Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario v. Dr. Daniel Lee, 2025 ONRCDSO 2

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF DENTAL SURGEONS OF ONTARIO

Date: 2025-06-05

File No.: 24-0570

BETWEEN:

Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario

-and-

Dr. Daniel Lee

RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION

In the matter of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario and Daniel Lee the Discipline Panel ordered, under ss. 45(3) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, that no person shall publish or broadcast the identity of any patients of the Registrant, or any information that could disclose the identity of any patients who are named in the Notice of Hearing and/or the Agreed Statement of Facts.

PANEL MEMBERS:

Judy Welikovitch, chair, public member

Osama Soliman, professional member

Andrea Gonsalves, subject matter expert

APPEARANCES:

Carly Waisglass, for the College

Dr. Daniel Lee, unrepresented

Hearing: June 5, 2025 via video conference

Decision Date: June 5, 2025

Release of Written Endorsement: June 9, 2025

ENDORSEMENT

This matter came on for a hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) on June 5, 2025. The matter was heard by way of videoconference.

The Registrant, Dr. Daniel Lee, and counsel for the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (the “College”) appeared pursuant to a single Notice of Hearing File No. 24-0570 (Exhibit 1). Dr. Lee was present and was not represented by counsel.

Prior to the hearing, Dr. Lee and College counsel (together, the “parties”) filed an Acknowledgement and Undertaking (the “Undertaking”) that was signed by Dr. Lee on March 13, 2025. This Undertaking was entered as Exhibit 2.

At the commencement of the hearing, College counsel advised the Panel that it was moving to adjourn the hearing sine die, that is, indefinitely, since Dr. Lee had signed a binding Undertaking and it was satisfied that Dr. Lee would abide by the terms of the Undertaking. College counsel advised the Panel that the motion was being put forward with the consent of Dr. Lee. College counsel also advised the Panel that Dr. Lee had already resigned his certificate of registration with the College on April 6, 2021.

The Allegations

In the Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1), the College alleged that Dr. Daniel Lee had committed multiple acts of professional misconduct which involved multiple patients. The misconduct alleged related to Dr. Lee’s billing practices after he had been de-listed as a provider by insurance companies.

More particularly, it was alleged that with respect to four (4) patients, Dr. Lee, or a staff member acting on his behalf, submitted claims to insurance companies under a different dentist’s name so that he could be paid for work that he had performed. It was further alleged that, with respect to two (2) other patients, the Registrant, or a staff member acting on his behalf, also later changed the name of the dentist provider in his office’s billing system so that he could be paid.

Lastly, it was alleged that Dr. Lee had engaged in conduct that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by registrants as disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical.

Dr. Lee did not enter a plea before this Panel. There was thus no plea enquiry, and Dr. Lee made no admissions.

The Acknowledgement and Undertaking

On March 13, 2025, Dr. Daniel Lee signed an Undertaking with the College. The reasons given for signing the undertaking were that:

1. On July 17, 2024, after reviewing the record of investigation in File 21-0276, the College’s Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (the “ICRC”) referred allegations of professional misconduct to the College’s Discipline Committee in a Notice of Hearing dated July 30, 2024 (Exhibit 1);

2. Dr. Lee resigned his certificate of registration with the College on April 6, 2021; and

3. Dr. Lee had entered into the Undertaking. He acknowledged in the Undertaking that the hearing could be reinstituted in the event that he breached it.

The Undertaking contained very clear terms and conditions, specifically that:

1. He would not continue to hold himself out as a dentist or use the title “doctor” in the course of providing or offering to provide health care in Ontario

2. He would not imply that he is a dentist in Ontario;

3. He understood that the Undertaking is a binding agreement between himself and the College and that it would go into full force and effect immediately upon signing, notwithstanding any appeal or review of any decision of a College Committee;

4. He was to be solely responsible for payment of all financial costs arising from his compliance with the Undertaking;

5. He understood that the within investigation and/or prosecution may proceed under section 14 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, being Schedule 2 of the Regulated Health Professions Act. 1991, even though he has resigned his membership and certificate of registration with the College;

6. He agreed to bear the risk of any prejudice that the passage of time might cause to his ability to make a full answer and defence to the allegations, and to waive the right to seek any remedy based on the passage of time, should the College re-institute the hearing or investigate or prosecute him for breach of his Undertaking;

7. He understood that his failure to comply with his Undertaking may constitute unregistered practice and may result in the College bringing legal proceedings against him in court;

8. He understood that a notation of the referral to the Discipline Committee on allegations of professional misconduct, his resignation and his agreement to never practice again in Ontario, and a notation and synopsis of the Undertaking, including his agreement to never apply or reapply for registration as a dentist in Ontario, will be posted on the College’s public register which is located on the College’s website.

