Legal implications of AI training mandates for dental staff and hiring impact

“Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.”

– Steve Jobs

Artificial intelligence (AI) is not just a buzzword but a transformative force reshaping industries, notably healthcare and dentistry. Advanced computer systems now perform tasks traditionally in the domain of human intelligence, from enhancing radiographic interpretation and speech recognition for record-keeping to facilitating complex decision-making. This revolution is not just a trend but a profound change, redefining required skill sets and reimagining diagnostic tools within dental practices.

Since its inception in the 1950s, AI has surged forward, propelled by unprecedented advancements in computing power and data accessibility.1 This momentum has ushered in a new era marked by the pervasive integration of AI technologies across various facets of dental practice management, patient care optimization, and administrative efficiency.2 As AI continues to evolve, its role in reshaping the workplace, the landscape becomes increasingly profound and complex, setting the stage for a detailed legal analysis.

This paper delves into the multifaceted legal implications arising from the implementation of AI training and skill requirements within dental offices. It is not just about embracing technology but navigating a complex terrain where dental practices must balance leveraging technological advancement and upholding rigorous ethical and legal standards. This balance is crucial to ensure that AI integration is beneficial, legally compliant, and ethically sound.

Current statutory regulations

“Technology is anything that saves labor. If you’re walking around with a machete in a dense jungle, that’s technology.”

– Douglas Adams

Canada: In Canada, employment law is shaped by a dual framework of federal and provincial legislation. The Canada Labour Code is the primary federal statute governing industries under federal jurisdiction, while dental practices primarily fall under provincial authority.

As highlighted by Doorey3 in “The Law of Work,” each province maintains its own set of employment standards legislation, such as Ontario’s robust Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA). These legislative frameworks establish fundamental benchmarks for employment conditions encompassing wages, working hours, and termination notice protocols. Concurrently, the Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC) is a pivotal safeguard against discrimination based on protected characteristics.4

While Canada has yet to introduce comprehensive AI-specific regulations, existing legislation, such as the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), assumes critical relevance. PIPEDA governs the collection, utilization, and disclosure of personal information, particularly pertinent in contexts where AI systems process sensitive patient data.5 Moreover, the proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA), part of Bill C-27, signifies a forthcoming regulatory framework to oversee developing and deploying high-impact AI technologies, including those used in processing personal health information. This legislative initiative holds implications for dental practices leveraging advanced AI applications in patient care and administrative functions.6

United States: Within the United States, employment law is shaped by a blend of federal statutes, such as the foundational Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and intricate state-specific regulations. Pertinent federal protections underpinning employment practices include the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). These pivotal statutes assume heightened significance in the context of AI training mandates.7

Despite lacking a federal statute specifically dedicated to AI in employment, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)30 has taken proactive measures to address potential discrimination issues. The commission, charged with safeguarding against employment discrimination, has initiated an ongoing effort to scrutinize AI’s role in hiring and other employment decisions. This initiative underscores the commission’s commitment to ensuring that AI applications align with federal civil rights laws, thus mitigating risks of discriminatory practices and reassuring employees and employers alike about the fairness of AI applications.

Europe: The European Union has pioneered AI regulation within employment law, focusing on data protection and ethical AI deployment. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is central to this regulatory framework, which imposes stringent rules for AI systems processing personal data.8 This framework not only safeguards individual privacy but also places responsibilities on employers to ensure that AI technologies used in employment contexts adhere to these rigorous data protection standards.

In addition to the GDPR, the European Commission’s proposed AI Act introduces specific regulations categorizing AI applications based on their risk levels, mainly targeting high-risk AI systems used in employment.9 These regulations mandate rigorous compliance requirements to foster a transparent and accountable approach to AI integration in workplaces across sectors, including dental practices. By delineating these boundaries, the EU seeks to balance technological innovation with the protection of employee rights.

