In Bacchus v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, 2026 ONSC 3415 (CanLII), the registrant appealed a discipline panel’s decision on the basis that it was “legally and procedurally flawed, in almost every regard.” In a wide-ranging judgment, the Court disagreed. In particular, the Court noted the following:
- On an appeal, a party cannot argue that their preferred findings of fact should prevail. “It is improper to argue a version of the facts untied to the findings below: an appeal in this court is not a “re-do” of the hearing below. This court does not immerse itself in the record below and decide what findings it would make if it was hearing the case at first instance.” Rather, an appellant must argue why “particular findings are palpable and overriding errors.”
- “Where a fact is found in a criminal trial on the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it may be an abuse of process to contest that factual finding in subsequent legal proceedings…. However, this principle does not apply to every finding made during reasons for judgment in a prior proceeding, such as credibility findings.” Note that in this matter, the findings of the criminal trial Judge were not inconsistent with the findings of the panel.
- One issue was whether the registrant had sex with a particular patient. The Court accepted the panel’s finding that they had sex based on admissions made by the registrant to two witnesses, despite the registrant’s denial at the hearing. It was also proper for the hearing panel to reject the patient’s affidavit denying they had sex as, in the circumstances, the evidence needed to be presented through the live testimony of a witness.
- In the circumstances, “an inference was available that informed consent was not obtained from the fact that it had not been documented.”
- The panel properly relied upon guidelines published by the regulator on prescribing opioids that was supported by expert evidence. The Court rejected the registrant’s arguments that the guidelines were no more than suggestions. “The import of the Opioid Guidelines, and their status as declaratory of professional standards, was established in this case by expert evidence that was accepted by the Committee.”
- An appearance of bias by the panel “is not established by an adverse decision.” The registrant’s “argument on this point does not come close to establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias.”
- It was appropriate for the panel to include in its decision and reasons the allegations that were dismissed: “referencing all of the charges, and how each charge was disposed of, is sound practice.”
- A costs order of $451,461.61 was reasonable in the circumstances. There were multiple allegations resulting in a 17-day hearing. The registrant “did not make reasonable concessions that could have shortened the hearing, but rather, raised numerous objections that lengthened the hearing.” Using a calculation of two-thirds of actual costs and expenses has been upheld by the Court in other cases and was appropriate here. The registrant did not raise his inability to pay such costs. If he had, he would have had to present evidence of his impecuniosity “to moderate an otherwise justified costs award.”
That just about covers it.
