He was convicted of violent crime against man who allegedly caught him in the act with his wife
The Ontario Divisional Court has affirmed disciplinary decisions to revoke the licence of a dentist and impose a $451,461.61 cost award against him, based on its findings that he had sex with two employees while they were his patients.
In its June 6, 2024, merits decision, the Discipline Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons determined that the dentist – the appellant in Bacchus v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, 2026 ONSC 3415 – committed professional misconduct.
The committee found that the dentist had sex with MR and JSH when they were his patients. Regarding MR, the committee held that she was an employee of the dentist, who gave employees free dental services as part of their employment arrangements.
Regarding JSH, the committee considered the testimony of JKH, the former husband of JSH, who was an employee at the dental practice. JKH alleged that he:
On Sept. 29, 2022, Justice Russell Raikes of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice entered convictions of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon against the dentist.
In the criminal trial, one issue was whether the dentist committed aggravated assault by stabbing JKH. While Raikes explicitly refused to rule on whether the dentist and JSH were involved in sexual activity on Nov. 24, 2017, he held that JKH believed they were.
On Jan. 12, 2024, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the dentist’s conviction appeal.
In its Feb. 12, 2025, penalty decision, the Discipline Committee revoked the dentist’s licence and ordered him to pay costs of $451,461.61.
The dentist appealed against the committee’s merits and penalty decisions. He admitted to having sex with MR in 2003. However, he claimed that the committee erred in finding that they had sex while she was his patient.
The dentist also asserted that the committee wrongly determined that he had sex with JSH when she was his patient. He denied ever having had sex with her.
The Divisional Court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal. The court recognized that a penalty of revocation was mandatory, given the committee’s factual findings on liability, which were available on the record.
The court found the committee’s process procedurally fair. The court ruled that the committee’s decisions lacked material errors in principle, bias in fact, or reasonable apprehension of bias.
First, the court saw no palpable and overriding error in the committee’s factual finding that MS received dental services as part of her employment arrangement with the dentist
during the period of their sexual relationship.
Second, the court found no appealable error in the committee’s finding that the dentist had sex with JSH when she was a patient and an employee.
The court rejected the dentist’s argument that Raikes authoritatively decided in the criminal prosecution whether the dentist had sex with JSH. The court saw no inconsistency between Raikes’ and the committee’s findings.
The court noted that Raikes declined to determine whether the dentist had sex with JSH, as he did not need to do so. On the other hand, the court explained that the committee answered the question based on the evidence, as it needed to do so.
Third, the court found no palpable and overriding error in the committee’s finding that the dentist failed to obtain and document informed consent from patients on seven occasions from 2016–17.
The court acknowledged the available inference that the dentist failed to obtain informed consent, based on the fact that he did not document such consent.
Fourth, the court saw no palpable and overriding error in the committee’s finding that the dentist breached the college’s Guidelines for the Prescription of Opioids relating to six patients, without documenting a justification or a required consideration of alternatives.
Fifth, the court found no palpable and overriding error in the committee’s factual finding that the dentist directed his staff to file false insurance claims and to submit his patients’ claims under his colleague’s name.
Sixth, the court rejected the dentist’s argument that the committee showed reasonable apprehension of bias by deciding issues against him.
The court refused to interfere with the committee’s cost award. The court accepted that the committee’s very substantial award against the dentist could act as a barrier to access to justice.
However, the court pointed out that the dentist did not raise issues regarding his ability to pay the award before the committee, which would have required evidence.
Lastly, the court ordered the dentist to pay the college’s costs of $15,000, as agreed.
