures, deletion of radiographic images, inaccurate information provided to the regulator, and breach of a written undertaking.

The agreed facts described repeated endodontic, restorative, crown and extraction deficiencies affecting numerous patients, together with prior remediation and monitoring that had failed to correct the practice problems.

The panel held that the admitted conduct clearly established professional misconduct, including conduct reasonably regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional and unethical.

Accepting a joint submission, the panel imposed a reprimand, immediate revocation of the member's certificate of registration, and costs of $2,500.