CICC v Bayegan, 2025 CICC 26 confirms that good character in licensing turns on disclosure, not explanation. The Registrar refused an RCIC licence after finding it probable the applicant engaged in unauthorized practice and failed to disclose outstanding criminal charges in her statutory declaration. On appeal, the Registrar Appeal Committee upheld the refusal, stressing that licensing is a credibility assessment, not a trial on the merits of alleged misconduct or criminal charges. Non-disclosure itself justified refusal. Attempts to introduce new evidence and contextual explanations on appeal were rejected. The appeal was dismissed and $7,500 in costs ordered, reinforcing that statutory declarations are foundational.
In Pharmaciens (Ordre des) c. Zalat (2025 QCCDPHA 23), a Québec pharmacist was found guilty of professional misconduct after dispensing a high-risk corrosive medication, trichloroacetic acid, to a patient’s mother without counselling the actual patient. Concerned about breaching confidentiality related to an ITSS diagnosis, the pharmacist provided only partial information and relied on the mother’s assurance that the patient “knew how to use it.” The patient later suffered a chemical burn. The disciplinary council held that counselling is a non-delegable obligation and confidentiality does not justify incomplete advice. The decision reinforces that pharmacists must refuse to dispense when safe counselling cannot be provided.
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.