In a leaked exchange, CEO Frank Bevilacqua and long-standing legal counsel, Daniel Fabiano, discuss ways to “shut this down”, referring to a properly requisitioned, member-initiated meeting meant to address the wrongful removal of Dr. Houston. Instead of facilitating the process required under their own by-laws, the correspondence shows them exploring legal ways to derail the requisition entirely.
The email proposes the planting of questions at a General Council meeting to help control the narrative, and to address a glaring concern – the waste of member resources:
“The only thing that worries me [Mr. Fabiano], and I’m sure you [Mr. Bevilacqua], is how this will waste ODA resources on defence and also continue to perpetuate Houston-related noise…To assist, the Board be prepared with one or more planted questions for friendly Councillors to raise at the General Council meeting.“
These internal conversations raise serious questions about how decisions are made behind the scenes. Is this an ODA that values members?
This is just the beginning.
More DentiLeaks coming soon.
18 Responses
It is not just councillors that are outraged, but ODA members at large. Can there be a class action lawsuit happening ? Maybe a forensic audit? Why is Frank so resolute in forcing everyone to bend the knee. DEMAND TRANSPARENCY + ACCOUNTABILITY!!!
I attended the ODA General Council Meeting this past weekend, November 29-29, 2025 at the Eaton Center Marriott. Representing my dental society was an honour, and I do not take it lightly. The meeting seemed well organized and many participants seemed well prepared. The ODA Board of Directors presented a fulsome agenda with speakers from the RCDSO, CDA, the ODA advertising agency that will help us attract and recruit more dental assistants, reports on ODA finances were reported, Human Resources, Governance, and topics that are a major concern for us practicing dentists. It was clear to me however, that there was a division among our ranks that fell into two groups. One group wanted to discuss the decisions and actions that the Board had made in relation to removal of a board member, sending members of the office of the chair to component society meetings, harassment by a fellow council member who was also a recent past president, claims of election interference, and a late breaking revelation that our CEO Frank Bevilacqua and our own in house lawyer Dan Fabiano colluded together to plant subversive questions in our General Council with some supporters of the current board, to counteract the negative fallout of some of their decisions. This did interrupt the meeting at a number of occasions, limiting questions to be asked of the Board, and became heated at times. One theme among this group was the rights of our female members and how some of our female and leaders may have been mistreated. There was no doubt that this group seemed sincere and wanted answers. They were passionate, asked hard questions, and had some strong voices. At times their approach seemed to slow the meeting and became tedious, but more surprising was the deflection and lack of accountability that the ODA Board provided in its answers. It was revealing to me as often I am not that involved in the politics of our association. Several motions were presented , and did win a majority from council, but because they were presented “from the floor,” meaning they weren’t sent in advance – they needed 75% of votes to pass. – so they did not pass. I was surprised because they seemed well thought out and reasonable. The “other” faction seemed to be made up of the “old” guard who were among the Councillors, presenters and panelists. They advocated for no change that tried to impress upon members that our association did and had made gains. They presented ODA staff work on the IPAC regulations, advocacy to government, the good financial position of the association, the reason for an increase in our fees, and experts who explained both the rationale for our advertising spend, as well as the importance of having all our members continue to balance bill. Their presentations were informative. In general the meeting was respectful, although at times it seemed that the speaker Dr. David Stevenson favoured certain speakers repeatedly who seemed to have “pre-arranged questions” and then “pre-arranged “ answers from our board members. You could tell these individuals were reading from a script. Overall, it was an informative meeting where solid debate occurred and I felt I learned a lot. I think these two factions are not so far apart in their goals. I hope they can get together because it was clear from both sides: “that when we are united,” as an association, we can get things done and are stronger. I was very impressed with several very well respected speakers from both sides that showed their passion, knowledge of our regulations and By-Laws and provide insights into many different issues. I am glad we have these leaders, from both sides to help us younger practitioners, because working as a dentist is getting tougher and tougher. Our regulator the RCDSO has put foreword more regulations, and some need to be addressed by our association. I think we are over regulated and our association should stand up more for us with the RCDSO.
The meeting would have been much better if some of the people in the room did not try to take over the meeting by forcing an in-camera session that held up the meeting for two hours. I found it really lame that the people who took over the meeting were people who know how Council meetings work and that they knew that their motion wouldn’t work because it needed a 75% yes vote to pass. They were bringing up something that was already voted on about a year ago, which was kind of weird. I was embarrassed for these people because they were almost crying and stuff, but I think they were kind of acting a little bit too.
I also thought it looked kind of bad that a Board member shouted out that he was not on the Board when we were talking about the other person that I guess was voted out last year. I kind of thought that Board members wouldn’t say anything unless they really had to, because it could make it look like they were throwing the other Board people under the bus or something, but he didn’t do that. Kind of sad.
This type of behaviour is disgusting. When our own CEO colludes to plant questions in General Council, he projects exactly what he does to our elected board members. He controls our board and manipulates information that comes to them, and he makes the decisions not them. Totally disturbing and he needs to be let go, and our useless in house legal advisor Dan Fabiano.
I support the ODA, and discount Dr. Houston’s behaviour as someone with a mental health problem and/or anger issues—such a waste of time and effort.
100% agree. This has gotten out of control. It’s been a year since Dr. Houston’s removal, time to move on to more pressing issues. It was a messy situation but the martyr/victim rhetoric is becoming tiresome. TBH if this circus is any indication of how she conducted herself while she on the board, it is no surprise that she was asked to leave and I fully support council’s decision. Has anyone given that possibility any thought? That maybe some things happen for a good reason???