RCDSO 2023

A discipline panel accepted a registrant’s admissions to professional misconduct arising from widespread false dental insurance billing, fabricated records, altered radiographs, and misleading supporting documents involving multiple patients over 2018 and 2019.

Applying the public-interest test for joint penalty submissions, the panel held the proposed disposition was within the reasonable range for comparable discipline cases and advanced public protection, deterrence, and remediation.

The panel imposed a four-month suspension, reprimand, extensive practice and compliance conditions, practice monitoring, and costs.

A publication ban protected the identities of patients named in the exhibits.

In a dental discipline proceeding, the registrant admitted multiple allegations of professional misconduct arising from implant treatment provided to a patient over a two-year period.

The admitted misconduct included inadequate case selection, failure to obtain adequate diagnostic records, treatment beyond competence, improper implant placement into sinus and nasal structures, unjustified opioid prescribing without proper documentation, failure to refer to a specialist, deficient professional boundaries, and misleading and unprofessional communications.

Applying the public-interest test governing joint penalty submissions, the panel accepted a joint submission imposing an eight-month suspension, extensive mentoring and monitoring terms, remedial education, a reprimand, and costs.

The panel emphasized patient harm, repetition of prior regulatory concerns, and the need for both specific and general deterrence.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel accepted admissions to sexual abuse of a patient, excessive opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing, self-prescribing and office-use prescribing of benzodiazepines, improper non-dental prescribing, misuse of nitrous oxide and cocaine, and prescription record-keeping failures.

The panel combined two notices of hearing, found professional misconduct on all allegations except withdrawn particulars, and held that the admitted sexual relationship with a patient constituted sexual abuse within the Code.

Applying the public-interest test for joint penalty submissions, the panel accepted a jointly proposed sanction.

Because the misconduct included sexual abuse of a patient who was not the registrant’s spouse, revocation was mandatory under the Code.

The panel also ordered a reprimand and $10,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline matter, the registrant sought reconsideration after failing to deliver written submissions on penalty and costs by the agreed deadline.

The Panel held it was functus once it had released its final decision and found no authority in the governing legislation or committee rules to reopen the matter.

In any event, it would not have exercised any such discretion because counsel ignored follow-up communications, sought no extension, and offered no adequate explanation for the delay.

The request to reconsider the released penalty and costs decision was refused.

In a professional discipline penalty and costs decision, the panel addressed the mandatory consequences of a finding that a registrant sexually abused a patient by engaging in sexual intercourse.

Applying the mandatory penalty provisions, the panel held that revocation and a reprimand were required.

The panel also ordered reimbursement to the College for therapy and counselling funding already accessed by the patient and found this to be an appropriate case for a substantial costs order because the member’s conduct unnecessarily prolonged the hearing and increased expense.

The College recovered two-thirds of its actual costs, and the patient-identity publication restriction remained in place.

Following a finding that the member sexually abused a patient by engaging in intercourse, the College brought a written motion for an immediate interim suspension pending penalty and for an expedited penalty hearing.

The member did not oppose the relief sought.

The panel held that s. 51(4.2) of the Health Professions Procedural Code required an immediate suspension where the sexual abuse involved intercourse and left no discretion.

The motion was granted and the penalty hearing was directed to proceed on an expedited basis.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found that a dentist committed professional misconduct by engaging in sexual relations with a patient who was not his spouse within the meaning of the governing health professions legislation.

The panel rejected the respondent’s position that a same-day proxy Islamic divorce and private Islamic marriage rendered the patient his spouse, finding the evidence unreliable and, in any event, insufficient for recognition under Canadian law.

The panel also found a boundary violation where the respondent co-signed a patient’s mortgage and became a co-mortgagee on the property.

The allegations were proven on a balance of probabilities, including sexual abuse of a patient and disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical conduct.