Point-Form Comparison: Treatment of Dr. Laurie Houston vs Dr. Jonathan Mayer
| Category | Dr. Jonathan Mayer | Dr. Laurie Houston |
| Trigger / issue raised | 1. Public social media posts are described as containing disparaging remarks toward specific groups (including ODA members), the Prime Minister, and the federal government, with profanity. 2. Concern is raised that he may represent members in federal negotiations (CDCP). | 1. Removed from the Board of Directors (described as the first removal in the organization’s history). 2. Concerns about her “activity while on the Board” are referenced; specific wrongdoing is not identified, and she is described as having no evidence of wrongdoing. |
| Investigation / review | 1. A Task Force Report was commissioned regarding the posts. 2. Questions are raised about the process (selection of individuals, cost, and whether impacted members were interviewed). | Removal is described as occurring without an investigation and without evidence of wrongdoing. |
| Member input / affected parties | It is asserted that the Task Force did not interview ODA members who may have been marginalized by the posts. | No comparable member-facing investigative process is described. |
| Transparency (cost & process) | It is asserted that the cost of the Task Force Report and the selection process for reviewers have not been disclosed despite member requests. | No comparable disclosure is described; the process is characterized as lacking an investigation. |
| Opportunities to respond / meeting conditions | 1. He is characterized as showing no contrition and as emphasizing that the posts were not intended to be public. 2. It is stated that he was previously warned about controversial posts and refused to stop. | 1. She is described as agreeing to meet with two senior Board members only with a lawyer, a witness, or a recording present. 2. It is asserted that these conditions were refused. |
| Confidentiality / communications | 1. Allegation that he breached confidentiality by referring publicly to outcomes related to Dr. Houston’s removal. 2. Allegation that he interfered in a component society election process and discouraged voting for Dr. Houston as councillor. | 1. Concern raised that her reputation has been harmed by repeated public statements and insinuations. 2. Reported statement attributed to Dr. Mayer implying undisclosed damaging information exists with no evidence. |
| Outcome / consequences | Despite stipulated requirements, he is described as being ratified as President-Elect before fulfilling all requirements. | She is described as being removed from the Board and later banned for life from ODA volunteering. |
| Perceived standard applied | Characterized as receiving an expensive investigation funded by members, while continuing to advance within leadership. | Characterized as being removed without evidence and excluded from volunteering, with resulting reputational harm. |
Dear Fellow ODA Members and Councillors,
By now, you have all received the email with the information about the Task Force Report regarding Dr. Jonathan Mayer’s public social media posts and further indicating the Board of Directors has ratified Dr. Mayer as our next President-Elect before he has fulfilled all stipulated requirements by the Task Force.
Dr. Mayer’s public posts made disparaging remarks towards specific groups who are ODA members, our PM, and our current federal government, with the use of profanity. Dr. Mayer may be called upon to sit across the table from federal government representatives regarding CDCP negotiations. Is this the best the ODA can do to represent us?
Dr. Mayer has expressed no contrition with respect to these posts, and has indicated that he is more concerned that he apparently “did not mean” for them to be public. How are members of our association who may feel marginalized by his posts to react to this?
Dr. Mayer was repeatedly warned by a past ODA President about the controversial nature of his public Facebook posts over 2 years ago, was told to stop posting them, and yet, refused to do so.
The ODA has failed to disclose how much this Task Force Report has cost members, or how the individuals who conducted it were selected. The Task Force failed to interview any ODA members who may have been marginalized by these posts. Why? Why was this process rushed without due diligence?
Why have ODA members had to absorb the cost of this Task Force Report? Why would members want a president-elect, who, by his own account, was foolish enough to apparently not realize these posts were public?
Why won’t the ODA respond to members who have requested the cost of this Task Force Report?
Dr. Mayer spoke at the annual Muskoka-Simcoe Dental Society meeting on September 25th, 2025 and breached confidentiality when he referred to outcomes regarding Dr. Laurie Houston’s removal from the Board of Directors, the first in the 160 year history of our organization.
Dr. Mayer interfered with a component society election process and ostensibly told members they could not vote for Dr. Houston as a councillor. General Council held no vote about Dr. Houston’s eligibility to represent her component society as a councillor at this time.
