Regulator adjourns discipline hearings against ex-dentist who resigned and lost license

The Discipline Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario held that permanently removing a former dentist found guilty of sexual assault from the practice of dentistry would meet the regulator’s obligations to protect the public and serve the public interest. 

In Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario v Gewarges, 2026 ONRCDSO 1, the regulator issued two notices of hearing on Oct. 20, 2021. In the first notice of hearing, the regulator alleged that the registrant engaged in professional misconduct as follows: 

• sexual abuse of a patient under s. 51(1)(b.1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, schedule 2 of Ontario’s Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 (RHPA) 
• professional misconduct under s. 51(1)(c) of the Code through a contravention of a provision of the Dentistry Act, 1991 (DA), the RHPA, or the regulations under either of those enactments, contrary to s. 2(48) of Ontario Regulation 853, given a guilty finding against him under two counts under the Criminal Code, 1985 (sexual assault under s. 271 and touching for a sexual purpose under s. 153(1)(a)) 
• professional misconduct under s.51(1)(c) of the Code through a contravention of a federal law, provincial law, territorial law, municipal by-law, or rule of a public hospital relevant to providing dental care to the public, contrary to s. 2(50) of Ontario Regulation 853 

The second notice of hearing added three allegations. Specifically, the regulator alleged that the registrant engaged in professional misconduct as follows: 

• professional misconduct under s.51(1)(c) of the Code through conduct that members of the profession would reasonably consider disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional, or unethical, contrary to s. 2(59) of the Ontario Regulation 853 
• professional misconduct under s. 51(1)(c) of the Code through a contravention of a term, condition, or limitation imposed on his registration certificate in connection with three patients, contrary to s. 2(2) of the Ontario Regulation 853 
• professional misconduct under s.51(1)(c) of the Code by failing to comply with a written undertaking to the regulator or failing to follow through on an arrangement with the regulator relating to three patients, contrary to s. 2(54) of the Ontario Regulation 853 

The regulator moved to adjourn the disciplinary hearings sine die (or indefinitely) as long as the registrant complied with the terms of his Apr. 29, 2025 written undertaking, in which he confirmed that: 

• He resigned from his membership in the Royal College as of Dec. 31, 2024 
• He had no license to practice dentistry in any other Canadian jurisdiction 
• He would not apply or reapply for registration to practise dentistry in Ontario or other Canadian jurisdictions 
• He had no outstanding registration applications to practise dentistry in any Canadian jurisdiction 
• He understood he could not practise dentistry (including pro bono dental services) in Ontario, hold himself out as a dentist, use the title of “doctor” in providing healthcare in the province, or imply he was a dentist in Ontario or other Canadian jurisdictions 
• He comprehended that, if he breached the undertaking, the regulator could investigate or prosecute him 
• He understood that the regulator’s public register would include a notation of his referral to the Discipline Committee on professional misconduct allegations, his consequent resignation, and his agreement never to practise again in Ontario, as well as a notation and synopsis of the undertaking 

Proceedings adjourned

A panel of the Discipline Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario indefinitely adjourned the disciplinary proceedings against the registrant on the terms and conditions of the undertaking. 

On a balance of probabilities, the panel held that the proposed disposition via a motion on consent, including the registrant’s resignation and his agreement to the conditions in the undertaking, would protect the public and align with the public interest. 

The panel determined that avoiding the costs and time associated with a full hearing would better serve the profession, the public, and the witnesses. The panel added that avoiding the need to prepare for or testify at a hearing would spare the witnesses further harm. 

The panel concluded that publishing the notations on the public register would fulfill the regulator’s transparency and accountability obligations.