Complaint Committee Meetings - 2025

January 30, 2025 Meeting

PDBNS-2024-01 After reviewing the complaint against a dentist, the Complaints Committee passed a motion recommending the Discipline Committee accept the executed Settlement Agreement.

In the Settlement Agreement, Dr. X makes the following admissions regarding this complaint:

Dr. X’s recordkeeping did not meet the standard of practice for a dentist licensed in Nova Scotia;
Dr. X failed to meet the standard of skill, knowledge, and judgment that is reasonable in the practice of dentistry in Nova Scotia with respect to periodontal and orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning.

The Settlement Agreement also contains agreed-upon sanctions, including that:

Dr. X is required to successfully complete remedial courses that cover each of the following areas:
- Recordkeeping;
- Communication (i.e., informed consent); and
- Periodontal and orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning as approved by the Deputy Registrar, at Dr. X’s own expense, within 24 months of the date of the Order approving this Settlement Agreement.
Dr. X will remit to the PDBNS the sum of $5000 as a contribution to the PDBNS’ costs to investigate the complaint.

PDBNS-2024-11 After hearing this complaint against a dentist, the Committee passed a motion to issue a letter of reprimand.

In the complaint Patient A alleges Dr. X referred them to a specialist for root canal treatment on “one of my molars”. When Patient A asked Dr. X to have the tooth pulled, they allege they were told “no… the roots were very intwined”. Patient A also alleges that Dr. X proceeded with six fillings without their knowledge that more than two would be filled, and that their tongue had remained frozen for seven hours. Patient A states that the tooth that had been referred for a root canal by Dr. X was extracted at [clinic name] without incident.

After deliberation, members of the panel acknowledged that given the presence of dental caries, the numerous restorations completed by Dr. X were justified as was the referral to assess the suitability of the tooth for RCT. Members of the panel did, however, discuss the following serious concerns related to Patient A’s care:

Panelists identified that clinical information, particularly regarding the long-term restorative needs for the tooth referred for the RCT, and accompanying implications regarding the modifications to Patient A’s partial denture, were not sufficiently disclosed or discussed;
Given Dr. X’s responses to the panel, the lack of a comprehensive approved treatment plan, as well as scant chart notes to reflect relevant discussions about Patient A’s treatment and its sequelae, members of the panel determined that Dr. X’s process to achieve meaningful informed consent did not meet expectations outlined in the PDBNS Informed Consent Guidelines, particularly the critical element of disclosure of all pertinent details associated with Patient A’s dental needs and options for treatment.
Dr. X’s patient record did not meet expectations outlined in the PDBNS Dental Recordkeeping Guidelines. Examples of deficiencies identified by panelists include (but are not limited to): the recording of medical information, clinical diagnoses and treatment options, a record that all reasonable treatment planning options were discussed including the cost of treatment, the proposed and accepted treatment plan, a notation that informed consent was obtained, clinical notes describing drugs used and prescription drugs records.

The members of the panel determined that Dr. X had breached Discipline Regulations under Sections 33 and 45 of the Nova Scotia Dental Act: Section 4(1) “Unprofessional Conduct” and Section 3(d) “Offences” detailed as follows:

failed to obtain informed consent by not discussing all available treatment options, the risks and benefits of each option, the associated cost of each option, and the consequences of no treatment – Section 3(d);
failed to maintain adequate patient records by not recording: a complete medical history update (including medications taken); significant investigations and findings (e.g., probing depths); a signed treatment plan; or notes regarding the explanation of treatment options and the nature of the conversation with the patient – Section 4(1)(g);
failed to meet a reasonable standard of clinical assessment and treatment planning – Section 4(1)(c);
contributed to a loss of trust in dentistry for Patient A – Section 4(1)(d).

PDBNS-2024-14 After hearing this complaint against a dentist, the Committee passed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

February 20, 2025 Meeting

PDBNS- 2024- 25 After hearing this complaint against a dentist, the Committee passed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

PDBNS- 2024- 18 After hearing this complaint against a dentist, the Committee passed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

PDBNS- 2024- 21 After hearing this complaint against a dentist, the Committee passed a motion to issue a Caution to the registrant.

In the complaint Patient A alleges they were charged for services that were not provided. Specifically, they describe undergoing an assessment and provision of a prescription for antibiotics by Dr. X and was then billed for ‘Periodontal abscess or pericoronitis treatment” (with reference to billing code 42831) and asserts that no such treatment was provided.

