DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF AUDIOLOGISTS AND SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO

IN THE MATTER OF a Hearing directed

by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of

the College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario

pursuant to Section 26(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code

being Schedule 2 of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991,

S.O. 1991, c. 18, as amended.

BETWEEN:

THE COLLEGE OF AUDIOLOGISTS AND SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO (the “College”)

• and –

BRIAN FIELD (the “Registrant”)

PANEL MEMBERS:

Satpaul Singh Johal Chair, Public Member

Yvonne Wyndham Speech Language Pathologist

Tina D’Agnillo Speech Language Pathologist

Thomas Robson Public Member

COUNSEL FOR THE COLLEGE:

Bernard Leblanc and Valreen Sealie

REGISTRANT (SELF-REPRESENED):

Brian Field

INDEPENDENT LEGAL COUNSEL:

Luisa Ritacca

Hearing Date: March 24, 2023

Decision Date: March 24, 2023

Release of Written Reasons: April 5, 2023

DECISION AND REASONS

1. This matter came on for a videoconference hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) on March 24, 2023.

2. At the outset of the hearing, the College, with the consent of the Registrant sought an order that the two matters involving the Registrant could be heard together, pursuant to section 9(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. The Panel granted the order as requested.

The Allegations

3. The allegations against the Registrant were set out in Notice of Hearing R20-010, filed as Exhibit #1, and Notice of Hearing R20-011, filed as Exhibit #2, and are attached as Appendix A to the end of our Decision and Reasons.

4. In brief, the allegations against the Registrant relate to his failure to abide by an order of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”) of the College, issued on December 12, 2019. That order required the Registrant to, among other things, appear before the ICRC to be cautioned, the complete various Specified Continuing Educational or Remediation Programs (“SCERPs”) and to undergo practise monitoring.

5. Despite being provided with extensions of time to complete the SCERPs, the College alleged that the Registrant failed or refused to complete the requirements of the SCERPs.

6. In addition, the College alleges that the Registrant failed to respond appropriately or at all to correspondence from the College and failed to cooperate with the College.

Registrant’s Plea

7. The Registrant admitted to the allegations set out in both the Notices of Hearing. The Panel conducted a plea inquiry and was satisfied that the Registrant’s admissions were informed, voluntary and unequivocal.

Agreed Statement of Facts

8. The parties advised that they had reached an agreement as to the facts, which was set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts tendered as an exhibit. The Agreed Statement of Facts provided as follows:

1. The Registrant was, at all material times, an audiologist registered to audiology in the Province of Ontario.

2. The allegations against the Registrant are set out in two Notices of Hearing dated September 2, 2021 (R20-010) and February 24, 2022 (R 20-011), respectively. The parties consent to the two matters being heard together pursuant to section 9.1(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Summary of the Facts

CASLPO File No. R20-010

3. On or about December 12, 2019, the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”) of the College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario (the “College” or “CASLPO”) issued a decision and reasons in relation to a complaint made by EZ (CASLPO File C18-07). Among other things, the ICRC made the following order:

Pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 4 of subsection 26(1) of Health Professions Procedural Code (being Schedule 2 of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991), a panel of the ICRC directed the Registrant to:

1. appear before the panel to be cautioned, on a date to be fixed by the Panel, within 90 days of this decision becoming final, to address their serious concerns regarding his communications, use of inappropriate language with patients, responsiveness to requests and lack of insight respecting the impact of delays on the development of children. The panel noted that a caution in person was also directed for CASLPO File C19-123 and agreed that the cautions could be delivered together.

2. successfully complete Specified Continuing Educational or Remediation Programs (“SCERPs”) to address the importance of responsiveness and appropriate communication with patients. The panel directed that the SCERPs, to be paid for by the Registrant, will comprise of:

a. a professional communication course approved by the Registrar to be completed within 120 days of this decision becoming final.

b. a self-reflective essay discussing the importance of timely communication and the responsibility of clinic owners to ensure that they retain competent and reliable staff, which essay shall:

i. Be no less than 1500 words and no more than 2000 words;

ii. Include direct reference to the College’s Code of Ethics (Bylaw No. 7) as well as the Practice Standards and Guidelines for the Hearing Assessment of Children by Audiologists;

iii. Be submitted to the Registrar within 90 days of the date of this decision becoming final; and

iv. Be reviewed by the Registrar to ensure that it appropriately addressed the concerns of the panel as set out in paragraph 2.b. In the event that the Registrar, acting reasonably, determines that the essay does not demonstrate an understanding of these concerns, the Registrant will be provided with a maximum of two (2) additional opportunities, of no more than 30 days each to submit a satisfactory essay.

