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

Don’t Avoid the Hard Issues

It is human nature to avoid difficult issues. However, doing that when writing reasons for a regulatory decision can result in having to do it

When Is a Rule Targeted?

Courts tend to give deference to regulators when they enact subordinate legislation such as regulations, by-laws, or rules. So long as the provision furthers the