Members of the panel questioned Dr. X’s submission of the treatment code 42831 to the insurance company. It was noted that treatment code 42831 is in the “PERIODONTAL SERVICES, SURGICAL” section. Further, the heading for the 42831 includes the following descriptor:

“any of the following procedures: lancing, scaling, curettage, surgery or medication”.

In the absence of thorough prima facie documentation regarding Dr. X’s observations, diagnosis, and surgical application of a medication to address Patient A’s periodontal infection, panelists concluded that Dr. X had charged a fee for a service that was not performed. It was also noted that the inappropriate use of billing codes erodes public trust and confidence in dentistry.

Members of the panel determined Dr. X had breached Discipline Regulations under Sections 33 and 45 of the Nova Scotia Dental Act: Section 4(1) “Unprofessional Conduct” and Section 3(d) “breach of, or failure to observe, the Code of Ethics”, “Offenses” detailed as follows:

charging for fees that are not performed – Section 4(1)(f).
contributed to a loss of trust in dentistry – Section 4(1)(d).
fees for professional services performed were not justified – Section 3(d)(4).
claims for services to a third party insurer did not accurately reflect the services rendered – Section 3(d)(5)

March 20, 2025 Meeting

PDBNS- 2024- 22 After hearing this complaint against a dentist, the Committee passed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

April 3, 2025 Meeting

PDBNS-2023-20 After reviewing this complaint against a dentist, the Committee passed a motion recommending the Discipline Committee accept the executed Settlement Agreement.

In the Settlement Agreement, Dr. X makes the following admissions:

recordkeeping in this case did not meet the standard of practice for a dentist licensed in Nova Scotia;
failed to properly diagnose and treat dental issues and in so doing, did not meet the standard of skill, knowledge, and judgement that is reasonable in the practice of dentistry in Nova Scotia.

The Settlement Agreement also contains the following agreed-upon sanctions:

is required to successfully complete a customized remedial course that covers each of the following areas:
- Recordkeeping;
- Radiographic interpretation; and Diagnosis and treatment of caries at their expense, within 24 months of the date of the Order approving this Settlement Agreement.
A letter of reprimand; and
will remit to the PDBNS the sum of $5,000 as a contribution to the PDBNS’s costs to investigate the Complaint.

May 8, 2025 Meeting

PDBNS-2018-06 After hearing this complaint against a dental assistant pertaining to alleged unauthorized access to personal health information and harassment, the Committee passed a motion to that an attempt be made to reach an informal resolution, including voluntary authorization of their resignation from the register; and that failing a successful informal resolution, the complaint be referred to the Professional Conduct Committee.

August 6, 2025 Meeting

PDBNS- 2024- 30 After hearing this complaint filed against a dental assistant relating to alleged fraudulent billing activity, the Committee recommended an attempt be made to reach an informal resolution, including their voluntary authorization of their resignation from the register; and that failing a successful informal resolution, the complaint be referred back to the Complaints Committee for further deliberation.

September 8, 2025 Meeting

PDBNS-2024-27 After hearing this complaint against a dentist, the Committee held their decision to consider past complaints history.

PDBNS-2024-31 After hearing this complaint against a dentist, the Committee held their decision to consider past complaints history.

September 22, 2025 Meeting

PDBNS-2023-23 After hearing this complaint against a dentist pertaining to the alleged misdiagnosis of a pathological lesion, the Committee passed a motion to issue a Caution to the registrant.

PDBNS- 2024- 13 After hearing this complaint against a dentist, the Committee passed a motion to dismiss the complaint but recommended that Dr. X consider taking course in recordkeeping.

October 15, 2025 Meeting

PDBNS- 2025- 02 After hearing this complaint against a dentist, the Committee passed a motion to issue a Caution to the registrant.

In the complaint Patient A describes that the initial appointment included unsatisfactory and aggressive dental hygiene treatment that left them in discomfort following the appointment and the following day they noticed that “the bonding had been removed, along with the bonding on the tooth next to it” and that an appointment was arranged with Dr. X.

Patient A outlines a series of appointments to address the missing bonding and for fabrication of a new biteplane. They explain that Dr. X insisted that the fixed retainer wire had to be cut to properly place the new bonding. Patient A states they would not have proceeded “if there was no plan to get a replacement made”.

After careful deliberation, members of the panel determined that Dr. X provided treatment with a standard of skill, knowledge and judgement that is reasonable in the practice of dentistry in Nova Scotia and therefore, did not meet the threshold for a finding of professional misconduct under the RHPA. They did, however, determine that Dr. X was not fully compliant with NSRDDA expectations for recordkeeping and informed consent.