c. practice monitoring to ensure that records are kept in accordance with the Regulations and standards as well as ensuring timely responses are provided by the Registrant, including:

i. CASLPO approved monitor who will be a CASLPO-registered audiologist in good standing;

ii. Site visits once a month for a period of one (1) year;

iii. Site visits to begin after the SCERPs outlined in paragraphs 2.a and 2.b have been completed;

iv. Each site visit will review 20-30 randomly selected patient records to determine whether the records are kept as required, that there has been patient follow up, and sufficient information has been provided in audiological reports; and

v. The monitor will submit a final report to the Registrar within fifteen (15) days of the final monitoring session discussing the Registrant’s ability to respond to communications in a timely and professional manner.

4. Pursuant to this order, the Registrant was obliged to comply with the following deadlines:

• Caution: 90 days from the order becoming final on January 11, 2020, requiring the Registrant to appear by April 11, 2020.

• SCERP:

o Professional communication course approved by the Registrar to be completed within 120 days of the decision becoming final, or January 11, 2020, meaning a deadline of approximately May 11, 2020.

o A self-reflective essay to be submitted to the Registrar within 90 days of the date of the decision becoming final, or April 11, 2020. The date of submission of the essay was extended to April 30, 2020, based on the Registrant’s request.

o practice monitoring/site visits to begin after the above-noted SCERPs have been completed.

5. Despite being provided with extensions of time to complete the SCERPs ordered by the ICRC, the Registrant failed or refused to fulfil the requirements of the SCERPs.

6. On or about April 30, 2020, the Registrant sent an email to the College indicating that he intended to forward the self-reflective essay the next day. He also sent a screenshot of a professional communication course that he proposed to take.

7. On or about May 4, 2020, the College asked the Registrant to send a link as the screenshot was illegible. However, he failed to do so.

8. On or about May 11, 2020, the College again asked the Registrant to send a link to the proposed professional communication course. At the same time the College pointed out that the self-reflective essay was late. He failed failed to respond to this correspondence.

9. The College again wrote to the Registrant on May 27, 2020 and gave him a deadline of June 30, 2020 to provide the College with the self-reflective essay and to complete the professional communication course. However, he again failed to respond or comply with the ICRC’s order.

10. The College again sent an email to the Registrant on or about July 15, 2020. In that email the College offered to extend the deadline to submit details of a professional communication course he wished to pursue and the essay for review by the Registrar to July 29, 2020. Once those components of the SCERP had been completed, a practice monitor would be appointed to complete paragraph 2.c of the SCERP.

11. Once again, the College received no response from the Registrant.

12. An investigator with the College interviewed the Registrant on October 27, 2020:

The investigator explained that as per the file C18-07’s decision and reasons, you were to appear before the panel to be cautioned, successfully complete a Specified Continuing Education or Remediation Program (SCERP) in professional communication within 120 days, submit a self-reflective essay within 90 days of the decision being released and adhere to practice monitoring once a month of a period of 1 year.

• The Registrant agreed with the details presented by the investigator. He advised that his essay is complete, however, has not been submitted. Additionally, the Registrant explained that the course he selected was provided to the College, but he did not start. Lastly, the Registrant stated that the practice monitoring was not completed due to COVID-19, office closure for almost 3 months, and he is willing to comply.

13. As to why he failed to follow up on the College’s emails in May, 2020the Registrant told the investigator that he did not follow up with her to send another copy of the screenshot “due to stress and business issues related to COVID-19.” He stated that his clinics were closed and as a result was experiencing “financially challenging times”.

14. When asked why he did not submit the reflective essay, the Registrant stated that “things became messy due to COVID-19 issues” and the essay was “placed on back burner”. He also stated that his wife is a physiotherapist whose practice was also shut down. While he added that his essay was complete, the College has yet to receive it.

15. In terms of why he failed to respond to any communication from the College after May 2020, the Registrant stated:

he was not actively checking his emails. He stated that as matters worsened respecting COVID-19, he was stressed, and things fell off his plate. He added that he thought the matter would be placed on hold due to the pandemic. The Registrant reiterated that he was not checking his emails and did not receive the July 15th email. He advised that the email may be in his junk inbox.

