Bonny Li

Following a finding of professional misconduct for failing to meet record-keeping requirements, the Discipline Tribunal held a penalty and costs hearing.

The College sought a three-month suspension and $180,049.55 in costs, while the registrant argued against a suspension and submitted the costs request was excessive.

The Tribunal ordered a two-and-a-half-month suspension, a reprimand, and remedial record-keeping courses and inspections.

Noting divided success on the merits and the registrant's conduct during the proceedings, the Tribunal awarded the College $90,000 in costs, payable over five years.

The Discipline Tribunal determined the penalty and costs following findings of professional misconduct against the registrant for failing to maintain proper records and failing to cooperate with the College and CBI Health.

The College sought a six-month suspension and $88,750.27 in costs.

The Tribunal ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and completion of remedial courses and mentorship.

Taking into account the registrant's financial circumstances, lack of prior disciplinary history, and the fact that she successfully defended against the most serious clinical allegations, the Tribunal ordered costs of $25,000 payable over five years.

The registrant, a speech-language pathologist, admitted to professional misconduct for improperly accessing the medical records of over 100 patients and committing time theft by claiming time she did not work.

The Discipline Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, finding it did not bring the administration of the discipline system into disrepute.

The Tribunal ordered a three-month suspension, a reprimand, terms and conditions including coaching and monitoring, repayment of the stolen time to the hospital, and $2,000 in costs.

The College alleged that the registrant, a speech-language pathologist, committed professional misconduct by conducting swallowing assessments by telephone rather than in person during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, failing to maintain proper records, and failing to cooperate with investigations.

The Discipline Tribunal found that the registrant exercised reasonable clinical judgment in opting for telephone assessments given the pandemic risks and facility constraints, dismissing that allegation.

However, the Tribunal found the registrant committed professional misconduct by failing to maintain proper clinical records, failing to respond to inquiries from her employer, and failing to cooperate with the College's investigation.

The Discipline Committee determined the penalty and costs following a finding that the registrant committed professional misconduct by failing to cooperate with an investigation and retweeting a transphobic statement.

Balancing the registrant's Charter right to freedom of expression with the College's statutory objectives, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a six-month suspension, and remedial education.

The Committee declined to revoke the registrant's certificate, finding the suspension proportionate.

The Committee also ordered the registrant to pay $25,157.80 in costs, representing two-thirds of the College's actual costs.

The Discipline Committee held a penalty and costs hearing following a finding of professional misconduct against an audiologist who failed to communicate with a client, resulting in delayed treatment.

The registrant did not attend the hearing.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a nine-month suspension (with three months suspended if remediation is completed within six months), and terms on her certificate.

The Committee also ordered the registrant to pay $43,716.73 in costs, representing two-thirds of the College's actual costs, noting her ungovernability and use of OPCA tactics.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario alleged that the registrant engaged in professional misconduct by failing to cooperate with an investigation and by making an inappropriate and offensive social media post.

The Discipline Committee found that the registrant refused entry to a College investigator and ignored repeated requests for an interview, violating her mandatory duties under the Health Professions Procedural Code.

Furthermore, the Committee found that the registrant's retweet of a transphobic post was disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

In reaching this conclusion, the Committee balanced the registrant's Charter right to freedom of expression against the College's statutory objective of maintaining the integrity of the profession, finding the restriction proportionate.

The allegations of professional misconduct were proven.