Club Dynasty
Toronto Escorts

Dental hygienist loses licence as 'sexual abuser' for treating his wife

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,094
2,592
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
A dental hygienist stripped of his licence as a sexual abuser because he treated his wife has lost his bid to have the punishment overturned.

Ontario’s Divisional Court decision upholding the “harsh” punishment for Alexandru Tanase comes even though regulators have proposed allowing hygienists to treat spouses as dentists may do.

“There is no other case of any dental hygienist anywhere in Canada who has been found guilty of sexual abuse for treating his wife,” the court said in its ruling. “It is indeed unfortunate that the (discipline committee) elected to proceed with the complaint.”

A disciplinary hearing arose after a complaint to the College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario from a colleague, who had spotted a June 2016 Facebook post from Tanase’s grateful wife, identified as S.M., about the care he had provided her.

Evidence before the discipline committee was that S.M. feared dental treatment and had had no care for several years when she became platonic friends with Tanase in 2012. He soon provided her with free in-office treatment.

In mid-2014, court records show, they became romantically involved and he stopped treating her because of the blanket ban on sexual relations between health-care professionals and their patients. The province enacted the zero-tolerance policy in 1993 to protect patients from exploitation. Consent is irrelevant.

While working at a clinic in Guelph, Ont., a colleague told Tanase that dental hygienists were allowed to treat their spouses. In fact, the college approved a spousal exemption in September 2015 but the legislature never adopted the rule – as it has done for dentists.

Based on his erroneous understanding of the law, Tanase began again treating his otherwise treatment-averse fiancee and continued doing so after they married in early 2016.

The discipline committee ruled it had no choice but to find Tanase had violated the ban on sexual relations with a patient – even though the patient was his spouse and the sex consensual – and therefore subject to mandatory licence revocation.

“You have paid a heavy price,” the committee said. “We sincerely hope to see you again as an active member of the dental hygiene profession.”

Tanase appealed to the courts, arguing the law violated his constitutional rights.

In its ruling, the Divisional Court panel said Tanase posed no danger to the public and expressed sympathy for the couple given that he cannot practise for at least five years.

The panel noted a previous case in which the college took no action against a female hygienist who treated her husband in light of their pre-existing spousal relationship and questioned why the Tanase complaint had gone forward. The court also said it seemed unfair that dentists can treat their spouses but hygienists can’t.

Nevertheless, the panel ruled the licence revocation as a “sexual abuser” and “stigma” of having details of his discipline posted on the college’s public website were constitutional and did not amount to cruel or unusual punishment. Current law and previous legal decisions upholding the validity of the sex ban and mandatory punishment for a violation had tied its hands, the court said.

“Unless and until the Ontario government approves the regulation put forward by the College of Dental Hygienists to enact a spousal exemption, the mandatory revocation and ancillary relief imposed by the discipline committee as they pertain to spouses must be upheld,” the panel said.

The government did not immediately respond to a request for comment but Tanase’s lawyer, Seth Weinstein, said his client planned to seek leave to appeal before a five-judge panel because the Court of Appeal has previously upheld the legislation.

“From our perspective, the law was never intended to capture this conduct,” Weinstein said.

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2019/09/13/dental-hygienist-medical-licence/
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38
A stupid and disturbing ruling.
 

lomotil

Well-known member
Mar 14, 2004
6,280
1,162
113
Oblivion
The ruling would likely be struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada but would cost Tanase alot of money to be vindicated.
 

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
11,022
4,297
113
The ruling would likely be struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada but would cost Tanase alot of money to be vindicated.

On what grounds would you think it could be appealed?

(not that I disagree with the unfairness of the application of the law in these circumstances)
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
25,136
3,572
113
Had to check the date, but its not April 1st yet
 

Zaibetter

Banned
Mar 27, 2016
4,284
1
0
Outrageous !!! Dentists are allowed to work on their wives but not hygienists.
 

lomotil

Well-known member
Mar 14, 2004
6,280
1,162
113
Oblivion
On what grounds would you think it could be appealed?

(not that I disagree with the unfairness of the application of the law in these circumstances)
The ruling could be appealed on the grounds that :

1. In a matrimonial/ spousal relationships sex is expected to be a part of the relationship
2. The intent of the regulation is to protect the public from sexual abuse by healthcare worker and should no be used as a tool for revenge, vexation or extortion against a healthcare by their spouse in an acrimonious marital break up or by a disgruntled third party.

3. The ruling supports a corruption and perversion of the intent of the regulation and could encourage other cases to come forward.
4. Some of the Colleges under the Regulated Health Professions act are not uniformly revoking licenses of healthcare providers who treat their spouses,
5. The ruling is clearly a violation of this particular healthcare provider's rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and when the Regulated Health Act was composed this particular
regulation pertaining to this ruling was not intended capture, control or regulate this conduct.

6. The Ontario Provincial Government was irresponsible and incompetent in not being able to forsee this scenario when they passed the legislation and have not done anything to amend this clear violation which speaks to speaks to restraint of trade and offers no public protection whatsoever.


N.B. I apologize for the lack of legalese ( not a lawyer)
 

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
11,022
4,297
113
The ruling could be appealed on the grounds that :

1. In a matrimonial/ spousal relationships sex is expected to be a part of the relationship
2. The intent of the regulation is to protect the public from sexual abuse by healthcare worker and should no be used as a tool for revenge, vexation or extortion against a healthcare by their spouse in an acrimonious marital break up or by a disgruntled third party.

3. The ruling supports a corruption and perversion of the intent of the regulation and could encourage other cases to come forward.
4. Some of the Colleges under the Regulated Health Professions act are not uniformly revoking licenses of healthcare providers who treat their spouses,
5. The ruling is clearly a violation of this particular healthcare provider's rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and when the Regulated Health Act was composed this particular
regulation pertaining to this ruling was not intended capture, control or regulate this conduct.