16. The Registrant concluded:

the big factors were stress and time constraints. He reiterated that his essay is ready and stated that he is willing to find another communication course. Also, he informed the investigator that during the summer, in the middle of June, he underwent hernia surgery which impacted him for two weeks. The Registrant closed by explaining that he is a good Audiologist who has been practising for over 35 years, whose compliance with the ICRC’s direction was delayed due to COVID-19.

17. On or about November 12, 2020, the College again advised the Registrant that he was still obliged to complete requirements of the ICRC order. However, he has failed to do so and failed to reply to the College.

Admissions of Professional Misconduct

18. The Registrant admits that he failed to comply with an order of the ICRC in respect of the CASLPO File C18-07 matter, failed to respond appropriately or at all to correspondence from the College, and failed to cooperate with the College.

19. The Registrant thereby engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraph 15 (failing to co-operate with the College during the course of the complaints process) and 37 (engaging in conduct or performing an act, relevant to the practice of the profession, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional) of O. Reg. 749/93 under the Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 19.

CASLPO File No. R20-011

Summary of the Facts

20. On or about October 28, 2019, the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College rendered a decision in respect of a complaint that the College received against The Registrant eld in relation to several advertising issues (C19-123).

The ICRC ordered that the Registrant:

a) appear before the panel to be cautioned to address their serious concerns regarding the statements made about causes of dementia in Meridian Hearing’s promotional flyer as well as the Registrant’s lack of understanding respecting the proposed Advertising Regulations. The date of the caution will be fixed by the Panel and will occur within 90 days of this decision becoming final, and,

b) successfully complete Specified Continuing Educational or Remediation Programs (“SCERPs”) to address the importance of appropriate advertising. The panel directed that the SCERP, to be paid for by the Registrant, will comprise of practice monitoring and education relating to the advertising requirements, use of the title doctor and protection of the title audiologist. The SCERP will be comprised of:

i. A CASLPO approved monitor who will be a CASLPO-registered audiologist in good standing;

ii. Site visits once every three (3) months, for a period of one (1) year;

iii. Practice monitoring will include discussion and review of the Registrant’s advertising relative to the regulations or guidelines;

iv. Monitoring shall begin within 120 days of this decision becoming final;

v. The monitor will submit a final report to the Registrar within fifteen (15) days of the final monitoring session discussing the Registrant’s ability to understand and comply with the College’s advertising requirements, use of the title doctor and protection of the title audiologist.

21. The caution was delivered on or about January 23, 2020.

22. On July 16, 2020, the College sent a letter by email to the Registrant in which the College acknowledged that the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in provincial directives requiring closures and physical distancing, thereby making it impossible to administer the SCERP at that time. The College therefore proposed that he enters into an Undertaking whereby the Registrant would agree not to practice until such time as he returned to practice and could comply with the monitoring requirements. The College requested a response from him by no later than July 30, 2020. However, he did not respond to this correspondence.

23. A College investigator subsequently arranged for an interview with the Registrant on October 27, 2020. During the interview, he acknowledged receipt of the October 2019 ICRC decision and stated that he understood the ICRC’s directions. The Registrant stated that he thought the practice monitoring was on hold due to the closure of his office for three months. He indicated that he was willing to comply with the requirement, but he did not sign the Undertaking and could not summarize the July 16, 2020 letter as he had not received it.

24. The College investigator concluded:

As matters worsened with the COVID-19 pandemic, he stated that he stopped checking mail. The Registrant explained that stress and other COVID-19 related issues impacted his ability to co-operate with the College. Further, he informed the investigator that in June 2020, he underwent hernia surgery which affected him for 2 weeks. In closing, he stated that he is a good audiologist with over 35 years practice and his compliance with the ICRC’s direction in C19-123 was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

25. The Registrant subsequently sent an email to the investigator on May 12, 2021. In his email, he stated:

The office was closed on March 20 2020 and opened on Jun 7. I had surgery at the beginning of June and so did not return to work until June 29. I have since been working 4 days per week. I sold my practice to Connect Hearing and the rebranding occurred in Nov 2020. I continued as an employee until my resignation On June 7 2021. I am currently retired.

