Court Confirms: Failing a Professional Exam Doesn’t Require an Explanation

The British Columbia Supreme Court’s decision in Fadaei v. National Dental Examining Board of Canada (“NDEB”) addresses the limits of judicial review in professional accreditation exams. The court considered whether the Board’s refusal to provide written reasons for a failing grade breached procedural fairness and whether the decision was substantively unreasonable. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the NDEB’s processes and emphasizing its discretion in setting procedures for national dental standards.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Dental Examining Board – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Failure to provide reasons – Natural justice – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Correctness; Dentists – Training requirements.

Fadaei v. National Dental Examining Board of Canada, [2025] B.C.J. No. 1511, British Columbia Supreme Court, August 8, 2025, G.C. Weatherill J.

The petitioner, Ehsan Fadaei, graduated in 2017 with a Doctor of Dental Medicine degree from a non-accredited institution in the Philippines. To practice dentistry in Canada, graduates of such programs must either (a) complete an accredited Canadian dental program, (b) complete a qualifying/degree program to bridge their training, or (c) undergo the Equivalency Process run by the National Dental Examining Board of Canada (“NDEB”). Fadaei chose the third path.

The NDEB is a not-for-profit corporation created by a federal statute, the National Dental Examining Board Act. It does not provide education; its role is to set a national standard of competence, administer examinations, and certify those who meet the standard. One of its assessments is the National Dental Examination of Clinical Competence (NDECC), a two-day exam including eight clinical modules and a situational judgment component. Each module is pass/fail, and no reasons or feedback are provided to a candidate for a “fail” grade.

One of the clinical modules that makes up the NDECC is the Provisional Crown Restoration component, which assesses candidates’ ability to provide temporary restoration to a tooth. The NDEB identifies 14 categories of “failing errors,” for the crown restoration aspect of the exam.

Fadaei attempted the NDECC multiple times. In three earlier attempts, he failed different modules but passed the crown restoration component. On his fourth attempt in July 2024, he passed all components except the crown restoration, where he committed one or more “failing errors.” This single failure meant he failed the overall NDECC. The results were delivered in October 2024. He requested a manual recalculation, which confirmed the fail.

In January 2025, NDEB staff reiterated that he had made one or more failing errors but stressed that the Board is not a teaching institution and does not provide detailed feedback. While there was previously an appeal mechanism, the bylaws were amended in 2022 to eliminate appeals after courts consistently upheld the NDEB’s exam procedures. Candidates may retake the NDECC unlimited times within 60 months – by the time the court heard Fadaei’s judicial review application, Fadaei had since failed a fifth attempt.

1. Fadaei petitioned for judicial review on two grounds. Firstly, he argued that the NDEB breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide written reasons for his failure. Secondly, he argued that the NDEB’s decision was unreasonable, stating that without reasons, the decision was opaque and arbitrary.

In assessing the procedural fairness aspect of the application, the court applied the correctness standard, as fairness either exists or does not. The analysis followed the Baker factors, and the court made the following findings:

1. Nature of the decision and process: The NDECC process is not adversarial, does not involve submissions from candidates, and simply yields a pass/fail result. It does not resemble judicial decision-making, so the duty of fairness is modest.
   
2. Statutory scheme: While no substantive appeal exists, candidates may retake the exam indefinitely within a set timeframe. This lessens the finality of a single decision. In contrast, in Daneshvar v. NDEB (2002), cited by the petitioner, the lack of reasons was problematic because the candidate had only one last attempt.
   
3. Importance to the individual: The decision was significant, affecting Fadaei’s career aspirations and finances. The court acknowledged the impact but noted he retained other pathways to licensure.
   
4. Legitimate expectations: The NDEB publishes detailed grading criteria and makes clear that results are pass/fail without further explanation. Thus, candidates cannot reasonably expect more detailed feedback.
   
5. Choice of procedures: The NDEB, given its expertise and institutional constraints, is entitled to deference in designing its processes.

After weighing these factors, Justice Weatherill held that while the NDEB owed a duty of fairness, it was not required to provide written reasons. Administrative efficiency and consistency across thousands of candidates justified limiting the duty.

Next, in assessing the reasonableness argument, the court applied the reasonableness standard from Vavilov. Fadaei argued the decision was unreasonable because it lacked reasons, citing prior cases where the NDEB had provided reasons under its earlier appeal system.

The court emphasized that under Vavilov, written reasons are not always required. In cases where reasons are absent, courts may look to the record and broader context. Here, the publicly available grading criteria and exam protocols provided a clear rationale: Fadaei committed one or more defined “failing errors” in the crown restoration component.

The court found nothing in the record to suggest bias, improper motive, or irrationality. The outcome was consistent with the standards published in advance, applied across all candidates, and aligned with the NDEB’s role in ensuring national competence.

In conclusion, the court held that the NDEB complied with its duty of procedural fairness. While the decision was important to Fadaei, the Board’s published procedures and the opportunity for repeated attempts balanced the fairness requirements.

Further, the court found that the decision was reasonable. Even absent written reasons, the context and standards provided sufficient justification.

The petition was dismissed. The court invited the parties to address costs separately.

This case underscores the deference courts grant to professional examining bodies in Canada. The ruling clarifies that procedural fairness in high-stakes licensing exams does not always require written reasons for failure, particularly when detailed grading standards are published in advance, results are standardized across candidates, and unsuccessful candidates have multiple opportunities to retake exams.

It also highlights the tension between fairness to individual candidates and the administrative burden on national regulatory bodies. By upholding the NDEB’s limited-duty approach, the court affirmed its autonomy while acknowledging the personal hardships candidates face.

This case was digested by Emma Jerrott.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact her directly at [email protected].