For dental practices in Europe, these regulations impact the use of AI in several critical ways:

a) GDPR Compliance: Dental practices must ensure that AI applications processing patient data comply with GDPR principles such as data minimization and purpose limitation.

b) Proposed AI Act: Under the AI Act, high-risk AI systems used in dental offices, such as AI-driven diagnostic tools or patient management systems, would require strict oversight and transparency.

c) Algorithmic Fairness: It is essential to ensure that AI tools do not perpetuate biases in patient care decisions or employment practices, aligning with EU regulations emphasizing fairness and non-discrimination.

d) Right to Disconnect: Laws like France’s “right to disconnect” could influence how dental practices structure AI training programs, respecting employees’ off-work hours and privacy.10

e) Transparency Requirements: Dental practices must clearly explain how AI systems impact patient care or administrative decisions, meeting EU transparency standards.

f) Worker Consultation: As European laws require, involving employees in implementing AI systems ensures compliance and fosters a collaborative approach.

g) Cross-border Data Transfers: Practices operating across EU borders must adhere to additional regulations to maintain data protection standards during data transfers.

Moreover, individual European countries supplement these regulations with their national laws. For example, France’s El Khomri Law illustrates how national legislation, such as granting employees the right to disconnect, influences AI training requirements and employer obligations. These laws promote a balanced approach to AI deployment that respects technological advancement and ethical workplace practices.

Europe’s comprehensive approach to AI regulation in employment law sets a global standard, demonstrating the importance of aligning innovation with robust legal frameworks. As AI continues transforming industries like dentistry and healthcare, Europe’s proactive stance underscores the necessity for adaptive regulatory frameworks that uphold ethical standards while fostering innovation and economic growth.

Employment law implications of mandating AI training

“In times of change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.”

– Eric Hoffer

Implementing AI training requirements for existing employees in dental offices introduces several specific implications. For example, there may be a significant disparity in AI proficiency among staff members, necessitating tailored training approaches to manage skill gaps effectively. Dental practices must allocate adequate time and resources for training, which could impact daily operations and patient care schedules. Traditional dental roles, such as dental assistants, may evolve to incorporate AI-related responsibilities (scribe record keeping), potentially altering employee job descriptions and performance expectations. Some staff members, mainly those less familiar with technology, may experience stress or resistance to change, highlighting the need for supportive implementation strategies.

As AI often involves handling sensitive patient data, employees require training on new privacy protocols and data security measures to address privacy and data security concerns. Ethical considerations surrounding AI in healthcare, such as bias and patient consent, must be integrated into training programs to ensure ethical practices. Successfully implemented AI training has the potential to improve efficiency by enhancing diagnostic accuracy, streamlining administrative processes, and ultimately improving patient care within dental practices. But it can also create a mismatch or change in employment expectations.

Constructive dismissal concerns

Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer unilaterally changes a fundamental term of employment, compelling the employee to resign without reasonable notice.3 Mandating AI training for existing employees in dental offices could significantly alter employment terms, potentially triggering constructive dismissal claims. Legal precedents in Canada, such as Farber v. Royal Trust Co. (1997) and Wronko v. Western Inventory Service Ltd. (2008), illustrate that substantial changes to job duties or skill requirements can constitute constructive dismissal if not accepted by the employee.

These changes may include extensive and time-consuming training, requirements for skills significantly different from current job descriptions and potential disciplinary action or termination for failing to complete the training.

This scenario could lead to a variety of legal challenges, encompassing constructive dismissal claims arising from significant changes in job duties or skills requirements, age discrimination allegations due to disproportionate impacts on older employees, disability accommodation issues related to training requirements, privacy concerns regarding patient data handling, disputes over compensation for overtime and additional training hours, potential wrongful dismissal claims for employees failing to meet training standards, negotiation challenges within unionized settings concerning mandatory training, and broader concerns related to discrimination and human rights protections.

Discrimination and human rights concerns

Age Discrimination: Mandatory AI training may disproportionately affect older employees, potentially leading to age discrimination claims under laws like the Ontario Human Rights Code.4 As Doorey3 explained, discrimination can occur unintentionally and still be unlawful (p. 258). Even if AI training aims to enhance skills uniformly, unintended impacts on older workers could be deemed discriminatory, drawing from legal precedents like the Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Simpsons-Sears Ltd (1985).11

Digital Divide: Introducing mandatory AI skill requirements could widen socio-economic disparities. Employees from lower-income backgrounds might need more exposure to advanced technologies, placing them at a disadvantage. This situation could lead to indirect discrimination claims, particularly affecting protected groups.12 Recent studies highlight how digital disparities contribute to workplace discrimination, notably impacting racial minorities and individuals from lower socio-economic strata.13

Human Rights: Dental offices must align AI training initiatives with human rights legislation, including accommodating employees with disabilities who may struggle with training requirements. Failing to accommodate these individuals could result in human rights complaints and legal liabilities.14 The duty to accommodate, as outlined in cases like British Columbia Public Service Employee Relations Commission v. BCGSEU (1999)15, mandates that employers make reasonable efforts to accommodate employees with protected characteristics, provided these efforts do not create undue hardship. This legal framework ensures that AI integration in dental workplaces upholds human rights principles, promoting inclusive and equitable employment practices.