26. However, in a subsequent email to the College dated July 30, 2021, he stated:

I do want to comply with the plan determined by the college. I am working part time again as of the last 2 weeks so do now have an office where visits could be conducted. Please let me know exactly what needs to be done and I will make it happen.

Admissions of Professional Misconduct

27. In summary, the Registrant failed to comply with an order of the ICRC in respect of the CASLPO File C19-123 and he failed to respond appropriately or at all to correspondence from the College

28. The Registrant thereby engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs 2 (failing to maintain a standard of practice of the profession), 15 (failing to co-operate with the College during the course of the complaints process), 22 (signing or issuing, in the member’s professional capacity, a document that the member knows contains a false or misleading statement), and 37 (engaging in conduct or performing an act, relevant to the practice of the profession, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional) of section 1 of Ontario regulation 749/93 under the Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 19.

Plea Inquiry

29. The Registrant:

a. admits to the truth of the facts contained in this document and that the facts contained herein constitute the professional misconduct alleged;

b. understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;

c. has no questions with respect to the allegations against him;

d. understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts document being presented to the Discipline Committee;

e. understands that by admitting the allegations, he is waiving his right to require the College to prove the case against his and the right to have a contested hearing;

f. understands that the decision of the Discipline Committee and a summary of its reasons, including reference to his name, will be published in the College’s annual report and any other publication of the College and on the College’s website;

g. understands that any agreement between him and the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee; and

h. understands and acknowledges that he is executing this document voluntarily, unequivocally, free of duress, free of inducement or bribe, and further acknowledges that he has sought legal advice or had the opportunity to do so.

Decision and Reasons on Liability

9. Based on the facts set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts and the Registrant’s admissions of professional misconduct, the Panel finds that the Registrant has engaged in professional misconduct as alleged in the Notices of Hearing.

10. In particular, the Panel is satisfied that the Registrant’s failure to abide by the ICRC order and his failure to respond to communications from the College in a timely fashion or at all is contrary to the College’s standards of practice and would reasonably be regarded by other members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional.

11. It appears that the Registrant simply chose to ignore his professional obligations rather than engage with and respond to the College.

12. By not responding at all or not responding in timely manner, the Registrant ignored the fact that his behavior was incurring additional costs for the College.

13. The Registrant repeatedly demonstrated a lack of professional ethical responsibility.

Penalty and Costs

14. The College sought the following order as to penalty and costs:

(a) The Registrant is to appear before a panel of the Discipline Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to be reprimanded, with the fact of the reprimand and the text of the reprimand to appear on the College’s public register.

(b) The Registrar is directed to suspend the Registrant’s certificate of registration for a minimum period of three (3) months, commencing on a date to be fixed by the Registrar but in any event to commence no later than April 14, 2023, such suspension is to continue indefinitely until he successfully completes the terms, conditions and limitations set out below.

(c) The Registrar is directed to impose a term, condition, and limitation on the Registrant’s certificate of registration requiring him successfully complete, within three (3) months of the date of this Order, to the satisfaction of the Registrar and at the Registrant’s own expense:

(i) The PROBE course, where the Registrant must obtain an unconditional pass; and

(ii) A Jurisprudence course approved by the Registrar.

(d) The Registrar is directed to impose further terms, conditions and limitations on the Registrant’s certificate of registration:

(i) The Registrant must comply with the two outstanding ICRC orders in respect of matters C18-07 and C19-123 in strict accordance with their terms with all deadlines to be calculated from the date that the order of the Discipline Committee in this matter becomes final; and

(ii) The Registrant is required to respond to all College communications within 15 days.

(e) The Registrant shall pay to the College its costs fixed in the amount of $10,000.00 (ten thousand), said amount to be payable over three (3) months in accordance with the following schedule: the first $5,000.00 (five thousand) to be payable within one (1) month of the date of this Order becoming final and the remaining amount shall be paid by June 30, 2023.

15. The Registrant did not oppose the College’s request except that he submitted that the suspension should be limited to a minimum period of two (2) months, instead of three (3) months and that he should not be required to pay $10,000.00 in costs. He argued that a cost order of $5000.00 was more appropriate.

16. The College argued that the penalty and costs order proposed was appropriate and in keeping with prior cases from this and other health colleges. With respect to the period of suspension, the College noted that it was important for the Discipline Committee to make clear that failing to comply with the ICRC’s order and ignoring communications from the College are serious matters. The penalty must send a clear message to the public, the Registrant and to the entire membership that the privilege of being part of a self-regulating profession requires registrants to maintain open lines of communication with the College and to ensure that they are abiding by orders imposed upon them by a College committee.

