An Alberta dentist going through legal sexual assault fees has obtained a partial reprieve from the province’s high courtroom, which discovered his skilled faculty acted “unreasonably harsh” when it cancelled his apply allow, the Edmonton Journal reported.
Dr. Shouresh Charkhandeh, 43, was charged in 2024 with 4 counts of sexual assault and one depend of threatening to trigger bodily hurt whereas committing a sexual assault, stemming from alleged incidents involving a clinic employees member between January 2012 and Might 2013. The costs haven’t been confirmed in courtroom.
Extra authorized information in dentistry: 82-year-old pediatric dentist accused of slapping younger sufferers awaits Halifax courtroom ruling
Learn associated story: The consent hole: What the Heartland lawsuit teaches us about AI in dentistry
In a separate disciplinary course of, the School of Dental Surgeons of Alberta discovered Charkhandeh responsible of unprofessional conduct in September 2022 based mostly on 5 cases of non‑consensual sexual acts alleged to have occurred between November 2012 and February 2013. The school cancelled his apply allow, imposed a $50,000 effective and ordered him to pay 75 per cent of investigation and listening to prices, with an enchantment panel later including 75 per cent of enchantment prices.
On July 16, 2025, the Alberta Court docket of Enchantment upheld the findings of unprofessional conduct however decreased the penalty to a 3‑yr suspension, cancelled the $50,000 effective, and lowered Charkhandeh’s whole prices to $60,000. A 5‑justice panel mentioned the school our bodies put an excessive amount of weight on denunciation and too little on elements such because the absence of an ongoing threat and prospects for rehabilitation.
The Edmonton Journal reported the five-justice panel as writing:
“In ordering expulsion, the listening to tribunal and the enchantment panel overemphasized denunciation of the appellant’s conduct, and didn’t take enough account of his prior historical past of unblemished apply … [and] the absence of measurable threat to the general public.”