Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog

Latest trends and developments in commercial litigation.

open menu close menu

Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog

  • Home
  • About us
  • Topics
    • Topics
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
    • Class Action
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Judicial Review and Public Law
    • Privacy Litigation
    • Professional Liability
    • Securities Litigation
    • Technology and New Media

Supreme Court of Canada refuses to hear appeal challenging zero tolerance rule for health care practitioners

By Dina Awad, Kate Millar, and Justin Okerman
April 21, 2022
  • Professional Liability
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

The Supreme Court of Canada recently dismissed a dental hygienist’s request for leave to appeal from a decision revoking his license for treating his spouse. In the underlying Ontario Court of Appeal decision Tanase v College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario, 2021 ONCA 482 (Tanase), the court affirmed its stance on a “bright-line” rule for “zero-tolerance” with respect to sexual relationships between health care practitioners and patients. Such relationships are considered “sexual abuse” against a patient, with a very narrow exception carved out for spouses. The Court upheld the revocation of the Appellant’s licence to practice, and did not find that this revocation infringed sections 7 or 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter).  By dismissing the request for leave to appeal, with costs, the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed this holding.

Background

In Tanase, a dental hygienist (the Appellant) appealed a finding of professional misconduct by a Discipline Committee convened by the Council of the College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario (the College).[1] The Appellant and the patient had met in 2012. By mid-2014, the Appellant and patient commenced their sexual relationship, at which point, the Appellant ceased treating the patient due to the prohibition on sexual relationships between dental hygienists and patients.[2] The Appellant provided four treatments to the patient in 2015, and three treatments to the patient in 2016.[3] Though the Appellant and patient married in January 2016, the College’s spousal exception did not come into force until October 8, 2020.[4] A complaint was made to the College in August 2016, which prompted the convention of a Discipline Committee, which found the Appellant had engaged in professional misconduct, and ordered a reprimand and revocation of his certificate of registration.[5]

The Appellant appealed this finding to Divisional Court, but the appeal was dismissed in September 2019.[6] The Appellant then made an appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Relevant legislation and regulatory framework

Ontario legislation imposes a “zero-tolerance” policy for “sexual abuse” by members of the regulated health professions in Ontario, which is defined as “sexual intercourse or other forms of physical sexual relations between the member and the patient.”[7] Members are guilty of professional misconduct under s. 51(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code (the Code),[8] if they commit said “sexual abuse” against a patient, and will have their certificate of registration revoked if the “sexual abuse” entailed sexual intercourse, as per s. 51(5) of the Code.[9]

The spousal exception under s. 1(5) of the Code did not come into force until October 8, 2020, with “spouse” being narrowly defined under s. 1(6) of the Code as either a “spouse” defined as marriage under s. 1 of the Family Law Act, or where a conjugal relationship existed outside of marriage continuously for more than three years.

Reinforcement of precedent

The Appellant challenged two key decisions before the Ontario Court of Appeal. The first was Leering v College of Chiropractors of Ontario (Leering),[10] in which the Court held that sexual abuse is established where a health care professional-patient relationship and a sexual relationship occur concurrently. The Appellant argued that Leering was overruled by the Legislature in 2013 by permitting individual Colleges to enact regulations permitting health professionals to treat their spouses.[11]

The Court in Tanase affirmed Leering, holding that the Code is intended to set clear rules, free of doubt or uncertainty, by setting clear prohibitions on certain conduct.[12] This is not to say that there cannot be exceptions, such as the spousal exception, but this does not overrule Leering – rather, the Legislature acknowledged Leering while facilitating a means to adopt narrow or specific exceptions if particular Colleges felt it was appropriate to do so.[13]   

Notwithstanding, the spousal exception came into effect after the Appellant treated the patient; in the words of the Court, “[e]ven if it had been in force at the relevant time, the spousal exception would not have operated to excuse the appellant’s pre-marital treatment of S.M. after they began their sexual relationship. And because it was not in force, the spousal exception did not excuse the appellant’s post-marital conduct either.”[14]

Charter considerations

The second case challenged by the Appellant is Mussani v College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (Mussani),[15] in which the Court held that the penalty of mandatory revocation of a health professional’s certificate of registration for sexual abuse does not infringe either s. 7 or s. 12 of the Charter.[16] The Appellant claimed that Mussani was based on an outdated, expansive interpretation of s. 7, and that the requirement enshrined in 2007 to publicize the results of disciplinary proceedings engages s. 7 in a way that was not in issue in Mussani.[17] The Appellant also claimed that the psychological stress caused by revoking one’s registration is adequate to engage security of the person.[18]

The Court rejected these arguments, pointing to a long line of authority that s. 7 does not protect the right to practice a profession, including a regulated health profession.[19] S. 7 is engaged when there is either “interference with bodily integrity and autonomy or serious state-imposed psychological stress”, and the Court found no evidence of either.[20] Serious consequences are not enough to engage s. 7.[21]

The Court also rejected the Appellant’s efforts to engage s. 12 of the Charter in response to the revocation of his registration as a form of “cruel and unusual treatment”, citing the absence of authority supporting a claim that professional regulation constitutes “treatment” pursuant to s. 12.[22]  