17. With respect to the issue of costs, the College noted that this matter did not settle until the morning of the hearing. The Registrant received the College settlement documents in late 2022. He did not respond to communications from College counsel until the eve of the hearing. This required College counsel to prepare for the hearing as though it was going to proceed on a contested basis. In the circumstances, the costs sought are higher than they would have been had the Registrant been in touch with counsel prior to the hearing. The College provided the Panel with evidence to confirm that the costs sought represent approximately two-thirds of the College’s actual hearing costs.

Decision and Reasons on Penalty and Costs

18. The Panel makes an order as to penalty and costs consistent with the order sought by the College.

19. The Panel recognised that its penalty order must reflect the seriousness of the Registrant’s conduct and must provide him with the opportunity for re-education. The minimum suspension will provide the Registrant with the time to complete the various other requirements of the order and with the time to reflect on his actions. Had the Registrant simply kept the lines of communication with the College open following the imposition of the ICRC order, he would not have found himself in this position.

20. The penalty must reflect the Panel’s concern that the Registrant chose to ignore clear communications from the College instead of taking the necessary steps to complete the ICRC order requirements.

21. With respect to the costs, the Panel would have been inclined to order a lesser amount had the Registrant signed the settlement documents and communicated with the College counsel in a timelier fashion, especially given that his misconduct was related to the lack of, or no communication with the College. The Registrant chose to wait until the morning of the hearing, which was his right to do so, before advising the College that he was prepared to enter an agreed resolution. This resulted in the College having to prepare this case as though it was going to proceed on a contested basis. In these circumstances, the amount order for costs is appropriate and a fair reflection of a portion of the College’s actual costs.

22. Following the completion of the hearing, the Registrant indicated that he was prepared to waive his right to appeal and to receive his Reprimand. The Panel delivered the Reprimand, which is reproduced at the end of these Decision and Reasons at Appendix B.

I, Satpaul Singh Johal, sign this Decision and Reasons for the decision as Chair of this Discipline panel and on behalf of the members of the Discipline panel as listed below:

Date: April 5, 2023

Yvonne Wyndham

Tina D’Agnillo

Thomas Robson

Schedule "A"

Notices of Hearing R20-010 and R20-011

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF AUDIOLOGISTS AND SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

COLLEGE OF AUDIOLOGISTS AND SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO

• and -

BRIAN FIELD

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE INQUIRIES, COMPLAINTS AND REPORTS COMMITTEE of the College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario (the “College”) has referred specified allegations against you to the Discipline Committee of the College. The allegations were referred in accordance with section 26 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 (the “Code”). The statement of allegations is attached to this Notice of Hearing. A panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) will hold a hearing under the authority of sections 38 to 56 of the Code for the purposes of deciding whether the allegations are true.

THE HEARING WILL BE HELD before the Panel either by way of video or teleconference or at 3080 Yonge Street, Suite 5060 in Toronto, Ontario M4N 3N1 or such other location ordered by the Discipline Committee, on a date and time to be set by the Registrar of the College.

IF YOU DO NOT ATTEND AT THE HEARING OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, THE PANEL MAY PROCEED IN YOUR ABSENCE AND YOU WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANY FURTHER NOTICE IN THE PROCEEDI

SUBSECTION 51(2) OF THE CODE PROVIDES THAT if the Panel finds that you have engaged in professional misconduct, it may make one or more of the following orders:

1. Direct the Registrar to revoke your certificate of registration.
2. Direct the Registrar to suspend your certificate of registration for a specified period of time.
3. Direct the Registrar to impose specified terms, conditions and limitations on your certificate of registration for a specified or indefinite period of time.
4. Require you to appear before the Panel to be reprimanded.
5. Require you to pay a fine of not more than $35,000 to the Minister of Finance.

PURSUANT TO SECTION 53.1 OF THE CODE, in an appropriate case, if the Panel finds that you committed an act of professional misconduct or finds you to be incompetent, the Panel may make an order requiring you to pay all or part of the following costs and expenses:

1. The College’s legal costs and expenses.
2. The College’s costs and expenses incurred in investigating the matter.
3. The College’s costs and expenses incurred in conducting the hearing.

