The court upheld the College of Dental Surgeons' duty to maintain public transparency
The Alberta Court of Appeal has dismissed an application seeking the removal of publications related to the College of Dental Surgeons' findings of unprofessional conduct.
The court ruled that while a single judge has jurisdiction to make such an order, the request failed on the balance of convenience, meaning the publications will remain available to the public pending the full appeal.
In September 2022, the college's disciplinary tribunal found the applicant guilty of unprofessional conduct in a complaint that included multiple allegations of sexual assault. The college's appeal panel upheld the decision in January 2024. The applicant appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal, which granted a stay and suspended enforcement of the Appeal Panel's decision until the court heard the appeal.
Despite this stay, the college published a summary of the disciplinary findings, including the details of the findings, sanctions, and costs, on its website. The college also included the publication in its newsletter. In October 2024, the college amended the website notice to state that the appeal panel's decision had been stayed pending appeal.
The applicant argued that the college's publications should be removed because they caused irreparable harm, including reputational damage, patient loss, and the initiation of criminal charges. He argued that the publication misled the public, suggested the college revoked his license, and revealed excessive details about the allegations. The college countered that public transparency in disciplinary matters is a key part of its regulatory mandate and that its bylaws require the publication of such findings.
The Court of Appeal first considered whether a single judge had the authority to grant the requested order. After reviewing past decisions, the court found that a single judge has jurisdiction to rule on applications incidental to an appeal. However, the court ultimately assessed the request under the well-established test for granting a stay pending appeal.
The court determined that a serious question existed, as the college conceded, and found that the publications caused the applicant irreparable harm, including reputational damage, negative online reviews, and disruptions to his practice that could not be easily undone. The court ruled that the college's obligation to regulate the profession and inform the public outweighed the applicant's personal and professional interests. It emphasized that legislative and bylaw provisions favour transparency and public access to disciplinary findings, which are fundamental to maintaining trust in the regulatory process.
In dismissing the application, the court reaffirmed that professional regulators have broad discretion in protecting the public interest, even when an appeal is pending.