How much dentist time, money and public resources should be consumed by a misunderstanding over whether a permanent retainer wire was to be clipped or removed? In Meawasige v. Hadi, 2026 CanLII 94922, the answer was: far too much.
An appointment on October 23, 2023 resulted in an RCDSO complaint, a full investigation and a review before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (“HPARB”). The final decision was not issued until September 14, 2026—almost three years later! The RCDSO’s Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee took no action. HPARB confirmed that the investigation was adequate and the Committee’s decision was reasonable. The dentist prevailed at both stages.
But the cost of vindication can still be enormous.
What Actually Happened?
The patient attended the dental office regarding a loose lower permanent retainer. He maintained that he wanted only the protruding portion of the wire clipped. The dentist, office manager and dental assistant each understood that he wanted the entire lower lingual wire removed.
Before beginning treatment, the dentist discussed the risk of the patient’s teeth shifting if the wire was removed. The patient reportedly responded that he had a nightguard to prevent that—an exchange that understandably reinforced the dentist’s belief that the patient wanted the entire wire removed.
The dentist began debonding the retainer. After the bonding had been removed from several teeth, the patient reportedly exclaimed, “What are you doing?” He then clarified that he wanted only a small section clipped. According to the dentist, he apologized and offered to re-bond the remaining wire or cover the cost of a replacement. The patient declined and left the operatory before any corrective treatment could proceed.
From a Miscommunication to a Regulatory Complaint
Instead of focusing on the dentist’s proposed solution, the dispute expanded. The patient alleged that the dentist acted without consent and then blamed him for the error. He also described the front-desk employee as “rude, interruptive and dismissive.”
After the Committee took no action, the patient requested an HPARB review. In challenging the finding that the dentist had offered to correct the problem, the patient called the dentist’s account a “straight up lie.”
The Applicant did not participate in the April 9, 2026 HPARB hearing, although he provided written submissions. The legislation did not require him to attend, and HPARB drew no adverse inference from his absence. The dentist, meanwhile, attended through legal counsel.
What Did the Investigation Require?
The RCDSO obtained and considered:
- the patient’s complaint and subsequent communications;
- the dentist’s written response;
- the patient’s dental records;
- the dentist’s contemporaneous treatment note;
- statements from the office manager and dental assistant;
- information regarding two patient-consent courses completed by the dentist;
- the RCDSO’s Code of Ethics;
- its Dental Recordkeeping Guidelines; and
- its advisories addressing informed consent and professional dentist-patient relationships.
Both staff members independently confirmed that they understood the patient wanted the entire wire removed. The dental assistant stated that the patient had not said he wanted only the lifted portion removed until after the procedure had started.
HPARB found that the evidence supported the Committee’s conclusion that this was an “unfortunate miscommunication.” It also found “no information to support” the allegation that the dentist had made a false statement.
The offered remedies were considered reasonable and demonstrated accountability. HPARB therefore confirmed the Committee’s decision to “take no further action.”
A GIANT WASTE OF TIME, MONEY AND PUBLIC RESOURCES
Patients must be able to raise legitimate concerns, and the College must investigate complaints involving possible public-safety issues. But proportionality matters.
This was ultimately a disagreement about whether to clip part of a retainer or remove it completely. The patient became upset and left before the dentist could provide the proposed remedy. The dispute then shifted away from fixing the retainer and toward perceived rudeness, blame and an unsupported accusation that the dentist lied.
Nevertheless, the dentist had to respond to an RCDSO investigation, produce records, prepare written submissions, obtain staff statements and retain legal counsel for the HPARB review. College investigators, an ICRC panel and a three-member HPARB panel devoted public resources to determining what “clip” and “remove” meant during one dental appointment.
The unsuccessful complainant did not have to pay the dentist’s legal fees or compensate the dentist and staff for their time. The decision identifies no repercussion arising from the unsupported allegation that the dentist lied.
The system is extraordinarily one-sided. Even where the evidence supports the dentist and no remedial action is ordered, the dentist absorbs the financial cost, professional disruption and emotional stress.
The Matter Does Not Simply Disappear
HPARB’s decision is publicly accessible. More importantly, the Board expressly stated that the complaint and its outcome will remain on the dentist’s permanent College record and may be considered if another complaint arises.
Therefore, although the dentist was completely vindicated, the matter leaves a lasting regulatory footprint.
The Lesson for Dentists: Document Even the Obvious
Before beginning treatment, record exactly what the patient has requested. Repeat it back using unmistakable language:
“You want me to clip only the exposed segment. You do not want the entire retainer removed. Correct?”
Where appropriate, use a photograph or diagram to identify the intended treatment area. Document the alternatives, risks, patient’s response, any change in instructions and every proposed solution. If the patient refuses corrective treatment or leaves the office, record that immediately.
Train front-desk and clinical staff to use equally precise language. In this case, the contemporaneous clinical record and consistent staff evidence protected the dentist from an adverse outcome. They could not, however, protect him from the process itself.
That is the larger problem exposed by this decision. A simple misunderstanding about clipping versus removing a retainer consumed almost three years of professional attention and public resources—only to end exactly where it should have ended at the outset: with recognition of a miscommunication and a reasonable solution the patient chose not to accept.