YOU ARE ENTITLED to disclosure of the evidence against you in accordance with subsection 42(1) of the Code. You, or your representative, may contact the lawyer for the College in this matter:

Bernard C. LeBlanc Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc Barristers & Solicitors 401 Bay Street, P.O. Box 23 Suite 2308 Toronto, ON M5H 2Y4

Telephone: (416) 644-4780 Facsimile: (416) 593-7867 Email: bleblanc@sml-law.com

YOU MUST ALSO MAKE disclosure in accordance with section 42.1 of the Code, which states as follows:

Evidence of an expert led by a person other than the College is not admissible unless the person gives the College, at least ten days before the hearing, the identity of the expert and a copy of the expert's written report or, if there is no written report, a written summary of the evidence.

YOU ALSO HAVE disclosure obligations under Rule 7.01 of the College’s Discipline Committee Rules which provides, in part, that the parties shall make disclosure as is required by law and may make such additional disclosure as will assist to make the pre-hearing conference and the hearing effective and fair.

Date: September 2, 2021

Brian O’Riordan Registrar College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario

TO: BRIAN FIELD Meridian Hearing Centre 205‐440 Boler Road London, Ontario N6K 4

STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS

1. Brian Field was, at all material times, an audiologist registered to practise audiology in the Province of Ontario. Mr. Field practised at Meridian Hearing Centre in London, Ontario.

CASLPO File C18-07

2. On or about December 12, 2019, the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”) of the College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario (the “College” or “CASLPO”)) issued a decision and reasons in relation to a complaint made by EZ (CASLPO File C18-07). Among other things, the ICRC made the following order:

Pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 4 of subsection 26(1) of Health Professions Procedural Code (being Schedule 2 of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991), a panel of the ICRC directed the Registrant [Mr. Field] to:

1. appear before the panel to be cautioned, on a date to be fixed by the Panel, within 90 days of this decision becoming final, to address their serious concerns regarding his communications, use of inappropriate language with patients, responsiveness to requests and lack of insight respecting the impact of delays on the development of children. The panel noted that a caution in person was also directed for CASLPO File C18-07 and agreed that the cautions could be delivered together.

2. successfully complete Specified Continuing Educational or Remediation Programs (“SCERPs”) to address the importance of responsiveness and appropriate communication with patients. The panel directed that the SCERPs, to be paid for by the Registrant, will comprise of:

a. a professional communication course approved by the Registrar to be completed within 120 days of this decision becoming final. b. a self-reflective essay discussing the importance of timely communication and the responsibility of clinic owners to ensure that they retain competent and reliable staff, which essay shall:

i. Be no less than 1500 words and no more than 2000 words;

ii. Include direct reference to the College’s Code of Ethics (Bylaw No. 7) as well as the Practice Standards and Guidelines for the Hearing Assessment of Children by Audiologists;

iii. Be submitted to the Registrar within 90 days of the date of this decision becoming final; and

iv. Be reviewed by the Registrar to ensure that it appropriately addressed the concerns of the panel as set out in paragraph 2.b. In the event that the Registrar, acting reasonably, determines that the essay does not demonstrate an understanding of these concerns, the Registrant will be provided with a maximum of two (2) additional opportunities, of no more than 30 days each to submit a satisfactory essay.

c. practice monitoring to ensure that records are kept in accordance with the Regulations and standards as well as ensuring timely responses are provided by the Registrant, including:

i. CASLPO approved monitor who will be a CASLPO-registered audiologist in good standing;

ii. Site visits once a month for a period of one (1) year;

iii. Site visits to begin after the SCERPs outlined in paragraphs 2.a and 2.b have been completed;

iv. Each site visit will review 20-30 randomly selected patient records to determine whether the records are kept as required, that there has been patient follow up, and sufficient information has been provided in audiological reports; and

v. The monitor will submit a final report to the Registrar within fifteen (15) days of the final monitoring session discussing the Registrant’s ability to respond to communications in a timely and professional manner.

3. Despite being provided with extensions of time to complete the SCERPs ordered by the ICRC, Mr. Field failed or refused to fulfil the requirements of the SCERPs.

4. On or about April 30, 2020 Mr. Field sent an email to the College indicating that he intended to forward the self-reflective essay the next day. He also sent a screenshot of a professional communication course that he proposed to take.

5. On or about May 4, 2020, the College asked Mr. Field to send a link as the screenshot was illegible. However, Mr. Field failed to do so.

