RCDSO 2025

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel accepted the registrant’s admissions to multiple years of false or misleading dental billing, excessive periodontal charges, inflated laboratory fees, and deficient record-keeping affecting ten patient files.

The panel found all five allegations proven under s. 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code and paragraphs 25, 28, 31, 33, and 35 of s. 2 of Ontario Regulation 853/93.

Applying the public-interest test for joint submissions on penalty, the panel accepted a joint penalty submission despite disagreement over some mitigating facts.

The panel imposed a reprimand, a four-month suspension, practice restrictions during suspension, required courses, two years of practice monitoring, and $10,000 in costs.

The College prosecuted a dentist for administering unauthorized and improper sedation to ten minor patients, including three under the age of three, while lacking the requisite authorization and specialty training and, on many occasions, after his minimal sedation authorization had been cancelled.

The panel accepted admissions that the registrant treated patients beyond his competence, contravened the sedation standard of practice and recordkeeping requirements, and engaged in conduct reasonably regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical.

Applying the joint-submission public-interest standard, the panel accepted an agreed penalty that included a reprimand, a three-month suspension, remedial recordkeeping education, practice monitoring, and costs.

The panel emphasized the vulnerability of the pediatric patients, the repeated nature of the misconduct, and the registrant’s undertaking never to administer or seek authorization for sedation in future.

Professional discipline decision arising from admitted misconduct in three separate notices of hearing involving a prohibited business relationship with an unregistered clinic operator, substandard endodontic care and inducements to withdraw a complaint, and sexual abuse and boundary violations involving patients.

The panel held that the admissions and agreed statement of facts established conflict of interest, fee sharing, failure to maintain standards of practice, abuse of a patient, sexual abuse of a patient, and disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical conduct under the Health Professions Procedural Code and Ontario Regulation 853/93.

Applying the joint-submission public-interest standard, the panel accepted the proposed penalty and rejected a request to convert the mandatory oral reprimand into a written reprimand.

The registrant’s certificate was revoked immediately, with a reprimand, reimbursement and security orders, a $35,000 fine, and $10,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline matter, the registrant moved to recuse two public members of the panel because they had participated in an earlier contested discipline hearing involving him that was under appeal, including on an alleged bias ground.

The panel applied the reasonable apprehension of bias test and held that prior participation in an earlier adverse decision, without compelling evidence of actual or apparent bias, was insufficient to displace the strong presumption of impartiality.

The panel rejected the submission that the registrant was entitled to “fresh eyes” and found that the pending appeal and unproven bias allegations in the earlier matter were immaterial to the present hearing.

The recusal motion was dismissed and the hearing was directed to be rescheduled before the same panel.

No costs were awarded on the motion.

Professional discipline decision concerning a dentist who admitted breaching a prior Discipline Committee order that permanently restricted him from performing implant dentistry.

The panel found professional misconduct proved on an agreed statement of facts, including pre-suspension and post-suspension breaches and the registrant's failure to seek clarification of the restriction despite prior discipline history.

Applying the stringent public-interest test for joint submissions, the panel accepted a jointly proposed penalty consisting of a reprimand, a consecutive 10-month suspension, suspension conditions, an ethics course, practice monitoring, and costs.

A publication restriction was ordered protecting the identity of patients.

In a dental discipline proceeding alleging professional misconduct in insurance billing practices involving multiple patients, the College moved with the registrant's consent to adjourn the hearing sine die after the registrant signed a binding undertaking and had already resigned his certificate of registration.

The panel held that it had jurisdiction to control its own process and to grant the requested adjournment, relying on its procedural authority and the terms of the undertaking.

It found the public interest was adequately protected because the registrant agreed never to practise or reapply for registration in Ontario, and the College retained the ability to reinstitute the hearing if the undertaking were breached.

The panel also emphasized transparency through publication on the register and deterrence to other registrants.

In a professional discipline hearing, the registrant admitted falsifying dental records and backdating insurance-related documents for multiple patients so they could maximize year-end benefits.

The panel found professional misconduct proven under s. 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code and paragraphs 26, 28, 33, and 59 of s. 2 of Ontario Regulation 853/93.

Applying the public-interest test governing joint submissions on penalty, the panel accepted a joint penalty and costs submission.

The order imposed a five-month suspension, remedial coursework, 24 months of practice monitoring, a prohibition on employing the registrant’s wife in the practice, and $10,000 in costs.