Karen Bright

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for engaging in a sexual relationship with a former patient shortly after their therapeutic relationship ended.

The member admitted to the allegations and the panel found she engaged in professional misconduct.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty and costs, ordering a public reprimand, a four-month suspension (with three months remitted upon completion of an ethics and boundaries remediation program), a two-year monitoring period, and $5,000 in costs.

The panel noted the member's cooperation, lack of prior disciplinary history, and proactive completion of the remediation program as mitigating factors.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for engaging in a sexual relationship with a former patient shortly after their therapeutic relationship ended.

The member admitted to the allegations and the panel found she engaged in professional misconduct.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty and costs, ordering a public reprimand, a four-month suspension (with three months remitted upon completion of an ethics and boundaries remediation program), a two-year monitoring period, and $5,000 in costs.

The panel noted the member's cooperation, lack of prior disciplinary history, and proactive completion of the remediation program as mitigating factors.

The Member, an audiologist, was alleged to have committed professional misconduct by using the title 'doctor' or 'Dr.' in her practice, contrary to section 33 of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The Member brought a motion challenging the College's jurisdiction, the validity of the professional misconduct regulation, the referral process, and the constitutionality of the title restriction under sections 2(b) and 7 of the Charter.

The Discipline Committee dismissed the motion, finding the regulation valid and the Charter rights not infringed, relying on binding precedent that professional title restrictions do not violate freedom of expression or security of the person.

The Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct, ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension (one month remitted), an ethics course, practice inspections, and costs of $97,595.

The Member, an audiologist, was alleged to have committed professional misconduct by using the title 'doctor' or 'Dr.' in her practice, contrary to section 33 of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The Member brought a motion challenging the College's jurisdiction, the validity of the professional misconduct regulation, the referral process, and the constitutionality of the title restriction under sections 2(b) and 7 of the Charter.

The Discipline Committee dismissed the motion, finding the regulation valid and the Charter rights not infringed, relying on binding precedent that professional title restrictions do not violate freedom of expression or security of the person.

The Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct, ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension (one month remitted), an ethics course, practice inspections, and costs of $97,595.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct relating to inadequate swallowing assessments, failure to obtain informed consent, and failure to keep proper records for two patients.

The member admitted to the allegations and an Agreed Statement of Facts was presented.

The Discipline Committee found that the member committed professional misconduct by failing to maintain standards of practice, failing to keep records, and engaging in unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a two-month suspension (with one month remitted upon completion of remedial courses), practice monitoring, and $2,000 in costs.