6. On or about May 11, 2020 the College again asked Mr. Field to send a link to the proposed professional communication course. At the same time the College pointed out that the self-reflective essay was late. Mr. Field failed to respond to this correspondence.

7. The College again wrote to Mr. Field on May 27, 2020 and gave him a deadline of June 30, 2020 to provide the College with the self-reflective essay and to complete the professional communication course. However, Mr. Field again failed to respond or comply with the ICRC’s order.

8. The College again sent an email to Mr. Field on or about July 15, 2020. In that email the College offered to extend the deadline to submit details of a professional communication course he wished to pursue and the essay for review by the Registrar to July 29, 2020. Once those components of the SCERP had been completed, a practice monitor would be appointed to complete paragraph 2.c of the SCERP.

9. Once again, the College received no response from Mr. Field.

10. On or about November 12, 2020 the College again advised Mr. Field that he was still obliged to complete requirements of the ICRC order. However, Mr. Field has failed to do so and failed to reply to the College.

11. It is therefore alleged that Mr. Field failed to comply with an order of the ICRC in respect of the CASLPO File C18-07 matter, failed to respond appropriately or at all to correspondence from the College, and failed to cooperate with the College.

12. Mr. Field thereby engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraph 15 (failing to co-operate with the College during the course of the complaints process) and 37 (engaging in conduct or performing an act, relevant to the practice of the profession, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional) of O. Reg. 749/93 under the Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 19.

APPENDIX

1. The documents to be tendered in evidence at the hearing will be sent separately.

2. Take notice that the documents that will later be disclosed to you may be tendered as business documents pursuant to the Evidence Act of Ontario.

3. All documents that are disclosed to you in this matter are disclosed on the basis that they are to be used solely for the purpose of this proceeding and for no other purpose.

COLLEGE OF AUDIOLOGISTS AND SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS - and - BRIAN FIELD

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF AUDIOLOGISTS AND SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO

NOTICE OF HEARING

STEINECKE MACIURA LEBLANC Barristers & Solicitors 401 Bay Street, Box 23 Suite 2308 Toronto, ON M5H 2Y4

Bernard C. LeBlanc Telephone: (416) 644-4780 Facsimile: (416) 593-7867 Email: bleblanc@sml-law.com

Lawyers for the College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF AUDIOLOGISTS AND SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

COLLEGE OF AUDIOLOGISTS AND SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO

• and -

BRIAN FIELD

R20-011

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE INQUIRIES, COMPLAINTS AND REPORTS COMMITTEE of the College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario (the “College”) has referred specified allegations against you to the Discipline Committee of the College. The allegations were referred in accordance with section 26 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 (the “Code”). The statement of allegations is attached to this Notice of Hearing. A panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) will hold a hearing under the authority of sections 38 to 56 of the Code for the purposes of deciding whether the allegations are true.

THE HEARING WILL BE HELD before the Panel either by way of video or teleconference or at 3080 Yonge Street, Suite 5060 in Toronto, Ontario M4N 3N1 or such other location ordered by the Discipline Committee, on a date and time to be set by the Registrar of the College.

IF YOU DO NOT ATTEND AT THE HEARING OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, THE PANEL MAY PROCEED IN YOUR ABSENCE AND YOU WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANY FURTHER NOTICE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.

SUBSECTION 51(2) OF THE CODE PROVIDES THAT if the Panel finds that you have engaged in professional misconduct, it may make one or more of the following orders:

1. Direct the Registrar to revoke your certificate of registration.
2. Direct the Registrar to suspend your certificate of registration for a specified period of time.
3. Direct the Registrar to impose specified terms, conditions and limitations on your certificate of registration for a specified or indefinite period of time.
4. Require you to appear before the Panel to be reprimanded.
5. Require you to pay a fine of not more than $35,000 to the Minister of Finance.

PURSUANT TO SECTION 53.1 OF THE CODE, in an appropriate case, if the Panel finds that you committed an act of professional misconduct or finds you to be incompetent, the Panel may make an order requiring you to pay all or part of the following costs and expenses:

1. The College’s legal costs and expenses.
2. The College’s costs and expenses incurred in investigating the matter.
3. The College’s costs and expenses incurred in conducting the hearing.

