In RCDSO v. Kwong (2025 ONRCDSO 1), a Scarborough dentist was suspended for five months after admitting he falsified records by backdating patient treatment dates to maximize year-end insurance benefits. The RCDSO panel found this conduct amounted to multiple acts of professional misconduct, including falsification, false reporting, and unethical behaviour. The penalty included suspension, ethics and billing courses, 24 months of practice monitoring, and a ban on employing his spouse. The case underscores that even “helping” patients use expiring benefits is still considered falsification.
CICC v Zaidi (2025 CICC 19) revokes an RCIC’s licence after five complaints revealed job-selling, a falsified Saskatchewan PNP filing, shifting eligibility advice, chronic non-communication, refund failures, and basic governance breaches with agents, retainers, files, and client accounts. The panel treated merely offering to procure employment for a fee as misconduct and condemned fabricated “relative” claims to inflate points. Sanctions include immediate revocation, a two-year bar, restitution of USD $24,290, a $15,000 fine, and $46,740 in costs. The case underscores that competence, candour, and compliant systems are non-negotiable for RCICs.
In CICC v. Sharma-Singh (2025 CICC 21), the Discipline Committee imposed an interim suspension on a consultant facing 13 complaints, including job selling, bounced cheques, and non-cooperation. The Panel stressed that interim suspensions are not about proving misconduct but about protecting the public from risk. Missing retainers, false promises, and ties to “ghost consultants” created serious concerns. The decision confirms that honesty cannot be supervised, refunds after complaints may be interference, and job selling is a red-line violation likely to result in revocation.
In LSO v. Balaganthan (2025 ONLSTH 126), a newly-called lawyer and former Toronto police officer was found guilty of professional misconduct after $1.7M in stolen funds flowed through his trust account. Despite personal hardships, the Tribunal held he was wilfully blind to glaring red flags: offshore parties, unexplained fees, and instructions to pay non-parties. His own note, “I will be paid from the funds received” , underscored the risks. The case shows that trust accounts are not escrow services and inexperience is no defence.
Reinstatement after a licence revocation for fraud is a legal catch-22. The Tribunal requires proof of insight and remediation, often by accepting past findings, but such admissions can be used in criminal prosecution. In Fagbemigun v. CPSO (2024 ONPSDT 30), the physician denied intentional fraud, proposed operational changes, and was denied reinstatement. This case highlights why fraud-related professional discipline matters require coordinated regulatory and criminal defence strategy to protect both your licence and your legal position.