Ontario · Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario

What happens during an RCDSO investigation?

Failing to cooperate with an RCDSO investigation is not a tactic — under the Dentistry Act regulations it is itself an act of professional misconduct, entirely separate from whatever you were being investigated for.

The investigator’s work

Once a complaint is filed, the College assigns an investigator. Expect the College to contact the complainant to confirm exactly what is being alleged, and expect the investigation to reach beyond the two of you. Investigators routinely interview dental hygienists, associate dentists and clinic staff. Where the investigator thinks a matter might be resolved without formal submissions, they may want a verbal conversation with both sides — but understand that everything provided to the investigator is recorded and ends up in the report the ICRC reads.

Cooperation is not optional

This is the point where dentists most often damage their own case. Under the regulations made under the Dentistry Act, failing to cooperate with the College is itself “disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical conduct” — an independent act of professional misconduct. Stonewalling an investigator does not slow the case down; it adds a second, cleaner allegation to it, one that does not depend on any clinical judgement at all.

Cooperating fully and volunteering an unconsidered narrative are different things. Produce what is properly requested, promptly. Route what you say through counsel.

Never amend the chart

The impulse to complete or clarify a record once a complaint lands is understandable and is the fastest way to turn a defensible clinical case into an integrity case. Integrity cases are the ones that get referred. A late entry made openly, dated honestly and identified as a late entry is a legitimate thing; a chart quietly improved after the fact is not. If your documentation is thin, say so in the response and explain the circumstances. Do not fix it.

The Record of Investigation

When the investigation is finished, both you and the complainant receive a complete copy of the Record of Investigation (ROI), and both of you have the opportunity to make a written submission on anything in it. This is a genuine second bite — a chance to correct a mischaracterisation, respond to a witness account, or address something the investigator gathered that you had not seen. Use it. And remember that whatever you submit is disclosed to the complainant.

The complaint, the ROI, your response and both parties’ submissions then go to a panel of the ICRC, which deliberates on the papers using its risk assessment framework.

Section 75: the Registrar’s investigation

A separate and more serious route exists. Under section 75 of the Code, the Registrar may appoint investigators where the Registrar believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a dentist has committed professional misconduct or is incompetent, with ICRC approval; the ICRC can also request such an investigation after receiving information from the Quality Assurance Committee or a written complaint.

The powers are expansive. In a section 75 investigation, investigators may search your place of practice at any reasonable time, inspect your records, inspect records held by other practitioners and institutions, and interview your employer, employees and colleagues. Investigators may inquire into anything relevant to the matter under investigation — which is a considerably wider net than a single patient complaint.

The appeal consequence of section 75

There is a sting in the tail. Where an ICRC decision arises from a section 75 investigation, there is no statutory right of review by HPARB. A complaint decision can be taken to the Board; a section 75 decision cannot. The only route left is a judicial review application, which is narrower, slower and more expensive. If you are told the Registrar has appointed an investigator, treat that as a signal to get counsel involved immediately.

Interim orders

While an investigation runs — whether under the complaints route or section 75 — the ICRC can impose an interim order placing terms, conditions or limitations on your certificate of registration, up to and including suspension for the duration of the investigation. This is a protective step rather than a finding of wrongdoing, but its effect on your practice, your associates and your patients is immediate and real.

If it goes to Discipline

A referral produces a Notice of Hearing setting out the time, place and specific allegations. Discipline hearings are formal, quasi-legal proceedings held at the College in Toronto and are typically open to the public, with the College bearing the burden of proving the allegations. Panels comprise three to five members, including dentist and public members. The College must disclose its evidence, expert reports and witnesses no later than 10 days before the hearing, and a pre-hearing conference is held to narrow the issues. Findings of professional misconduct go on the register and are published in a summary.

For the response mechanics, read how to respond to an RCDSO complaint. For the corrective record, read remediation and reflection for Ontario dentists.

This guide describes the process of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario. It is general information about how the regulator works and is not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts. Before you respond to the College, contact your liability protection through the RCDSO Professional Liability Program (PLP) and consider a lawyer experienced in RHPA regulatory matters and RCDSO defence. Completing a course does not resolve a College matter and does not guarantee any outcome. Last updated July 14, 2026.