6. The Ontario Provincial Government was irresponsible and incompetent in not being able to forsee this scenario when they passed the legislation and have not done anything to amend this clear violation which speaks to speaks to restraint of trade and offers no public protection whatsoever.


N.B. I apologize for the lack of legalese ( not a lawyer)

I would never have guessed you were not a lawyer! ;-)

Sounds like re-arguing the case.

If you read the actual decision it seems that similar arguments were indeed made to the College and to the Court. Tanase v. The College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario, 2019 ONSC 5153 (CanLII) . And the Court addressed each one quite thoroughly.

One can't appeal on the basis that one did not like the decision, or that one forgot to argue something.

Appeals are pretty limited to claims that the Court made an error in law or was prejudiced or similar.


In this case, after reading the decision, the Court seemed to be quite sympathetic to the Hygienist and really look for a way to overturn the College's decision.
 

lomotil

Well-known member
Mar 14, 2004
6,280
1,162
113
Oblivion
I would never have guessed you were not a lawyer! ;-)

Sounds like re-arguing the case.

If you read the actual decision it seems that similar arguments were indeed made to the College and to the Court. [FONT=&]Tanase v. The College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario, 2019 ONSC 5153 (CanLII) . And the Court addressed each one quite thoroughly.[/FONT]

One can't appeal on the basis that one did not like the decision, or that one forgot to argue something.

Appeals are pretty limited to claims that the Court made an error in law or was prejudiced or similar.


In this case, after reading the decision, the Court seemed to be quite sympathetic to the Hygienist and really look for a way to overturn the College's decision.
Could the appeal be based on the fact that the conduct of Tanase is ubiquitous and ignored by the College of Dental Hygienist of Ontario and other Governing Bodies of other Ontario Regulated Health Professions in many other cases, so why him ? His partner did not report sexual abuse. Suppose Tanase or any other member of the public reports all of the Dental Hygienist that they knows have treated their spouses, then what ? What about other healthcare providers, would this not create a shortage of physicians, nurses, rmt, dental hygienist, dentist(who treated spouses before the exemption) etc ?

Do you think that the Supreme Court of Canada would reach the same decision? In light of this asinine ruling which has attracted alot of attention in Ontario and beyond, I would not be surprised if a lawyer would take up this case pro bono to the highest court and tip the scales of justice back to where they ought to be.

N.B. The College of Dental Hygienist and other Colleges seem to be in defense mode and have suddenly proposed amendments to the Regulated Health Professions Act which could make Mr. Tanase's conduct acceptable and I think that this individual will not have to wait five years to apply for the reinstatement of his license, instead he just might be reinstated quietly within the next few months, probably with costs awarded.
 

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
11,022
4,297
113
lomotil...

I understand how you might think that this case shouldn't have gotten this far.

The Court agreed with you.

But as a matter of law, it seems that after reading the Judge's reasons, his hands were pretty much tied.


Your grounds for appeal still just re-argue the case. An appeal pretty much has to be made on the basis of the Judge making an error in law.
 

lomotil

Well-known member
Mar 14, 2004
6,280
1,162
113
Oblivion
lomotil...

I understand how you might think that this case shouldn't have gotten this far.

The Court agreed with you.

But as a matter of law, it seems that after reading the Judge's reasons, his hands were pretty much tied.


Your grounds for appeal still just re-argue the case. An appeal pretty much has to be made on the basis of the Judge making an error in law.
How about an appeal based on the Judge makiing an error in law by incorrectly misinterpreting the appellants rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedom? Could the decision have been stayed pending proposed reforms of the regulations by the College of Dental Hygienist ? I still maintain that appellant will be practicing as a dental hygienist in the very near future.
 

lomotil

Well-known member
Mar 14, 2004
6,280
1,162
113
Oblivion
Sounds harsh especially since being married you don’t get head nor laid.
Actually you have a point, the regulation says that the dental hygienist in Ontario cannot have sex (oral-oral, oral-genital, genital-genital, oral-anal, genital-anal, oral -anal ) with their patients. The regulation states activity which they consider to be sex so that there is no ambiguity. If the dental hygienist can show that they are in fact in a sexless relationship then there would be no violation of the regulation. For this dental hygienist who has children conceived during the time that his wife was his patient, the sex is obviously evident.
 

lomotil

Well-known member
Mar 14, 2004
6,280
1,162
113
Oblivion
lomotil...

I understand how you might think that this case shouldn't have gotten this far.

The Court agreed with you.

But as a matter of law, it seems that after reading the Judge's reasons, his hands were pretty much tied.


Your grounds for appeal still just re-argue the case. An appeal pretty much has to be made on the basis of the Judge making an error in law.
https://globalnews.ca/tag/ontario-dental-hygienist-licence-reinstated/

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the dental hygienist might be reinstated and it has happened. How could this re-instatement affect the grounds for appeal now, if at all ? It seems like the College of Hygienist of Ontario has fallen on their sword and is trying to mitigate any liable.
 

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
11,022
4,297
113
https://globalnews.ca/tag/ontario-dental-hygienist-licence-reinstated/

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the dental hygienist might be reinstated and it has happened. How could this re-instatement affect the grounds for appeal now, if at all ? It seems like the College of Hygienist of Ontario has fallen on their sword and is trying to mitigate any liable.

They have not fallen on their swords. But they are trying to mitigate any civil liability they may have.

They have temporarily re-instated his license pending the outcome of the appeal.


I agree that this is ridiculous, and that the College and Legislature didn't keep up with reality in failing to pass the new legislation into effect. This is truly a "game" of law and will be interesting to see how it plays out.
 
Toronto Escorts