Under the stewardship of Dr. Maneesh Jain as ODA President, the ODA Board moved to remove Dr. Houston from the Board, with no investigation, such as was offered for Dr. Mayer, and no evidence of wrongdoing by Dr. Houston.
Dr. Jain repeatedly stated that Dr. Houston refused to meet with him and Dr. Brown about their concerns regarding her activity while on the Board. What he failed to indicate, was that Dr. Houston agreed to meet with them in the presence of a lawyer, a witness, or if the meeting was recorded.
Dr. Jain repeatedly refused to agree to any of these provisos.
Members of ODA, would you want your daughter or wife confronted with the demand of a private meeting with two senior male Board members with no witness, lawyer, or at the very least, a recording of the event to verify exactly what transpired? Why would any junior female Board member agree to such a situation? Credible governance experts have indicated that such a meeting would be “highly unusual “.
Why was a male Board member afforded such an expensive investigation, paid for by you, the members, because of his poor judgement?
Why was a female Board member railroaded off the Board with no evidence of wrongdoing?
A past president has repeatedly stated that “Dr. Houston not only read Board materials and came to meetings prepared, she did her own research”. Isn’t that an example of a Board member fulfilling their fiduciary duty to you, the members of the ODA?
Furthermore, Dr. Mayer has been overheard at General Council by a past ODA President, telling members that “It would be too damaging to Dr. Houston’s reputation to reveal what she has done”.
This action is generally called “defamation by innuendo” or “defamation by implication”. When a person claims to have damaging evidence but fails to produce it, they are spreading false rumours or making unsubstantiated allegations intended to destroy reputation without facts. When they speak such allegations, it is also known as “slander”.
Some members are already starting to question this discriminatory treatment.
Why is there one set of rules for a male Director and an entirely different set of rules for a female Director?
In what way was Dr. Houston proven to be “the worst offender” committing “the worst offence”? Why has a male Director with questionable judgement been promoted on the Board, while a female Board member has had her reputation destroyed, and been humiliated publicly repeatedly by your ODA executive Board members?
Dr. Houston has been banned for life from any and all volunteering for the ODA. Is this how we treat a past president of Muskoka-Simcoe Dental Society, the past Chair of the ODA Environmental Sustainability Working Group, an active participant in Brush-a-mania, a lecturer on Sustainability in Dentistry with an RCDSO-sanctioned Category One course, and the founder of CanHelp Through HealthCare, a registered Canadian charity that has provided roughly $800,000 of free dental care to communities in need in developing countries?
3 Responses
The difference between how these two dentists were treated indicates there are major problems in the organisational culture, and in internal processes of the association. What has happened runs counter to the stated values of the ODA, especially “We pro-actively strive to treat everyone fairly and equitably.” Anyone in the governance matrix should be able to recognise this. If the publicly stated values of the ODA actually mean anything, then this situation shows that obvious breaches of those values are being tolerated. So one has to ask, WHY? Where are the good people standing up and saying, “This is NOT right!”? What has happened to integrity, justice and proper process? What else is wrong? What else has been tolerated?
Anyone who dares to question finances and governance is automatically punished and anyone who is subservient to the CEO and the president, and maintains the status quo, is rewarded with a promotion. It doesn’t matter that Jonathan Mayer is a racist and how he has hurt so many. His criticism of PM Mark Carney has irrevocably damaged the ODA’s reputation with the liberal party and other political decision makers at the Ministry of Health. Ask insiders in the government and see for yourself.
What benefits the members is not taken into consideration by the old boys club that rules our association. This has been the ODA’s operating strategy for years. However, now that our profession is facing one challenge after another, the old boys club model of management/governance is showing cracks. I hope General Council does the right thing and votes new board members in. Those who were on the board before, had their chance and were voted off for a reason.
1. Time for a forensic audit and transparency into where our membership dollars are being spent…
2. Time to ask about the memo that was leaked that shows the CEO and his in house lawyer, colluding with members of the Office of the chair to plant questions at General Council! There were planted questions at the last General Council meeting! Some councillors willingly participated to be mouthpieces of the CEO and Janet Leith: soon to be crowned president!
All of these decisions and actions are shameful and unethical and I don’t understand how anyone with a shred of integrity could support it!
I applaud this website for talking about these difficult issues.
well we can all sleep well knowing that if Gerald gets in our money will be spent at nice toronto bathhouses instead of on racists and drunks #LGBTQpride