In the alternative, the Appellant sought a stay from the Court pursuant to s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act,[23] on the basis that revoking his licence was either harsh or unfair.[24] The Court declined to do so, citing that it “cannot refuse to give effect to the lawful decision of an administrative tribunal on the basis that it disapproves of the outcome in a particular case.”[25]

Key takeaway

As noted, the Supreme Court of Canada had the opportunity to reconsider the matters at issue, but declined to provide leave to appeal. This confirms the set law in Ontario that there is a “bright-line” prohibition of any form of sexual relationship between a health practitioner and a patient under the Code, which describes these types of relationships as a form of “sexual abuse”. A very narrow exception exists for parties that are married or have been in a conjugal relationship for a minimum of three years prior to treatment being administered. This rule remains staunchly enforced, at peril of one’s licence, and neither the prohibition generally, nor the penalty of revocation impugn one’s Charter rights. It would therefore be imperative for any health practitioners to avoid any form of sexual relationship with a patient, and proceed with caution even if that patient is a spouse.

For more information about professional negligence actions in Ontario or Canada, please contact Dina Awad, Kate Millar or another member of Dentons’ professional Liability group.  


[1]     Tanase v College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario, 2021 ONCA 482 at para 4.

[2]     Ibid at para 11

[3]     Ibid at para 13

[4]     Ibid at para 13-14

[5]     Ibid at para 15

[6]     Ibid at para 15

[7]     Health Professions Procedural Code, being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 18

[8]     Ibid at s 51(1)

[9]     Supra note 1 at para 16

[10]   2010 ONCA 87

[11]   Supra note 1 at para 26

[12]   Ibid at para 29

[13]   Ibid at para 30

[14]   Ibid at para 34

[15]   2004 CanLII 48653 (ONCA), 248 DLR (4th) 632.

[16]   Ibid at para 35

[17]   Ibid at para 37

[18]   Ibid at para 38

[19]   Ibid at para 40

[20]   Ibid at para 43

[21]   Ibid at para 45

[22]   Ibid at para 54

[23]   RSO 1990, c C.43

[24]   Ibid at para 58

[25]   Ibid at para 59

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Dina Awad

About Dina Awad

Dina Awad is a partner in Dentons’ Litigation and Dispute Resolution group. Dina specializes in complex regulatory and commercial matters with a focus on environmental law, health law, and commercial disputes where she provides advocacy, risk analysis, and compliance advice. Her public law experience also includes work in the field of professional regulation. Dina is committed to the success of our clients and cases; she thoroughly reviews and strategizes each piece of evidence to resolve disputes in our clients’ best interests.

All posts Full bio

Kate Millar

About Kate Millar

Kate Millar is a senior associate in the Litigation and Dispute Resolution group of Dentons’ Calgary office. Kate practices in general litigation with a focus in commercial litigation, estate litigation, construction litigation and obtaining injunctive relief. In addition to litigation, Kate also maintains a vibrant estate planning practice

All posts Full bio

Justin Okerman

About Justin Okerman

Justin Okerman is an associate in Dentons’ Litigation and Dispute Resolution group. Based in the Edmonton office, Justin has a broad practice which focuses on health law, professional liability, regulatory law, and construction matters.

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • Professional Liability

Rectification resurgence: Recent trends in Ontario rectification cases

By Douglas Stewart and Hannah Bourgeois
  • Professional Liability

The Alberta Court of Appeal highlights shortcomings of the Alberta Health Services’ policies for the granting of physicians’ hospital privileges: Harling v Lauf

By Rose Carter and Justin Okerman
  • Professional Liability

Pas de délai de type Jordan pour les procédures administratives : La Cour suprême du Canada confirme qu’un « délai à lui seul » n’est pas suffisant pour arrêter des procédures en droit administratif

By Michael Sestito, Kate Millar, Katherine Martin, and Justin Okerman

About Dentons

Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com

Grow, Protect, Operate, Finance. Dentons, the law firm of the future is here. Copyright 2023 Dentons. Dentons is a global legal practice providing client services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates. Please see dentons.com for Legal notices.

Categories

  • Acknowledgement
  • Adding a Party
  • Administrative Law
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
  • Amending Pleadings
  • Arbitration
  • attempted resolution
  • Civil Litigation
  • Class Action
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Contribution and Indemnity
  • Covid-19
  • Demand Obligations
  • Discoverability
  • Energy
  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
  • Environmental Litigation
  • Estates and Trusts
  • General
  • Government Investigations
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Arbitration
  • Judicial Review and Public Law
  • Limitation Periods contained in "Other Acts"
  • Limitation Periods in Federal Court
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Mining
  • Misnomer
  • Motions to Strike
  • Privacy
  • Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Privacy Litigation
  • Professional Liability
  • Quarterly privacy litigation digest
  • Regulatory
  • Securities Litigation
  • Special Circumstances
  • Statutory Variation of Time Limits
  • Successors
  • Technology and new media
  • Tolling/Varying Agreements
  • Transitional Provisions
  • Ultimate Limitation Periods
  • White-Collar Crime

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

Dentons logo in black and white

© 2025 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site