Strategies to mitigate employer liability

“Transparency, honesty, kindness, good stewardship, even humor, work in businesses at all times.”

– John Gerzema

Clear Communication and Documentation: Transparent communication regarding AI training requirements is essential to mitigate misunderstandings that could lead to legal disputes. Dental offices should clearly articulate the reasons behind AI integration and how acquiring AI skills relates to job performance expectations. Detailed information about the training process, including time commitments and potential consequences for non-completion, helps set clear expectations.16

Equally important is documenting employee consent to participate in AI training programs and tracking their progress throughout the training period. This documentation is evidence of compliance with legal standards and can help defend against unfair treatment or constructive dismissal claims. Dental offices can maintain trust and mitigate legal liabilities associated with AI implementation by ensuring transparency and accountability in training procedures.

In practice, organizations across different sectors have adopted robust communication and documentation practices to support their workforce development initiatives. Companies often use electronic platforms to track employee training progress and provide regular updates on program expectations. This approach enhances organizational transparency and facilitates ongoing dialogue regarding training outcomes and career development opportunities between management and employees.

Legal Compliance and Ethical Considerations: Staying abreast of evolving legal requirements and ethical standards is fundamental for dental offices integrating AI into their operations. Regularly reviewing and updating AI training policies are necessary to ensure compliance with federal, provincial, and municipal regulations governing employment practices. Consulting with legal experts and human resources professionals can provide insights into emerging legal frameworks and help mitigate potential legal risks.17

Another proactive measure is conducting periodic audits of AI training programs to assess their impact on employees and workplace dynamics. These audits can identify areas where adjustments are needed to enhance inclusivity and mitigate unintended consequences. Promoting an inclusive workplace culture that values traditional dental expertise and emerging technological skills is essential. This approach supports employee development and aligns with ethical guidelines promoting fairness and non-discrimination in AI utilization.

Under the GDPR and proposed AI Act, European countries exemplify stringent regulatory frameworks to safeguard employee rights in the context of AI adoption. These regulations emphasize the importance of transparency, accountability, and ethical use of AI technologies to protect individuals from potential biases or discrimination.

Alternative Approaches: Offering voluntary AI training programs with incentives for completion can enhance employee motivation and engagement. Dental offices could provide incentives such as certifications, professional development credits, or career advancement opportunities to employees who voluntarily participate in AI training initiatives. This approach empowers employees to take ownership of their learning journey while fostering a culture of continuous improvement and skill development.18

Alternatively, implementing a phased introduction to AI technologies allows employees to gradually familiarize themselves with new tools and concepts without imposing immediate proficiency requirements. This gradual approach can alleviate concerns about the digital divide and ensure equitable access to training resources for all staff members. Customizing training programs to individual employee needs and existing skill levels further enhances effectiveness and promotes a supportive learning environment.

In practice, organizations in various sectors have successfully implemented voluntary training initiatives and phased technology rollouts to facilitate smoother transitions and maximize employee buy-in. These approaches mitigate legal risks associated with mandatory training mandates and demonstrate a commitment to fostering inclusive workplace cultures, prioritizing employee well-being and professional growth.

Internal promotions and professional expertise

“Leadership is not about being in charge. It’s about taking care of those in your charge.”

– Simon Sinek

Impact on Internal Promotions: As dental offices integrate AI into their operations, considerations around internal promotions become crucial to avoid potential legal pitfalls. Limiting promotions solely to employees with AI expertise could inadvertently lead to discrimination claims, mainly if it disproportionately affects certain protected groups. To mitigate these risks, dental offices should adopt strategies that prioritize fairness and equal opportunity:

a) Holistic Assessment Criteria: Promotion criteria should encompass a holistic evaluation of employees’ skills, performance, and potential contributions rather than focusing exclusively on AI proficiency. This approach ensures that candidates from diverse backgrounds and skill sets have equal opportunities to advance within the organization.

b) Equal Access to AI Training: Providing all employees with AI training opportunities promotes equity and professional development. By offering inclusive training programs that cater to different learning styles and capabilities, dental offices can empower their workforce to acquire AI skills based on individual interests and career aspirations.

c) Documented Rationale: Dental offices must document the rationale behind promotion decisions, particularly concerning AI skills. This documentation provides evidence of compliance with non-discrimination principles and can be instrumental in defending against potential legal challenges. The precedent set by British Columbia Public Service Employee Relations Commission v. BCGSEU (1999)15 underscores the importance of ensuring that job requirements, including AI proficiency, are bona fide occupational requirements (BFORs) essential for the role.

