Careful what you agree to: where a party enters into an agreed statement of facts and admits unprofessional conduct, and a decision is made based largely on the agreed statement of facts and admission, overturning that decision would be to undermine the efficacy of agreed statements of fact

21. September 2021 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – College of Dental Surgeons – Judicial review – Appeals – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Dentists – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Penalties Byun v. Alberta Dental Assn. and College, [2021] A.J. No. 1019, 2021 ABCA 272, Alberta Court of Appeal, July ...

Master’s finding that the plaintiff impliedly waived solicitor-client privilege by making his state of mind a central issue in his subsequent litigation upheld on appeal

19. September 2017 0
A master’s finding that the plaintiff impliedly waived solicitor-client privilege by making his state of mind a central issue in his subsequent litigation was upheld on appeal. Administrative Law – Decisions reviewed – College of Dental Surgeons – Discipline – Judicial review – Appeal – Standard of review – Correctness Stelmaschuk v. College of Dental ...

Dentist seeks judicial review of College’s actions in negotiating, entering into, and enforcing a settlement agreement with him due to the fact that he was suffering from bipolar disorder at the time

19. November 2015 0
Dentist sought judicial review of College’s actions in negotiating, entering into, and enforcing a settlement agreement with him as he was suffering from bipolar disorder at the time. In the alternative, he sought an order converting the petition to a Supreme Court action. No relief was available in the circumstances under the Judicial Review Procedure ...

A dentist registered in British Columbia who attempted judicial review of a decision of the Alberta Dental Association and College refusing his registration as a dentist in Alberta, was unsuccessful

24. March 2015 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Dental Surgeons – Dentists – Governance – Licence to practice – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Lum v. Council of the Alberta Dental Association and College, Review Panel, [2015] A.J. No. 19 , 2015 ...

The Court allowed a petition brought by the College of Dental Surgeons of British Columbia. The College took issue with a decision of the Respondent, Health Professions Review Board relating to Dr. Ronald Scammell’s treatment for Ms. Patsy McConville.

25. November 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Dental Surgeons – Investigations – Health Professions Review Board – Dentists – Disciplinary proceedings – Competence – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Jurisdiction College of Dental Surgeons of British Columbia v. Health Professions Review Board, [2014] B.C.J. No. 2443, 2014 ...

The Court held that the applicant was a member of the College of Dental Surgeons of Saskatchewan at the time of the impugned conduct and at the commencement of the investigation and thus it was within the College’s jurisdiction to hear and determine the complaint

25. October 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Dental Surgeons – Dentists – Former member – Investigations – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Jurisdiction of tribunal Abouabdallah v. College of Dental Surgeons of Saskatchewan, [2011] S.J. No. 526, 2011 SKCA 99, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, September 2, 2011, W.J. Vancise, R.K. ...

Lack of procedural fairness by an administrative tribunal resulted in the British Columbia Supreme Court referring the matter back to the administrative tribunal on an expedited basis with the registrant member having the opportunity to make submissions on conditions, versus suspension

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Dental Surgeons – Inquiry committee decisions – Dentists – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties and suspensions – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Notice – Failure to provide reasons – Confidentiality Stelmaschuk v. College of Dental Surgeons of British Columbia, [2011] B.C.J. No. 750, ...

The Appellant dentist appealed a decision made by the Discipline Committee of the College finding him guilty of professional misconduct and imposing a three-month suspension, terms and conditions related to the practice of orthodontics and costs of $10,000. The Court upheld the College’s decision and dismissed the Appellant’s arguments including reasonable apprehension of bias, issue estoppel/res judicata, inappropriate expert or opinion evidence, and insufficient disclosure by the College.

26. December 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Dental Surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct / conduct unbecoming – Investigations – Penalties and suspensions – Hearings – Evidence – Statutory provisions – Judicial review – Natural justice – Reasonable apprehension of bias – test – Procedural requirements and fairness – Estoppel and res judicata ...

The Court dismissed an appeal by a dentist of a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (the “Discipline Committee”) finding him guilty of 15 out of 18 charges of professional misconduct and revoking his licence to practice. The Court dismissed all grounds of appeal but found that the costs of $250,000 imposed against the dentist were unduly high and fixed the costs at $200,000.

25. July 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Dental Surgeons – Dentists – Professional misconduct – Penalties and suspensions – Public interest – Judicial review – Natural justice – Bias – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Correctness – Costs Chuang v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario), [2006] O.J. No. ...

A dentist (“Dr. Sigesmund”) with a practice restricted to the treatment of temporomandibular joint disorders was partially successful in his appeal from a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (the “College”) where he was originally found guilty of multiple counts of professional misconduct

27. September 2005 0
Administrative law – Dentists – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Dental Surgeons – Judicial review – Witnesses – Bias – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Sigesmund v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, [2005] O.J. No. 3267, Ontario Superior Court of ...