Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review of a dental licensing board’s decision denying certification after a failed exam component.

• Allegations that the board breached procedural fairness by refusing to give reasons for the failure.

• Consideration of the Baker factors and the flexibility of procedural fairness obligations.

• Application of the Vavilov framework to assess reasonableness of administrative decisions without written reasons.

• Examination of the statutory scheme, institutional constraints, and candidate’s ability to retake the exam.

• Petition dismissed; board’s decision upheld as fair and reasonable.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background of the dispute
The petitioner, a foreign-trained dentist who earned his Doctor of Dental Medicine degree in the Philippines in 2017, sought to become certified to practice in Canada through the National Dental Examining Board of Canada’s (NDEB) Equivalency Process. This process includes the National Dental Examination of Clinical Competence (NDECC), a two-day assessment with multiple clinical skills modules, including a Provisional Crown Restoration component. In July 2024, during his fourth attempt, the petitioner passed all components except the Provisional Crown Restoration, failing due to one or more errors categorized as automatic fails under the NDEB’s published grading criteria. His overall result for the NDECC was a fail, communicated in October 2024. After a manual score verification confirmed the result, the petitioner requested an explanation for his failure, but the NDEB declined, citing that it was not a teaching institution and did not provide detailed reasons. The petitioner initiated judicial review, claiming breaches of procedural fairness and unreasonableness in the decision.

Legal issues and arguments
The petitioner argued that the lack of written reasons violated both common law and statutory duties of procedural fairness, pointing to the significant impact on his career and financial investment. He relied on case law suggesting that some explanation should be given in high-stakes professional licensing decisions. The respondent countered that its procedures were consistent with its bylaws, which no longer included a substantive appeal process, and that candidates could retake the exam or pursue alternate pathways to licensure. The court applied the Baker factors to determine the scope of procedural fairness owed and considered the flexibility of the duty in the context of a standardized, non-adversarial examination.

Court’s analysis
The court found that the nature of the decision—a pass/fail exam result—did not require the same level of procedural protections as adversarial or quasi-judicial processes. While the decision had personal and economic significance, the ability to retake the exam multiple times lessened the weight of this factor. The statutory scheme allowed for some review mechanisms, such as score verification and alternative certification pathways. There was no legitimate expectation for detailed reasons, as the grading criteria were published and applied. The court emphasized respect for the board’s chosen procedures given its expertise and institutional constraints.

On reasonableness review under the Vavilov framework, the court held that a decision can still be reasonable without formal written reasons if the record and context provide a clear rationale. The published grading criteria and established examination procedures satisfied the requirements of justification, intelligibility, and transparency. There was no evidence of improper motives or other impermissible reasons behind the decision.

Outcome
The court dismissed the petition for judicial review, upholding the NDEB’s decision as both procedurally fair and substantively reasonable. The NDEB was the winning party. No damages were awarded. Costs were reserved, with the court allowing either party to address the issue within 30 days if they wished.