Bernard C. LeBlanc

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario alleged that the registrant committed professional misconduct by practising while her certificate of registration was suspended, falsifying a patient record, and improperly calling herself a doctor of audiology.

The registrant did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Tribunal found that the allegations were established and that the registrant's actions demonstrated she was ungovernable.

The Tribunal ordered the revocation of her certificate of registration, a public reprimand, and costs of $20,351.39.

The College alleged that the registrant, an audiologist, committed professional misconduct by practising while her certificate of registration was suspended, inappropriately using the titles of doctor and audiologist, and making inappropriate social media posts.

The registrant did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the registrant treated at least 70 patients while suspended and used restricted titles.

The Tribunal also found that one of the registrant's social media posts containing disparaging comments about the 2SLGBTQAI+ community constituted professional misconduct, while other posts were protected by freedom of expression.

Given the registrant's history of discipline, finding of ungovernability, and failure to cooperate with investigators, the Tribunal ordered the revocation of her certificate of registration, a public reprimand, and costs of $33,284.27.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario alleged that the registrant committed professional misconduct by practising audiology while her certificate of registration was suspended.

The registrant did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Tribunal found that the registrant provided audiology services, used the title of audiologist, and prescribed hearing aids while suspended.

The Tribunal concluded that the registrant was ungovernable and ordered the revocation of her certificate of registration, a public reprimand, and costs of $26,914.77 payable to the College.

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against the member regarding his treatment of a dog that presented with stiffness and later developed severe kidney failure.

The Discipline Committee found that the member failed to recommend appropriate diagnostic testing or aggressive treatment for the dog's kidney failure, and that his medical records were inaccurate and inadequate.

The Committee accepted the College's expert evidence and refused to qualify the member's proposed expert due to bias.

The member was found to have engaged in professional misconduct by failing to maintain the standards of practice, failing to make proper records, and engaging in unprofessional conduct.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario alleged that the registrant, a speech-language pathologist working as a care co-ordinator, engaged in professional misconduct.

The parties proceeded on an agreed statement of facts, admitting that the registrant failed to maintain standards of practice, did not adequately document her findings, and failed to obtain informed consent.

The Discipline Tribunal found the registrant committed professional misconduct.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a two-month suspension, a reprimand, completion of a course on informed consent, a mentorship program, and $2,000 in costs.

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against a member regarding his care of a Great Dane.

The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct by failing to reassess the dog after diagnostic testing, failing to adequately monitor and treat the dog, failing to communicate with the owner, and failing to maintain proper records.

Following the merits decision, the member retained counsel and entered into a joint submission on penalty, predicated on his undertaking to permanently resign from the profession.

The Committee accepted the joint submission, finding it protected the public interest and obviated the need for further penalty orders.

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member for professional misconduct relating to the misdiagnosis of a puppy, failure to properly record discussions with the owner, and revising medical records.

The Member admitted to the allegations and the parties presented an Agreed Statement of Facts and a joint submission on penalty.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission, finding the Member's conduct serious and incompatible with professional expectations.

The Member was reprimanded, his license was suspended for two months, and he was ordered to complete remediation and pay $5,000 in costs.

Following a finding of professional misconduct for physically abusing a horse, failing to communicate clinical findings, and breaching client confidentiality on social media, the Discipline Committee determined the appropriate penalty and costs.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a six-month suspension, and remedial conditions including anger management, equine restraint training, and practice monitoring.

The Committee also ordered the Member to pay 30% of the College's costs, fixed at $103,698.38, payable in installments following the suspension.

The College brought professional misconduct allegations against the registrant for failing to attend a caution ordered by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee and failing to respond to the College's correspondence during the subsequent investigation.

The registrant did not participate in the hearing.

The Discipline Tribunal found that the registrant engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct.

Considering the serious misconduct, the registrant's extensive prior discipline history, and her repeated failure to participate in proceedings, the Tribunal found her to be ungovernable.

The Tribunal ordered the revocation of her certificate of registration, a reprimand, and costs of $26,917.70.

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.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found a dentist guilty of professional misconduct for practising at a clinic owned and operated by a non-member, thereby creating prohibited conflicts of interest and impermissible fee sharing.

The registrant also failed to advise the regulator of all practice locations, and the panel held that the cumulative conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical, although one unadmitted particular alleging treatment planning with the non-member was not proven.

Applying the public-interest test governing joint penalty submissions, the panel accepted a joint submission imposing a reprimand, a four-month suspension, remedial education, practice monitoring, reporting obligations, and costs.

The decision emphasizes public protection, specific and general deterrence, and remediation in professional discipline.

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.

The registrant brought a motion to remove the College's counsel, arguing that counsel acting as prosecutor before the Discipline Committee must not have advised the Registrar, investigators, or the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) at earlier stages.

The registrant also alleged inappropriate conduct by counsel in previous litigation.

The Discipline Committee dismissed the motion, finding no legal principle preventing prosecuting counsel from advising the College at earlier stages.

The Committee noted that the Divisional Court had previously rejected similar arguments from the registrant and found no evidence of impropriety by counsel.

The registrant brought a motion to remove the College's counsel, arguing that counsel acting as prosecutor before the Discipline Committee must not have advised the Registrar, investigators, or the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) at earlier stages.

The registrant also alleged inappropriate conduct by counsel in previous litigation.

The Discipline Committee dismissed the motion, finding no legal principle preventing prosecuting counsel from advising the College at earlier stages.

The Committee noted that the Divisional Court had previously rejected similar arguments from the registrant and found no evidence of impropriety by counsel.

Dr. Covant, a veterinarian, appealed a Divisional Court decision that upheld a finding of professional misconduct by the College of Veterinarians of Ontario's Discipline Committee.

The misconduct stemmed from re-selling large quantities of veterinary drugs to human pharmacies, which violated an amended regulation (s. 33(2)(d) of R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 1093) restricting such sales to "reasonably limited quantities" for "temporary shortages." Covant argued the regulation was unconstitutionally vague and/or overbroad, the misconduct finding was erroneous, and the imposed penalty was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming that the regulation was not impermissibly vague or overbroad, the professional misconduct was properly established given Covant's ongoing sub-distribution enterprise, and the one-month suspension and costs award were fit and reasonable.