Wowza!
The decision in Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario v. Takvorian consumes 121 paragraphs to decide whether a dentist called an employee “white trash,” pushed a door closed, moved a chair, shouted at staff and later said that he would “decapitate” another employee.
The hearing required a five-member Discipline Panel, including two dentists, two public members and a subject-matter expert. The College had two lawyers. The dentist had two lawyers. Three witnesses testified. The hearing occupied two days. The reasons were released more than five years after the events.
Having read the decision, one question is difficult to suppress: who actually cares?
That is not to suggest that dentists should be free to insult, threaten or intimidate employees. They should not. If the allegations were true—and the Panel found that they were—the conduct was plainly unacceptable. Calling an employee “white trash” is degrading. Threatening to “decapitate” a colleague, even if not intended literally, is grotesquely inappropriate workplace language.
But, in my humble opinion: not every incident of workplace misconduct needs to become a full out public professional discipline prosecution.
Dentist Was Already Warned + Disciplined
The dental office had already dealt with the matter. Following the June 2021 confrontation, the owner issued the dentist a “Final Warning.” After the October incident, management investigated and dismissed him. The employee involved resigned shortly afterward. The dentist’s relationship with the practice ended.
Those are ordinary and potentially sufficient workplace consequences.
Instead, the matter was transformed into a regulatory proceeding years later, requiring everyone to reconstruct who said what, who pushed which door, whether the door could technically be “slammed,” when a chair was allegedly moved and whether a particular incident occurred in May or June.
The result reads like an extremely expensive workplace-investigation transcript.
Taking Things Too Far Through the RCDSO
Much of the decision is classic “he said/she said.” The practice manager remembered certain dramatic details but forgot others. She initially denied emailing the dentist about a patient, only to be shown the email during cross-examination. The dental assistant was uncertain whether the alleged lunging and chair incident occurred in May or June. Another dentist was reportedly present when the “decapitate” comment was made, but neither side called her as a witness.
The Panel nevertheless accepted the employees’ evidence and rejected the dentist’s denials. It was entitled to do so. There was also contemporaneous evidence, particularly the June 23, 2021 final-warning letter, supporting at least some of the allegations.
The problem is not necessarily the factual result. The problem is proportionality.
What public-protection objective justified taking this particular workplace quarrel all the way through a contested professional discipline hearing? There was no allegation that the dentist harmed a patient, provided deficient treatment, falsified records, committed billing fraud, practiced while impaired or placed the public at clinical risk. In fact, the practice manager described him as “a great dentist” whom most patients loved.
The College relied on its broad catch-all provision covering conduct considered “disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical.” Such a provision serves a legitimate purpose, but it can also become an invitation to convert almost any unpleasant workplace episode into professional misconduct. Is this what the public needs and wants the RCDSO to spend its limited resources investigating and prosecuting? I don’t think so…
Dentists are human beings. They sometimes argue, lose their tempers, say offensive things and behave badly toward coworkers. Employment law provides consequences for such conduct, including warnings, investigations, suspensions and termination. Civil and criminal law are also available where conduct crosses more serious boundaries.
Professional regulation should be reserved primarily for misconduct materially connected to professional integrity, clinical competence or public protection. Otherwise, the College risks becoming an extraordinarily expensive human-resources department.
Waste of Resources?
Consider the resources devoted to this dispute: years of investigation and preparation, multiple lawyers, witness interviews, documentary production, two hearing days, a five-person panel and lengthy written reasons. The dentist undoubtedly incurred substantial legal fees. The College’s prosecution was ultimately funded through regulatory resources supplied by Ontario dentists—costs that are inevitably passed along, directly or indirectly, to patients.
And this was merely the finding phase. The decision does not determine penalty or costs, meaning further proceedings and expense may follow.
There must have been a more sensible solution: a caution, remedial professionalism course, undertaking, workplace-conduct assessment or negotiated resolution. Any of those could have communicated that threatening and degrading language is unacceptable without turning a stale employment dispute into a miniature public trial.
The conduct described in this case was not admirable. But the regulatory response should not be assessed by asking only whether the dentist behaved badly. The equally important question is whether prosecuting this matter five years later was a proportionate use of public and private resources.
On that question, the decision is far less convincing. It resembles regulatory overkill: an enormous adjudicative machine mobilized to decide who yelled, who slammed—or forcefully pushed—a door, and precisely which insult was uttered during a dysfunctional workplace relationship.
The College proved its case. Whether the case ever needed to be prosecuted is another matter entirely.
My $0.02…
