Competence is Not a Defence

It is not a defence to an allegation of illegal practice that one provides excellent services.

In College of Dental Technologists v. Ahmed, 2024 ONSC 638 (CanLII), the Court ordered an individual to stop operating a dental laboratory contrary to the Regulated Health Professions Act. The individual submitted that they had operated legally for years until their supervising registered dental technologist left, that there had been no complaints about their work, that they limited their services to less elaborate services, and that registered persons reviewed their work before it was dispensed to patients. The Court held, based on the expert evidence of the regulator, that the individual was operating “a functioning dental laboratory engaged in the practice of dental technology” contrary to the law. The competence of the individual was irrelevant.

The order was made even though the Court accepted that the individual had stopped operating the laboratory. However, in all the circumstances, the Court did not award costs to the regulator despite its success on the application.

More Posts

Particulars for Interim Orders

Procedural fairness and expediency are often competing concepts when it comes to whether an interim order should be imposed to protect the public while a

Prior Complaints and Prior Findings

When a discipline panel applies criminal sentencing principles at the penalty stage of a hearing, it is considered an aggravating factor to have previously been

Collaboration Is Not Conspiracy

In order to better protect the public, regulators of professions often collaborate with other regulators or government officials that have overlapping mandates. Most commonly, this

Targeting Regulatory Staff Is Costly

Applicants for registration often become frustrated when the regulator probes into areas of concern relating to their professional suitability (sometimes called “good character”). In Howell