Vancouver, B.C. – The Supreme Court of British Columbia has ruled that the national body responsible for certifying dentists in Canada does not have a legal duty to explain to a candidate the specific reasons why he failed a critical hands-on licensing exam. The decision, cited as Fadaei v The National Dental Examining Board of Canada, 2025 BCSC 1527 (CanLII), delivered on August 8, 2025, dismisses a judicial review application from a foreign-trained dentist who argued the lack of a detailed explanation for his failure was procedurally unfair and unreasonable.
The case involved Ehsan Fadaei, who earned his Doctor of Dental Medicine degree in the Philippines in 2017. Upon moving to British Columbia, he began the rigorous and expensive process to become licensed to practice dentistry in Canada. Because his degree was from a non-accredited institution, Mr. Fadaei opted for the “Equivalency Process” offered by the National Dental Examining Board of Canada, or NDEB. This process is one of three pathways for foreign-trained dentists to prove they meet the Canadian standard of competence. The NDEB, a private, not-for-profit corporation established by an Act of Parliament in 1952, is the ultimate gatekeeper for the profession, setting the national standard and issuing Certificates of Qualification.
The Equivalency Process culminates in a series of assessments, including the National Dental Examination of Clinical Competence, known as the NDECC. This two-day practical exam requires candidates to demonstrate proficiency in eight different clinical skills modules. A candidate must pass all components to pass the examination overall.
Mr. Fadaei had a history of difficulties with the NDECC, having unsuccessfully attempted the Clinical Skills component three times prior to the attempt that led to the lawsuit. On each of those previous occasions, he had managed to pass the “Provisional Crown Restoration” component, a procedure to create a temporary cap for a tooth. However, he had failed other required skills. In his fourth attempt on July 3, 2024, the situation was reversed. Mr. Fadaei successfully completed seven of the eight skills modules, but this time he received a failing grade on the Provisional Crown Restoration component he had previously passed. This single failure resulted in him failing the entire NDECC once again.
The NDEB’s protocol for this specific skill lists 14 categories of critical errors that result in an automatic failure. On October 9, 2024, Mr. Fadaei was informed of his result. The board’s communication simply stated that he had failed the NDECC because he had made “one or more of the Failing Errors” on the Provisional Crown Restoration task. Troubled by the result, Mr. Fadaei exercised his right to request a manual verification of his score. In November 2024, the NDEB confirmed the original fail result without offering any more detail. His counsel later received a letter from the NDEB’s executive director in January 2025, which reiterated that Mr. Fadaei made at least one failing error and bluntly stated that the board “is not a teaching institution and does not provide additional explanation for the result of each requirement.”
Frustrated by the lack of transparency, Mr. Fadaei sought relief from the courts. He filed a petition for judicial review asking the B.C. Supreme Court to quash the NDEB’s decision and order it to re-evaluate his exam within 30 days. His legal challenge was built on two main pillars: that the NDEB’s refusal to provide reasons was a breach of its duty of procedural fairness, and that a decision without a supporting rationale was inherently unreasonable. His lawyer pointed to a 2002 Ontario court decision, Daneshvar v. Canada (National Dental Examining Board), in which the same board was criticized for not providing an explanation to a candidate who had appealed a failing grade.
In its defence, the NDEB argued that its examination process is not a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding that would attract a high level of procedural fairness. It characterized the decision as “simply the pass or fail result of a requirement in a dental clinical competency examination” based on objective, publicly available criteria. The board’s lawyers emphasized that it had made a significant change to its bylaws in 2022, eliminating the kind of internal appeal process that was at issue in the 2002 Daneshvar case. This change, the board claimed, was made in response to previous court decisions that had upheld its procedures and was intended to reduce the administrative burden of handling numerous appeals and writing detailed reasons. They also noted that the failing grade was not a final, career-ending decision. Mr. Fadaei was entitled to retake the NDECC an unlimited number of times within a 60-month period and had, in fact, already registered for another attempt.
In his ruling, Justice G.C. Weatherill sided with the NDEB. He systematically analyzed the duty of procedural fairness using the five-factor framework established by the Supreme Court of Canada in the landmark case Baker v. Canada. Justice Weatherill acknowledged that the decision was of profound importance to Mr. Fadaei, who had invested seven years and approximately $90,000 in his quest for accreditation. This factor, he noted, pointed toward requiring greater procedural protections, such as providing reasons.
However, the other four factors weighed heavily in the NDEB’s favour. The judge found that the nature of the decision-making process, being an anonymized exam rather than an adversarial hearing, meant a lower level of fairness was required. He also determined that Mr. Fadaei could not have had a “legitimate expectation” of receiving detailed reasons, as the NDEB’s long-standing and public practice was only to provide pass or fail grades.
Crucially, Justice Weatherill gave significant weight to the NDEB’s own choices of procedure and its role under its governing statute. He noted that the board has the expertise to design its own examination and certification processes, and courts should respect those choices. While the absence of a substantive appeal mechanism could argue for more fairness, this was counterbalanced by the fact that Mr. Fadaei could retake the exam. This distinguished his situation from the candidate in the Daneshvar case, who at the time was facing a final attempt.
Turning to the argument that the decision was unreasonable, Justice Weatherill applied the principles from the more recent Supreme Court of Canada case, Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov. That case confirmed that even without formal written reasons, a court can review an administrative decision for reasonableness by examining the record as a whole. Justice Weatherill found that the NDEB’s rationale was not opaque at all. The board had published a detailed protocol with the specific grading criteria, including the 14 types of “Failing Errors” for the crown restoration task. The reasonable inference was that Mr. Fadaei’s work was assessed against these clear standards by expert examiners and found to be deficient. The judge found no evidence that the decision was based on an improper motive or was otherwise unjustifiable.
In dismissing the petition, Justice Weatherill concluded that the NDEB had complied with its duty of fairness and that its decision was reasonable. He also noted, for context, that since the hearing he had been informed that Mr. Fadaei took the NDECC for a fifth time in April 2025 and failed again, this time being unsuccessful on three clinical skills requirements, including the Provisional Crown Restoration component. The issue of who will bear the legal costs of the proceeding is to be decided at a later date.
