RCDSO 2024

At a penalty and costs hearing following findings that the registrant sexually abused two patients and committed multiple additional acts of professional misconduct, the discipline panel held that revocation was mandatory under the Health Professions Procedural Code because the sexual abuse included sexual intercourse.

The panel rejected arguments alleging bias in the earlier merits reasons, held it was functus officio and could not revisit its findings, and found no merit in the contention that the patient relationships were merely incidental to employment or sexual relationships.

The panel also held that a victim impact statement was not a precondition to imposing penalty under s. 51(6).

It ordered a reprimand, immediate revocation, security for therapy and counselling funding for two patients, and substantial costs reflecting roughly two-thirds of the College's actual investigation and hearing expenses.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found that the registrant persistently failed to comply with mandatory continuing education and reporting obligations under the quality assurance regime, despite repeated directions, reminders, extensions, and investigative follow-up.

The panel also denied a last-minute adjournment request brought through the registrant's daughter, finding insufficient evidence of inability to participate and no indication the registrant would engage later.

Applying the balance of probabilities standard, the panel held that the registrant failed to cooperate with the Quality Assurance Committee, breached the continuing education reporting requirements, failed to respond appropriately to written College enquiries, and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical conduct.

A further hearing was directed on penalty and costs.

The discipline panel considered a registrant's admission that he falsely told a patient he had consulted an oral pathologist who agreed that a tongue lesion was non-urgent hyperkeratosis.

The panel held that the dishonesty, coupled with the lack of documentation and the resulting delay in cancer diagnosis, constituted professional misconduct under s. 51(1)(c) of the Code and s. 2(59) of Ontario Regulation 853/93.

Applying the public-interest test governing joint submissions on penalty, the panel accepted a jointly proposed disposition centered on public protection, general deterrence, and the registrant's undertaking to resign permanently from practice in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada.

The panel ordered a reprimand and costs of $7,500.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found a dentist guilty of professional misconduct for practising at a clinic owned and operated by a non-member, thereby creating prohibited conflicts of interest and impermissible fee sharing.

The registrant also failed to advise the regulator of all practice locations, and the panel held that the cumulative conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical, although one unadmitted particular alleging treatment planning with the non-member was not proven.

Applying the public-interest test governing joint penalty submissions, the panel accepted a joint submission imposing a reprimand, a four-month suspension, remedial education, practice monitoring, reporting obligations, and costs.

The decision emphasizes public protection, specific and general deterrence, and remediation in professional discipline.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found professional misconduct where a dentist implemented a significantly altered surgical treatment plan and extracted additional teeth without the patient's fully informed consent.

The panel held that proposing major changes in the treatment room on the day of surgery and proceeding immediately did not provide an adequate opportunity for meaningful consideration or consultation.

Applying the joint-submission standard, the panel accepted a three-month suspension, remedial education, mentoring, practice monitoring, and costs.

The panel treated the registrant's lengthy prior history before the complaints committee as relevant to remediation and penalty, though not as proof of the underlying prior complaints.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel accepted the registrant’s admissions that he engaged in a concurrent treating and sexual relationship with a patient, sent intimate electronic messages, engaged in sexual touching, and disclosed confidential information of other patients without consent.

The panel found professional misconduct proven under the Health Professions Procedural Code and Ontario Regulation 853/93, including sexual abuse of a patient, abuse of a patient, breach of patient confidentiality, and disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical conduct.

Applying the public-interest standard governing joint penalty submissions, the panel accepted a joint submission requiring a reprimand, immediate revocation of the certificate of registration, reimbursement obligations under the patient funding program, security of $17,370.00, and costs of $10,000.00.

In a multi-notice professional discipline proceeding, the panel found that the registrant engaged in false and misleading insurance billing by causing claims for his own dental services to be submitted under other dentists’ names and provider numbers, and in one instance on a false service date.

The panel also found extensive professional misconduct in opioid prescribing and recordkeeping, including prescribing without documented justification, exceeding College guideline quantities and frequencies without rationale, failing to document informed consent, diagnoses, treatment plans, and root canal safeguards.

The panel further found that the registrant engaged in sexual relationships with two employees who were also his patients, amounting to sexual abuse and disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional and unethical conduct.

A separate allegation of inappropriate touching involving another employee-patient was not proven.

Most allegations were upheld, with limited exceptions under one notice.