November 6, 2025 Meeting

NSRDDA- 2025- 25 After hearing this complaint against a dentist, the Committee passed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

NSRDDA- 2025- 13 After hearing this complaint against a dentist, the Committee passed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

November 13, 2025 Meeting

PDBNS- 2024- 23 After hearing this complaint against a dentist, the Committee passed a motion to that an attempt be made to reach an informal resolution, including consent to undertake measures for remediation in the clinical management of wisdom teeth (including prescription of pain medication), recordkeeping and informed consent; and that failing a successful informal resolution, the complaint be referred back to the Complaints Committee.

PDBNS- 2024- 28 After hearing this complaint against a dentist, the Committee passed a motion to issue a Caution to the registrant.

In the complaint Patient A outlines a detailed account of concerns related to the dental care encounter with Dr. X while they were attending [clinic name] for a dental emergency. Patient A outlines relevant aspects of their personal situation including health and professional education credentials as well as a detailed account of their medical history, particularly a significant history of laryngeal angioedema, urticaria, atypical anaphylaxis and predisposition to airway compromise. For these reasons, Patient A explains that they are typically accompanied to health-related appointments by their spouse, who is a paramedic.

During the clinical encounter Patient A describes first seeing Dr. [last name] who was attempting an extraction to address a rapid onset intense dental pain. They state this dentist had some difficulty achieving anesthesia, so a colleague was consulted, Dr. X. Patient A alleges that Dr. X aggressively administered anesthetic and proceeded to “forcefully” press in the area below their tongue causing muscle strain in the jaw to which they reacted by telling Dr. X that “you can’t do that”. They further explain that multiple attempts were made to provide details of their health history but were met with Dr. X’s insistence that this must be done to proceed with the extraction. They state that Dr. X was dismissive to input and left to attend to another patient.

Patient A asserts that informed consent was not sought prior to Dr. X’s intraoral massage which, they assume, was carried out to improve anesthetic efficacy. Based on personal knowledge of their condition and risk to airway, they further assert that they would not have consented. Patient A states that their autonomy was not respected, Dr. X’s behaviour was coercive, and was especially troubled by Dr. X’s characterization that they were “rude and offensive” when they were asserting their autonomy.

After careful deliberation on this matter, and in accordance with the RHPA, members of the panel determined that Dr. X breached the standards of practice specific to:

assessment of patient’s health status and risk, diagnosis, and clinical management of a tooth extraction;
Section II of the NSRDDA Recordkeeping Guidelines; and
the NSRDDA Informed Consent Guidelines

However, the panel determined that having regard to all the circumstances, the breaches do not rise to the level of professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming the registrant’s profession, incompetence or incapacity.

The panel unanimously passed a motion that Dr. X be issued a Caution.

November 17, 2025 Meeting

NSRDDA- 2025- 08 After hearing this complaint against a dentist, the Committee held their decision. During this investigation, additional concerns arising from patient files were identified by members of the panel. This included possible billing irregularities and questionable practice standards applied to informed consent, diagnosis, treatment planning and overall patient management.

December 2, 2025 Meeting

PDBNS- 2024- 27 After hearing this complaint against a dentist, the Committee passed a

motion to issue a reprimand to the registrant, including a condition for remedial education in the clinical assessment and diagnosis of odontogenic pain as approved by the Registrar within 12 months following consent to these terms, and failing a successful resolution, the complaint be referred back to the Complaints Committee for further deliberation.

After careful deliberations on this matter, members of the panel determined that these findings constitute the following breaches as defined in Section 2 of the RHPA:

Professional Misconduct that would reasonably be regarded as unprofessional:

1. Failed to maintain the standards of practice specific to:
  - - assessment and diagnosis of odontogenic pain;
    - recordkeeping (Section II of the Recordkeeping Guidelines); and
    - the NSRDDA Informed Consent Guidelines.
2. Failed to adhere to the Code of Ethics (specific to Article 8: Informed Choice)

PDBNS- 2024- 31 After hearing this complaint against a dentist, the Committee passed a motion to that an attempt be made to reach an informal resolution of the complaint, including winding down the practice and undertaking measures for remediation in recordkeeping within 12 months; and that failing a successful informal resolution, the complaint be referred back to the Complaints Committee.

NSRDDA- 2025- 26 After reviewing this complaint against a dentist, the Committee confirmed the Registrar Dismissal.