The respondents submit that an important criterion to be considered in determining whether or not a person is holding himself or herself out as a practitioner, which is missing from this case, is whether or not he or she uses a title. In my view, that criterion alone is not determinative of the issue of holding out. It is clear from the cases submitted by the parties that, if a person is performing unauthorized controlled acts without supervision, it can create a context in which a reasonable person would believe that the person who was carrying out the controlled acts is holding himself or herself out as a practitioner: College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario v. Tota, supra.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.