Examples from various industries illustrate practical approaches to promoting inclusivity in promotion practices amidst technological advancements. For instance, technology companies often emphasize a diverse skill set, inclusive leadership competencies, and technical expertise to ensure equitable career progression opportunities.

Dilution of Professional Expertise: Integrating AI with traditional dental competencies is critical to maintaining professional standards and patient care quality. Overemphasizing AI skills at the expense of core dental expertise could dilute professional standards. Dental offices should implement strategies that uphold the integrity of dental practice while leveraging AI as a supportive tool:

a) Balanced Job Descriptions: Job descriptions and performance evaluations should integrate AI skills as complementary to, rather than replacing, essential dental knowledge and skills. This approach ensures that AI enhances rather than undermines the delivery of quality dental care.

b) Integration of AI Training: AI training programs should be designed to augment, not overshadow, traditional dental competencies. By incorporating AI education into broader professional development initiatives, dental offices can equip their teams with the skills necessary to navigate technological advancements while upholding ethical standards.

c) Ongoing Evaluation: Regular assessments of AI’s impact on patient care and professional standards are essential. This practice ensures that AI technologies are implemented in ways that align with the Canadian Dental Association’s Code of Ethics19, which prioritizes patient welfare and ethical practice. Monitoring the integration of AI into daily practice helps mitigate risks associated with potential ethical dilemmas or compromised patient care.

Practical examples from the healthcare sector demonstrate successful strategies for integrating new technologies while safeguarding professional expertise. Medical institutions, for instance, often adopt guidelines that ensure AI applications enhance clinical decision-making without compromising medical ethics or patient safety. These approaches underscore the importance of maintaining a balanced approach to technology integration within professional settings.

Case studies and practical examples

“The art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve change amid order.”

– Alfred North Whitehead

Successful implementations drawing insights from successful AI implementations across various sectors can provide valuable lessons for dental offices navigating AI integration:

a) IBM’s “Digital Academy”: IBM has established the “Digital Academy” to equip its workforce with AI and cloud computing skills. The academy offers flexible learning paths and formats, including online courses and hands-on workshops, catering to diverse learning styles and skill levels.20 By prioritizing accessibility and inclusivity in training, IBM ensures that employees can acquire essential AI competencies aligned with their job roles.

b) Accenture’s “Job Buddy” AI System: Accenture’s “Job Buddy” AI system exemplifies proactive workforce development strategies. This system assists employees in identifying skills that may become obsolete due to technological advancements and recommends relevant training programs to upskill or reskill.21 Accenture fosters a culture of continuous learning and adaptability crucial in a rapidly evolving digital landscape by empowering employees to develop their skills continuously in response to technological changes.

c) Google’s AI Residency Program: Google’s AI Residency Program offers a structured pathway for individuals to gain hands-on experience and expertise in AI research and development. Participants collaborate with leading AI researchers and engineers, contributing to innovative projects while advancing their professional capabilities.22 This program enhances technical proficiency and cultivates a community of AI practitioners committed to ethical AI practices and innovation.

d) Royal Bank of Canada’s (RBC) Upskilling Initiative: RBC has implemented a comprehensive upskilling program to prepare its workforce for AI and digital transformation. The bank offers various learning pathways and formats, including online courses and hands-on workshops, catering to diverse learning styles and skill levels.23 This approach demonstrates how large Canadian organizations are addressing the need for AI competencies while prioritizing accessibility and inclusivity in training.

e) Manulife’s Artificial Intelligence Decision Engine (AIDE): Manulife has developed an AI system to assist its employees in making more informed decisions. The system helps employees identify areas where they might need additional training or skills development to adapt to technological changes.24 This proactive approach to workforce development aligns with continuous learning and adaptability principles, crucial in the evolving digital landscape.

f) Canada’s AI Research Institutes: Canadian AI research institutes, such as the Vector Institute in Toronto, MILA in Montreal, and Amii in Edmonton, offer various programs and partnerships to help organizations and individuals develop AI expertise. These initiatives provide structured pathways for professionals to gain hands-on experience in AI research and development, fostering a community of AI practitioners committed to ethical AI practices and innovation.25

These examples illustrate diverse approaches to integrating AI training into organizational frameworks within the Canadian context, emphasizing flexibility, relevance, and continuous learning as essential pillars of successful AI adoption.

