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

The Right to Rebut?

Many regulators frequently provide a copy of the registrant’s response to a complaint to the complainant for comment. Doing so can assist in providing the

Registration Runaround

A concern for regulators arises when applicants for registration, who are practicing elsewhere at the time, foresee disciplinary issues developing in their existing jurisdiction. A

Right-Touch Regulation Redux

Perhaps the most consequential document in professional regulation in the English-speaking world this century is Right-Touch Regulation published by the UK oversight body, the Professional

Reason Writing Omissions

Writing reasons for a regulatory decision is not easy, especially for non-lawyers. An administrative body’s reasons are the primary basis upon which a court will