College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario v. Lewis, 2022 ONCDHO 3

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF DENTAL HYGIENISTS OF ONTARIO

THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF DENTAL HYGIENISTS OF ONTARIO

IN THE MATTER OF a hearing directed by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario pursuant to Section 26(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code being Schedule 2 of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 18, as amended;

AND IN THE MATTER OF the Dental Hygiene Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c.22, as amended.

BETWEEN:

THE COLLEGE OF DENTAL HYGIENISTS OF ONTARIO

– and –

Trina Lewis

PANEL MEMBERS:

Vanessa Pereira Margaret Wade Gillian Dunn Ilga St.Onge

Chair, Professional Member of Council Public Member of Council Non-Council Committee Member Professional Member of Council

COUNSEL

Anastasia-Maria Hountalas, for the College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario Andrew McKenna, for the Registrant, Trina Lewis Josh Koziebrocki, as Independent Legal Counsel

Hearing Date:

January 11, 2022

Decision Date:

January 11, 2022

Release of Written Reasons:

January 20, 2022

DECISION AND REASONS ON PENALTY AND COSTS

PENALTY SUBMISIONS

1Counsel provided the Panel with a Joint Submission on Penalty and Costs (“JSPC”) which stated the following:

a. The Registrant is required to appear, by electronic means, before a panel of the Discipline Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to be reprimanded, with the fact of the reprimand and the text of the reprimand to appear on the public register of the College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario (the “College”).

b. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Registrant’s certificate of registration for a period of two (2) months, commencing on the date that the Registrant obtains a general certificate of registration.

c. The Registrant is required to complete the PROBE ethics course, at her own expense, within six (6) months of the date that the Registrant obtains a general certificate of registration.

d. The Registrant is required to pay to the College costs in the amount of $5,000.00, in monthly installments over twelve (12) months, with the first payment being due thirty (30) days form the date of this Order. Payments one (1) to eleven (11) shall be in the amount of $416.66. Payment twelve (12) shall be in the amount of $416.74.

2Counsel stated that the proposed order on penalty was appropriate and included elements of remediation and deterrence while also considering aggravating and mitigating factors. Mitigating factors include: the Registrant has no previous Discipline history, the Registrant cooperated with the investigative process, and the Registrant reached an agreement with the College on the proposed order. The nature of the Registrant’s misconduct was an aggravating factor. Counsel submitted that proposed order on penalty also maintained public confidence in the profession and was proportional to the severity of the misconduct. Case law was provided to reassure the Panel that the proposed order was reasonable. These cases included:

a. Ontario (College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario) v O’Donnell, 2019 ONCDHO 3

b. Ontario (College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario) v Marino, 2019 ONCDHO 2

c. Ontario (College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario) v Bernardi, 2019 ONCDHO 11

d. Ontario (College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario) v Rooney, 2019 ONCDHO 12

3Counsel stated that the costs are not meant to be punitive but are instead meant to recover part of the costs incurred by the College in pursuing this matter so that the entire financial burden is not left to members of the College. Costs also reflect the financial situation of the Registrant and the fact that she agreed to the JSPC.

4Counsel stated that the JSPC should be accepted by the Panel unless the sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and/or is contrary to the public interest. The case of Timothy Edward Bradley v Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303 was reviewed to demonstrate the test for rejecting a joint submission on penalty.

ORDER ON PENALTY AND COSTS

5The Panel carefully considered the JSPC, the case law provided, and the oral submissions of counsel. The Panel concluded that the JSPC met the needs of this case and addressed the legal principles relevant to setting a penalty. Accordingly, the Panel accepted the JSPC and made the following order:

a. The Registrant is required to appear, by electronic means, before a panel of the Discipline Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to be reprimanded, with the fact of the reprimand and the text of the reprimand to appear on the public register of the College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario (the “College”).

b. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Registrant’s certificate of registration for a period of two (2) months, commencing on the date that the Registrant obtains a general certificate of registration.

c. The Registrant is required to complete the PROBE ethics course, at her own expense, within six (6) months of the date that the Registrant obtains a general certificate of registration.

d. The Registrant is required to pay to the College costs in the amount of $5,000.00, in monthly installments over twelve (12) months, with the first payment being due thirty (30) days form the date of this Order. Payments one (1) to eleven (11) shall be in the amount of $416.66. Payment twelve (12) shall be in the amount of $416.74.

REASONS FOR THE ORDER ON PENALTY AND COSTS

6Although the Panel has discretion to accept or reject a joint submission on penalty, The Panel found that the conditions for rejecting a joint submission were not met.

7The Panel found that the JSPC was reasonable as it appropriately addresses the principles of specific and general deterrence, public protection, public confidence, and rehabilitation. The principle of specific deterrence is served in this case by the two-month suspension, reprimand, and the terms, conditions or limitations on the Registrant’s certificate of registration. These aim to ensure that this conduct will not be repeated, but also serve to protect the public and instil public confidence in the profession. Moreover, these same elements serve as general deterrence because it communicates to the profession that such misconduct will not be tolerated and the Discipline committee will seek to deter members from engaging in conduct that disregards the College’s public protection mandate. Also, because this decision will be published on the College’s website, other registrants will be aware of the consequences of this type of professional misconduct. The principle of rehabilitation will be realized by the Registrant’s successful completion of a PROBE ethics course, which serves to remediate the Registrant so that she has the requisite knowledge to practice safely and ethically if she returns to practice.

8At the conclusion of the hearing, the Registrant waived her right of appeal and the reprimand was administered by the Panel.

I, Vanessa Pereira sign this decision and reasons for the decision as Chair of the Discipline panel and on behalf of the Panel as listed below.

___________________________________________ January 20, 2022 >

Vanessa Pereira, Chair, Public Member of Council Date