Ruth Ann Penny

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member for professional misconduct.

The allegations included submitting improper OHIP claims using a retired physician's billing number, providing inadequate counselling and follow-up care for FM systems, and failing to maintain accurate patient records.

The Member pleaded no contest to the agreed statement of facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member engaged in professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, a public reprimand, and $10,000 in costs, emphasizing the need for specific and general deterrence given the scope and intentionality of the improper billing scheme.

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.