A member of the public alleged that the videos were 'sexist and disgusting'
In a recent judgment, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed a dentist's application for judicial review against the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario's committee decision mandating him to complete a specified continuing education or remediation program.
The committee’s decision was in response to the dentist’s controversial TikTok videos. He was a 27-year-old dentist practising since 2020 who faced scrutiny for two TikTok videos deemed by a public complainant as "sexist and disgusting," prompting an investigation by the College. The videos, one featuring the dentist in dental scrubs with suggestive content and another hinting at a sexual innuendo related to oral exams, led to allegations of professional misconduct under health profession regulations.
Upon review, the Committee found the dentist's actions to violate both the Social Media Advisory and the Prevention of Sexual Abuse and Boundary Violations Advisory of the College, categorizing the videos as "sexualized, offensive and demonstrated a lack of professional judgment." Despite the dentist's removal of the videos and subsequent apologies, the Committee stressed the importance of upholding professional conduct online to maintain public trust in the dental profession.
The dentist challenged the Committee's decision, arguing it was unreasonable and citing potential factual errors regarding the association of his professional biography with the videos. He also contested the Committee's interpretation of the prevention advisory and the proportionality of the sanction. However, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice upheld the Committee's decision as reasonable, emphasizing that the detailed analysis and the considered response aligned with the regulatory framework guiding dental professionals' conduct.
The court highlighted the ease with which the dentist's professional information could be linked to the videos despite the Committee's error stating that his practice biography was directly attached to the posts. It concluded that the accessible connection between the dentist's online persona and his professional identity made the videos a legitimate concern for the Committee.
Furthermore, the court rejected the dentist's arguments regarding violating his rights to full answer and defence and the alleged misapplication of the prevention advisory. It found that the Committee's focus on remediation rather than punishment reflected an appropriate response to the dentist's lack of insight into his professional obligations, as depicted in his initial reaction to the investigation.
Addressing the sanction's severity, the court noted that the remedial actions were neither disproportionate nor overly severe, aiming to correct and educate rather than punish. The court’s ruling underlined the importance of professional conduct on social media platforms and health professionals' responsibilities to uphold their profession's integrity in all forms of public communication. As a result, the court ordered the dentist to pay $7,500 in costs to the College.
