RCDSO 2017

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 proceeding, the member admitted allegations arising from delayed diagnosis and inadequate management of a patient’s cancerous oral lesion, together with deficient recordkeeping.

The panel accepted the agreed statement of facts and found professional misconduct under the Health Professions Procedural Code and the applicable dentistry regulations.

Accepting a joint submission, the panel imposed a reprimand, a one-month suspension, practice conditions including monitoring and inspections for up to twenty-four months, and costs.

A publication ban protected the identity of the patient.

In a professional discipline hearing, the College alleged sexual abuse of patients and disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical conduct by a dentist involving a long-term intimate relationship with a patient, sexualized comments and touching toward a patient-employee, and inappropriate touching of another patient-employee.

The member admitted the allegations and signed an agreed statement of facts, and the panel found the admissions informed, voluntary and unequivocal.

The panel held the admitted conduct constituted sexual abuse and professional misconduct under the Health Professions Procedural Code and the Dentistry Act Regulation.

Accepting a joint penalty submission, the panel ordered a reprimand and mandatory revocation of the member's certificate of registration effective April 25, 2017.

No costs were ordered.

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.

In this professional discipline penalty decision, the panel determined the appropriate sanction after findings that the member repeatedly breached an undertaking restricting his practice, contravened terms on his certificate, misled the regulator, failed to respond appropriately to College inquiries, and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional and unethical conduct.

The panel held that the misconduct demonstrated prolonged and escalating refusal to accept the regulator’s authority and rendered the member ungovernable.

Emphasizing public protection, the panel found that remedial measures would not be effective and directed revocation of the member’s certificate of registration.

A publication ban protecting patients’ identities remained in force.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found that the member repeatedly breached a practice undertaking and certificate restrictions by initiating and providing prosthodontic and implant-related treatment after agreeing not to do so.

The panel also found that the member gave inaccurate information to the regulator about the scope of post-undertaking treatment and failed to respond appropriately to a written records request concerning a patient file.

Applying the civil balance of probabilities standard, with clear, convincing and cogent evidence, the panel accepted the investigators' evidence and rejected the member's interpretation that screw-retained prostheses fell outside the undertaking.

Findings of professional misconduct were entered on all pursued allegations in both notices of hearing.