A Windsor-area dentist has received a four-month suspension from practice after admitting to professional misconduct for working at a Mississauga clinic owned by an individual who was not a licensed dentist. In a case cited as Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario v Omar Farzat, 2024 ONRCDSO 4 (CanLII), the Discipline Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario found that Dr. Omar Farzat’s arrangement constituted a conflict of interest and unprofessional conduct, ordering him to pay $10,000 in costs in addition to the suspension and other remedial measures.
The case came before a panel of the Discipline Committee on November 13, 2024, by videoconference. The College brought forward three main allegations against Dr. Farzat, all stemming from his time working at Alforat Dental Centre in Mississauga during 2018. The foundational issue was that the clinic was owned and operated by Latif Alsoma, a man who was neither a member of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario nor the College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario. Under provincial regulations, this ownership structure is prohibited to ensure that a dentist’s professional judgment is not influenced by the business interests of an unlicensed owner.
Dr. Farzat admitted to the core of the allegations against him. The first allegation stated that by entering into an arrangement to work for an unlicensed owner, he created a conflict of interest that could reasonably be seen as preventing him from properly exercising his professional judgment and skill for patients. The second allegation focused on a related conflict of interest, specifically that he engaged in a form of fee and income sharing with a person not permitted to do so under the regulations. Evidence showed that patients treated by Dr. Farzat at the clinic paid their fees directly to Alforat Dental Centre, which was owned by Mr. Alsoma.
The third and broadest allegation accused Dr. Farzat of engaging in conduct that would be reasonably regarded by his peers as disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional, or unethical. The particulars of this charge included his failure to inform the College that he was practicing at the Mississauga clinic, his work for the unlicensed owner, and the fee-sharing arrangement. The College had also initially alleged that Dr. Farzat facilitated the illegal practice of dentistry by Mr. Alsoma, suggesting he may have formulated treatment plans with him or performed treatments based on plans made by the owner. However, Dr. Farzat specifically denied this part of the allegation, and the panel found this particular was not supported by the evidence.
The details of the misconduct were laid out in an Agreed Statement of Facts presented to the committee. Dr. Farzat worked at Alforat Dental Centre for a period of five to six months in 2018, performing a wide range of general dentistry. This included fillings, root canals, crowns, bridges, extractions, and more complex procedures such as implant treatments, bone grafting, and a sinus lift. During a College investigation in March 2022, Dr. Farzat admitted to working for Mr. Alsoma at the clinic, stating that to his knowledge, Mr. Alsoma was “just a manager” and was never involved in the clinical treatment he provided.
The investigation uncovered significant evidence of Dr. Farzat’s practice at the unlicensed clinic. Records for a patient identified only by the initials JK were presented, which included invoices for treatment, a prescription written on “Al Forat Dental Center” letterhead and signed by Dr. Farzat, and signed consent forms for dental implants and a maxillary sinus elevation procedure that both named Dr. Farzat as the provider. The file also contained an unsigned treatment plan for JK authored by Dr. Farzat and progress notes he had written. Furthermore, the committee heard that Dr. Farzat had obtained Standard Dental Claim Forms indicating that he was the treating dentist for JK at the clinic. He had never registered Alforat Dental Centre as one of his practice locations with the College, as required.
Based on his admissions and the evidence presented, the Discipline Committee panel found Dr. Farzat guilty of professional misconduct on all three allegations he admitted to. Having established the findings of misconduct, the parties presented a Joint Submission on Penalty and Costs, which the panel accepted as reasonable and in the public interest.
The penalty order is comprehensive, beginning with a four-month suspension of Dr. Farzat’s license to practice dentistry, scheduled to begin on December 16, 2024. During this suspension, he is subject to strict conditions. He must not engage in any aspect of dentistry, including supervising others or acting as a clinical instructor. He is forbidden from being present in his offices when patients are there, except in a non-patient emergency, and he must not profit directly or indirectly from the practice of dentistry during that time. The order also requires him to inform staff, professional colleagues, and patients whose appointments are affected about his suspension.
Upon his return to practice, Dr. Farzat must complete further remedial measures at his own expense. Within six months, he must successfully finish a one-on-one instruction course in jurisprudence, ethics, and professionalism, with a specific focus on the issue of aiding illegal practitioners. Following this, he will be subject to practice monitoring for a period of 24 months. This monitoring will involve at least two compliance visits per year to ensure he adheres to professional standards. He must also immediately inform the College of all his practice locations and provide updates within 14 days of any change. Finally, he was ordered to pay $10,000 to the College to cover costs associated with the hearing.
In its reasoning, the panel noted that the purpose of such penalties is not to punish the dentist but to protect the public, maintain confidence in the profession’s ability to self-regulate, and serve as a deterrent to both the individual dentist and the profession at large. The panel acknowledged that Dr. Farzat had no previous discipline history. However, it expressed concern that the misconduct was not an isolated incident but took place continuously over several months, and that he knowingly contravened strict rules about who can operate a dental practice in Ontario. The suspension, courses, and monitoring were deemed necessary to support his rehabilitation and to send a clear message that such conduct cannot be tolerated.
The hearing concluded with the panel delivering a formal oral reprimand to Dr. Farzat, the text of which was included in the decision. The reprimand described his misconduct as a “matter of profound concern” that is “completely unacceptable to your fellow dentists and to the public.” The panel chair told him, “You have brought discredit to the entire profession and to yourself. Public confidence in this profession has been put in jeopardy.” The reprimand specifically highlighted the danger of his actions, stating that he placed himself in a position “which is specifically prohibited because of the risk that profit will be placed before professional values.”
Read more cases about proceedings in regulated professions here.
