Manitoba · Manitoba Dental Association

What happens during a MDA investigation?

An MDA investigation is carried out by an appointed investigator whose findings are reported to the Complaints Committee — and if a matter is serious enough it goes to an inquiry panel, a formal hearing with lawyers, a court reporter and witnesses. What you say to the investigator is itself part of what is judged.

First: the MDA is not an RHPA college

Unlike Manitoba’s doctors and nurses, dentists are not regulated under The Regulated Health Professions Act. The MDA regulates under The Dental Association Act (CCSM c. D30), which has its own committees, its own language and its own deadlines. It regulates dentists, dental corporations and registered dental assistants. If your matter concerns a dental hygienist, that is a different regulator — the College of Dental Hygienists of Manitoba — with its own process. Everything below is the MDA’s.

How an investigation starts

When a written complaint reaches the Registrar, it may be assigned to an investigator, whose findings are reported to the Complaints Committee at the conclusion of the investigation. The investigator can examine the clinical record, obtain documents, and interview the complainant, witnesses and you. For an insurer complaint, the investigator will typically gather both your records and the second-opinion or subsequent-treatment records that the insurer relies on.

Where the Registrar considers the complaint particularly serious and urgent, the Act allows the matter to be sent directly to the Peer Review chairperson for an inquiry panel, with or without further investigation. Not every case passes slowly through the committee first.

The duty to co-operate — and be truthful

This is the single most important thing to understand about an MDA investigation. Co-operating with the investigation, and being truthful in it, is a professional obligation in its own right. An MDA inquiry panel has said in terms that this duty is integral to self-regulation. A dentist who misleads the investigator — or produces an altered or incomplete record — commits a separate and more serious act of misconduct than whatever the complaint was about, and it is very often the misleading, not the original issue, that produces the heaviest sanction.

So: produce the complete record. Do not curate it. Do not adjust a date or a note to make it read better. And take advice before you answer questions, because a defensive half-truth given under pressure is exactly the trap.

Examination of the dental work

Dental cases have a feature medical ones usually do not: the work itself can be examined. The Complaints Committee may wish to look at the treatment under review, and the peer-review structure exists precisely so that dentists assess dental work. That cuts both ways — competent work, properly documented, can be demonstrated to fellow professionals; poor work is equally visible. Make sure your records let good work speak for itself.

What the Complaints Committee does with the findings

On receiving the investigator’s report the Complaints Committee applies its section 25(1) powers: refer the matter to an inquiry panel, decline to refer it, issue a formal written caution, accept a voluntary surrender, or take other appropriate action. Remember the counterpart in section 25(3): if you are offered a caution, you may require the matter to go to an inquiry panel instead. Weigh that carefully — a confidential caution is a far lighter thing than a public inquiry finding.

The inquiry panel: a formal hearing

An inquiry panel is established under section 26 and consists of two dentists from the Peer Review Committee and one public representative. It is a formal regulatory hearing — lawyers, a court reporter, witnesses, evidence and cross-examination — though it is neither a criminal nor a civil proceeding. The panel decides whether a ground in section 27.5 is made out: professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming, a relevant statutory contravention, a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment in practice, or being incapable or unfit to practise through illness or addiction. As in Canadian regulatory hearings generally, findings are made on the balance of probabilities.

What an inquiry panel can order

If a ground is made out, section 28 gives the panel a broad range of orders. It may:

• Reprimand you;
• Impose conditions on your licence;
• Suspend your licence — for a fixed period, or until you complete a specified course of study or supervised clinical experience, or until you have obtained treatment or counselling for a disability or addiction and shown it is overcome;
• Order a refund or waiver of fees the panel considers were unjustified;
• Cancel your licence; and
• Order costs, and often a fine.

The exposure is real: in one published matter the orders were a reprimand, a $10,000 fine, and costs up to $45,000. Inquiry decisions are published — in the MDA bulletin and to the public — and recorded on the Manitoba Dental Register. Appeal from an inquiry panel lies to the Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba.

How long it takes, and using the time

Straightforward matters can resolve at committee in a few months; contested inquiries take considerably longer, especially where insurer records and expert examination of the work are involved. The waiting is your opportunity: the committee and any panel decide on the evidence in front of them, which includes what you have already done about the concern. Our remediation guide sets out how to build that.

This guide is general information about the Manitoba Dental Association (MDA) and is not legal advice. Regulatory processes turn on their facts, and The Dental Association Act and MDA by-laws change. Contact your professional liability insurer or the Canadian Dental Association’s protective coverage before you write to the MDA, and take advice from a lawyer experienced in Manitoba regulatory matters. Healthcare Ethics Courses is an independent CPD provider and is not affiliated with the MDA. Last updated July 14, 2026.