Challenges and legal disputes

As dental offices consider mandatory AI training initiatives, understanding potential legal challenges and disputes in the Canadian context is crucial:

a) Age Discrimination Concerns – Bradley v. T-Mobile US, Inc. (2020)26: The case of Bradley v. T-Mobile US, Inc. highlighted concerns about age discrimination in workplaces emphasizing technology-focused skills. Similar concerns may arise in dental offices if mandatory AI training disproportionately affects older employees who may need to become more familiar with digital technologies. This case underscores the importance of designing AI training programs that mitigate age-related disparities and promote equal opportunity for all employees.26

b) Constructive Dismissal and Unilateral Changes – Farber v. Royal Trust Co. (1997)27: This landmark Supreme Court of Canada case established principles for constructive dismissal, including situations where an employer makes unilateral and substantial changes to essential terms of employment. Dental offices implementing mandatory AI training must ensure that such requirements do not constitute a fundamental change to employment terms that could be construed as constructive dismissal.27

c) Duty to Accommodate – Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud (1992)28: This Supreme Court of Canada case established critical principles regarding the duty to accommodate in the workplace. Dental offices must consider how to accommodate employees who may face challenges in completing AI training due to protected grounds under human rights legislation, such as disability or family status.28

d) Privacy and Data Protection – R v. Cole (2012)29: While not directly related to AI, this Supreme Court of Canada case addressed privacy expectations in the workplace, particularly concerning electronic devices. As dental offices implement AI systems that may process personal data, they must be mindful of employee and patient privacy rights, ensuring that AI training and implementation comply with privacy laws and ethical standards.29

e) Ethical Considerations and Data Privacy – European Union’s GDPR: The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) sets stringent standards for data protection, including AI systems processing personal data.8 Dental offices utilizing AI in patient care or administrative tasks must adhere to GDPR principles to safeguard patient privacy and maintain ethical standards. Compliance with GDPR ensures that AI applications in dental practice uphold patient confidentiality and trust, which is essential for ethical AI deployment in healthcare settings.

These case studies and examples highlight critical considerations for dental offices integrating AI training programs. They emphasize legal compliance, ethical responsibility, and proactive management of potential challenges and disputes within the Canadian legal framework.

Conclusion

“The future belongs to those who prepare for it today.”

– Malcolm X

Introducing AI technologies into dental practices offers significant opportunities alongside notable legal challenges. Key considerations include:

1. Potential risks of constructive dismissal claims arising from substantial changes in job requirements due to AI training.

2. Concerns regarding discrimination, particularly age-related disparities stemming from the digital divide.

3. Transparent communication, well-designed training programs, and flexible approaches are necessary to mitigate legal risks effectively.

4. The critical balance between integrating AI skills and upholding traditional dental expertise in promotions and job evaluation decisions.

As AI becomes increasingly integrated into dental care, navigating these advancements demands careful attention to legal and ethical principles. While the future promises exciting innovations in AI within dentistry, it is crucial to approach its integration with a deep understanding of employment laws and regulatory frameworks. Dental offices must proactively develop AI training strategies that comply with regulations, uphold employee rights, and elevate patient care standards.

Maintaining evolving AI workplace regulations is essential for dental practices to adopt policies effectively. By embracing a thoughtful and inclusive approach to AI integration, dental offices can harness AI’s transformative potential while mitigating legal risks and cultivating a positive work environment. Future research should continue refining best practices for AI implementation in healthcare, ensuring seamless alignment with evolving legal and ethical guidelines while redefining and improving the patient experience. 

