In addition to addressing a specific incident, complaints also often raise broader concerns. Similarly, the investigation of a specific concern can raise other issues entirely, perhaps even in relation to a different registrant. Is it improper for a regulator to look at the broader issues? In College of Dental Surgeons of Saskatchewan v Rizvi, 2026 SKKB 158 (CanLII), the Court said investigating broader concerns can properly serve the public protection mandate of the regulator if done appropriately.
The regulator received a complaint from a patient about Dentist A. In investigating that complaint, the regulator developed concerns about the conduct of a different dentist, Dentist B. The concerns were threefold: Dentist B’s own treatment of the patient, her sedation protocols generally, and her management of an interpersonal conflict with a colleague. The regulator’s Registrar filed a complaint against Dentist B on those issues and sent it to the screening committee (called “PCC”) for review and investigation. The regulator provided Dentist B with further details of its concerns and requested an expanding list of documents from her, including an audit trail of the changes to the patient’s chart. The audit trail indicated that Dentist B had made significant changes to the chart after she was notified of the Registrar’s complaint. The regulator asked Dentist B for a copy of the patient’s chart as it read before she was notified of the Registrar’s complaint and copies of charts of other patients who had received sedation. Dentist B refused. The regulator sought a court order compelling the dentist to produce the documents.
In granting the order, the Court made the following points:
- It is appropriate for the Registrar to initiate a complaint about concerns raised in another matter.
- In response to Dentist B’s concern that the original complaint against Dentist A had “morphed…. into a fishing expedition with undefined parameters or purpose” and amounted to “adventurous inquiries”, the Court said: “The Act grants the PCC significant latitude to fully investigate complaints. In my view, to stop short when the sweep of the initial investigation starts to lead to other concerns of professional conduct would do damage to the intent of the Act: the protection of the public.” It accepted that ”the PCC’s investigation is not limited strictly to the parameters of the initial complaint….”
- “In my view, relevancy at the investigative stage must be given a wide enough breadth for the PCC to accomplish its mandated duty.”
- The correspondence adequately set out the substance of the complaint under investigation as it evolved. Dentist B was not entitled to disclosure of the regulator’s evidence at this stage.
- “A member cannot use reticence to provide information as a shield to prevent further investigation. Accordingly, I find that [Dentist B] is not permitted to refuse the document and record request set out in the March 24, 2026, letter based on a complaint of procedural fairness. If this matter proceeds to the Discipline Committee, that is when she can present her concerns.”
While the Rizvi decision may depend on the wording of its particular authorizing legislation, and the broad wording of the Registrar’s complaint, it suggests that regulators should be given some leeway in the scope of their investigations and that registrants generally need to cooperate promptly.
