A ROCKLEY NEW ROAD, CHRIST CHURCH dentist who thought the Dental Council was wrong to start disciplinary proceedings against him because of an ad he placed in a glossy magazine, has not gained any support from the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
The Trinidadian-based court on Tuesday dismissed Oystein Freddy Weel’s application with costs to the respondents – the Dental Council and the Attorney General of Barbados – after finding that he had failed to meet a number of requirements.
The problem started in 2005 when Weel, who specializes in oral and maxillofacial (jaws and face) surgery, placed what he called an “information communique” in the magazine Ins And Outs Of Barbados.
The ad started: “Your smile. Our pride. Unrivalled oral, dental and facial beauty.”
The next year the council reported that it was taking “disciplinary proceedings” against Weel, who has been a registered dental practitioner in Barbados since 1975.
He responded by filing a constitutional motion, asking the High Court to declare that Rule 14(2)(b) of the Dental Registration Rules infringed his right to freedom of expression – his right to communicate ideas and information to others without interference as guaranteed by the Constitution.
He also asked the court for an order declaring that rule as void and having no effect and for a declaration that the disciplinary proceedings he was facing were null and void and should be dismissed.
However, the court ruled that he had no right to advertise. In addition, the dentist was told he could find himself facing further disciplinary proceedings from the Dental Council for advertising.
On October 28, 2011, Weel obtained special leave from the Court of Appeal to challenge its decision upholding the constitutionality of Rule 14(2)(b). It was made subject to two conditions, namely, the payment of security for costs in the amount of $10 000 and the filing of a list of documents, both of which were to be done within 90 days of the order.
Weel failed to make the required payment but filed the list of documents in time.
The matter stood like this for almost two years until last October 11, when Weel approached the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Barbados seeking the issuance of a certificate of non-compliance. This is provided for by Rule 10.10 of the CCJ Appellate Jurisdiction Rules, as amended.
The Registrar’s certificate was issued on October 23, 2013, and served the next day. Weel then sought to revive the litigation, applying directly to the CCJ for the grant of special leave.
However, the court determined that Weel had fallen short on a number of requirements. One was that there must be good and substantial reasons for the non-compliance with the order of the Court of Appeal.
Another was that there must be good and substantial reasons explaining any delay between the expiration of the time frame set by the Court of Appeal’s order and the “post-rescission application” seeking special leave before the CCJ.
The court found that based on the information presented, neither requirement was met.
The CCJ was not persuaded by the applicant’s contention that he did not have sufficient funds in hand to make the requisite payment for security within the 90-day time frame.
Breach of a court order was a serious matter requiring a “contrite but coherent explanation”, which the applicant failed to provide, according to information from the court. Neither did the court accept that the reason for the delay lay with the Registrar. (TY)