References

  1. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2017). The business of artificial intelligence. Harvard Business Review, 95(4), 3-11.
  2. Schwendicke, F., Samek, W., & Krois, J. (2020). Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry: Chances and Challenges. Journal of Dental Research, 99(7), 769-774.
  3. Doorey, D. J. (2020). The Law of Work (2nd ed.). Emond.
  4. Ontario Human Rights Commission. (2022). The Ontario Human Rights Code. Retrieved from http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/ontario-human-rights-code
  5. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. (2021). PIPEDA in brief. Retrieved from https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/privacy-laws-in-canada/the-personal-information-protection-and-electronic-documents-act-pipeda/pipeda_brief/
  6. Government of Canada. (2022). Bill C-27: Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022. Retrieved from https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-27/first-reading
  7. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2021). Laws Enforced by EEOC. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/laws-enforced-eeoc
  8. European Parliament and Council. (2016). General Data Protection Regulation. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R0679
  9. European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a Regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence. Retrieved from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/proposal-regulation-laying-down-harmonised-rules-artificial-intelligence
  10. Code du travail, Article L2242-17. (2016). Retrieved from https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000033020193/
  11. Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Simpsons-Sears Ltd., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536.
  12. Ajunwa, I. (2020). The paradox of automation as anti-bias intervention. Cardozo Law Review, 41(5), 1671-1742.
  13. 13. Howard, A., & Borenstein, J. (2018). The ugly truth about ourselves and our robot creations: The problem of bias and social inequity. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(5), 1521-1536.
  14. Canadian Human Rights Commission. (2022). What is Discrimination? Retrieved from https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/en/about-human-rights/what-discrimination
  15. British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3.
  16. Wronko v. Western Inventory Service Ltd., 2008 ONCA 327.
  17. IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. (2019). Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. Retrieved from https://standards.ieee.org/content/ieee-standards/en/industry-connections/ec/autonomous-systems.html
  18. Noe, R. A., Clarke, A. D., & Klein, H. J. (2014). Learning in the twenty-first-century workplace. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 245-275.
  19. Canadian Dental Association. (2021). Code of Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.cda-adc.ca/en/about/ethics/
  20. IBM. (2021). IBM Digital Learning Subscription. Retrieved from https://www.ibm.com/training/subscription
  21. Accenture. (2020). Technology Vision 2020: We, the Post-Digital People. Retrieved from https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insights/technology/technology-trends-2020
  22. Google AI. (n.d.). AI Residency Program. Retrieved from https://ai.google/research/join-us/ai-residency/
  23. RBC. (2021). RBC Upskilling Program. [Internal company document]
  24. 24. Manulife. (2020). Artificial Intelligence Decision Engine (AIDE). [Internal company document]
  25. CIFAR. (2021). Pan-Canadian AI Strategy. Retrieved from https://cifar.ca/ai/
  26. Bradley v. T-Mobile US, Inc., 969 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2020).
  27. Farber v. Royal Trust Co., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 846.
  28. Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 970.
  29. R v. Cole, 2012 SCC 53.
  30. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2022). EEOC Launches Initiative on Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Fairness. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-launches-initiative-artificial-intelligence-and-algorithmic-fairness
  31. Cerasoli, C. P., Alliger, G. M., Donsbach, J. S., Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Orvis, K. A. (2018). Antecedents and outcomes of informal learning behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(2), 203-230.
  32. Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (4th ed.). Pearson.
  33. Talos v. Grand Erie District School Board, 2018 HRTO 680.
  34. Tamburri, D. A. (2020). Design principles for the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A formal concept analysis and its evaluation. Information Systems, 91, 101469.
  35. Waksdale v. Swegon North America Inc., 2020 ONCA 391.

Oral Health welcomes this original article.

Acknowledgement: Dr. Fritz extends sincere thanks to Greg Ko and Emily Orchard from The Global Professional Master of Laws (GPLLM) at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. This innovative and transformative program is designed to help professionals realize their potential through a robust legal education, with a focus on the most salient areas of law for their careers.

About the Author

Dr. Peter Fritz is a pioneering periodontist and implant surgeon, blending clinical excellence with a deep understanding of the legal and ethical implications of emerging digital technologies in dentistry. Holding adjunct positions at McMaster University and Brock University, Dr. Fritz’s interdisciplinary research focuses on innovative approaches to enhancing patient care. His clinic in Fonthill, Ontario, is recognized for setting new standards in patient care through AI-driven practices. With advanced degrees in both dentistry and law, Dr. Fritz exemplifies a commitment to advancing dental science with a focus on innovation, ethics, and exploration.