In addition, the Registrant gave his irrevocable consent to the College to make inquiries of any person or institution that may have relevant information for the College to monitor his compliance with the Undertaking.

Lastly, the Registrant acknowledged that he understood that if he breached the Undertaking, including by applying or re-applying or attempting to apply or re-apply for registration as a dentist or for a certificate of registration, or equivalent, to practice dentistry in Ontario after March 13, 2025, being the date on which the Undertaking was signed, that the College shall, in its sole discretion, have the right to:

1. Reinstitute the Discipline Committee hearing and rely upon the Undertaking signed (Exhibit 2) for that purpose; and

2. Investigate and/or prosecute him for a breach of the Undertaking and rely upon the signed Undertaking for that purpose.

Position of the Parties

The College:

Counsel for the College urged the Panel to grant the motion presented. She argued that an adjournment of this matter sine die was the most appropriate outcome in all of the circumstances of this case; that the public is protected by virtue of Dr. Lee’s resignation such that he will not be practicing dentistry in Ontario; and by his undertaking to never apply or re-apply for registration as a dentist in Ontario.

College counsel further submitted that the Undertaking is an appropriate remedy in the circumstances of this case since it also contains mechanisms for ensuring that Dr. Lee is complying with his agreement. It was counsel’s submission that adjourning this matter sine die is an appropriate outcome since the terms of the adjournment are transparent and will be posted on the College’s register and website, and that this outcome also represents an efficient use of the Panel’s time and resources.

Counsel thus argued that it was not in the public interest to proceed with the hearing.

Counsel also submitted that adjournment of matters sine die is common within regulated professions and pointed the Panel members to caselaw that had been provided to it in the College’s Book of Authorities. The Panel has reviewed these authorities.

In this regard, counsel also referred the Panel to section 25 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c. S.22. which provides that a tribunal in Ontario has the power to determine its own procedures and practices and may make orders with respect to the procedures and practices that apply in any particular proceeding.¹

Dr. Lee

Dr. Lee advised the Panel that he understood the terms and conditions of the Undertaking he had signed and consented to the College’s motion to adjourn sine die. Since the Undertaking contains terms and conditions that are serious and significant, the Panel enquired of Dr. Lee whether he would like to retain counsel to provide him with some advice. He declined.

The Panel then conducted an enquiry with Dr. Lee so that it could be satisfied that he understood what he was agreeing to. The Panel reinforced with him that the Undertaking meant that he could not apply or re-apply to register as a dentist in Ontario at any time in the future. It also reinforced that by adjourning the matter sine die, Dr. Lee was agreeing that the College had the right to proceed with the allegations herein (Exhibit 1) should it find that he was in breach of his Undertaking. Dr. Lee said that he understood.

The Panel was thus satisfied that Dr. Lee understood the gravity of the terms and conditions to which he had agreed.

REASONS

The Panel considered the submissions of the parties, the authorities provided by the College in its Book of Authorities, and any relevant legislation, including the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. 1990, the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 and its Health Professions Procedure Code. It was also mindful that the role of the College in a Discipline proceeding is to act as a protector of and advocate for the public interest. The Panel is also keenly aware that the public must have confidence in the disciplinary process and in the College’s ability to regulate its registrants.

The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant entered into the Undertaking freely and understanding its overall consequences and its impact on his ability to practice dentistry in Ontario.

The Panel is also satisfied that an adjournment on a sine die basis entitles the College to resume the hearing if circumstances dictate. This aspect of the Undertaking thus ensures that the public interest is being protected, and that public confidence in the College’s ability to regulate its registrants will be maintained.

Further, publishing this Decision and the other documents relating to this matter on its register satisfies the Panel that openness and public transparency is also being maintained. In addition, publication of the outcome of this matter on its register will serve as a general deterrent to other registrants of the College.

The Panel also considered the potential benefits to the College, to the Registrant and to his former patients who were involved in this matter. Had the College proceeded with a hearing, it would have incurred substantial costs and Dr. Lee’s former patients would have potentially experienced harm.

In consideration of the above, the Panel finds that it has the jurisdiction to make the Order requested. It further finds that the public interest and the interests of Dr. Lee’s former patients and the College are best served by granting the motion to adjourn this matter sine die.

The Panel notes that its members are not seized in this matter should circumstances require the College to resume the hearing.

I, Judy Welikovitch, sign this Endorsement as Chair of the Discipline Committee.

Footnotes

1. 1Statutory Powers Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c. S.22, section 25.0.1