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

Safeguarding

Most regulators screen complaints and reports as they arrive to assess the degree of risk presented and to prioritize matters appropriately. The UK regulator for

More on the Mandate of Regulators

The mandate of regulators is an increasingly contentious topic. At its core, the issue is whether regulators should define their public interest mandate as going

Screening Appointments

The appointments made by regulators are important. These include the selection of the regulator’s Registrar and/or CEO, appointments to committees (e.g., a discipline tribunal) and,