YOU ARE ENTITLED to disclosure of the evidence against you in accordance with subsection 42(1) of the Code. You, or your representative, may contact the lawyer for the College in this matter:

Bernard C. LeBlanc Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc Barristers & Solicitors 401 Bay Street, P.O. Box 23 Suite 2308 Toronto, ON M5H 2Y4

Telephone: (416) 644-4780 Facsimile: (416) 593-7867 Email: bleblanc@sml-law.com

YOU MUST ALSO MAKE disclosure in accordance with section 42.1 of the Code, which states as follows:

Evidence of an expert led by a person other than the College is not admissible unless the person gives the College, at least ten days before the hearing, the identity of the expert and a copy of the expert's written report or, if there is no written report, a written summary of the evidence.

YOU ALSO HAVE disclosure obligations under Rule 7.01 of the College’s Discipline Committee Rules which provides, in part, that the parties shall make disclosure as is required by law and may make such additional disclosure as will assist to make the pre- hearing conference and the hearing effective and fair.

Date: February 24, 2022

Brian O’Riordan Registrar College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario

TO: BRIAN FIELD 11 Lansdowne Pk Cres Komoka, Ontario N0L 1R0

Statement of Allegations

1. Brian Field was, at all material times, an audiologist registered to practise audiology in Ontario by the College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario.

Summary of the Facts

2. On or about October 28, 2019, the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College rendered a decision in respect of a complaint that College received against Mr. Field in relation to a number of advertising issues (C19-123).

3. On October 28, 2019, the ICRC ordered that Mr. Field:

a) appear before the panel to be cautioned to address their serious concerns regarding the statements made about causes of dementia in Meridian Hearing’s promotional flyer as well as the Registrant’s lack of understanding respecting the proposed Advertising Regulations. The date of the caution will be fixed by the Panel and will occur within 90 days of this decision becoming final, and,

b) successfully complete Specified Continuing Educational or Remediation Programs (“SCERPs”) to address the importance of appropriate advertising. The panel directed that the SCERP, to be paid for by the Registrant, will comprise of practice monitoring and education relating to the advertising requirements, use of the title doctor and protection of the title audiologist. The SCERP will be comprised of:

i. A CASLPO approved monitor who will be a CASLPO-registered audiologist in good standing;

ii. Site visits once every three (3) months, for a period of one (1) year;

iii. Practice monitoring will include discussion and review of the Registrant’s advertising relative to the regulations or guidelines;

iv. Monitoring shall begin within 120 days of this decision becoming final;

v. The monitor will submit a final report to the Registrar within fifteen (15) days of the final monitoring session discussing the Registrant’s ability to understand and comply with the College’s advertising requirements, use of the title doctor and protection of the title audiologist.

4. The caution was delivered on or about January 23, 2020.

5. On July 16, 2020, the College sent a letter by email to Mr. Field in which the College acknowledged that the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in provincial directives requiring closures and physical distancing, thereby making it impossible to administer the SCERP at that time. The College therefore proposed that Mr. Field enter into an Undertaking whereby Mr. Field would agree not to practise until such time as he returned to practice and could comply with the monitoring requirements. However, Mr. Field did not respond to this correspondence.

6. Mr. Field subsequently advised an investigator for the College on October 27, 2020 that he understood that the practice monitoring was on hold due to the closure of his office for three months [presumably referring to the end of July to the end of October, 2020].

7. Mr. Field also advised the investigator that as the pandemic continued, he stopped checking his mail, including emails from the College. He also stated that in June 2020, he underwent hernia surgery which affected him for 2 weeks. Nonetheless, Mr. Field indicated that he was willing to comply with the SCERP.

8. Mr. Field subsequently sent an email to the investigator on May 12, 2021. In his email, Mr. Field stated:

The office was closed on March 20 2020 and opened on Jun 7. I had surgery at the beginning of June and so did not return to work until June 29. I have since been working 4 days per week. I sold my practice to Connect Hearing and the rebranding occurred in Nov 2020. I continued as an employee until my resignation On June 7 2021 [sic]

I am currently retired.

9. However, in a subsequent email to the College dated July 30, 2021, Mr. Field stated:

I do want to comply with the plan determined by the college. I am working part time again as of the last 2 weeks so do now have an office where visits could be conducted. Please let me know exactly what needs to be done and I will make it happen [emphasis added].

10. In summary, on the basis of the information received from Mr. Field, Mr. Field stopped reviewing emails from the College sometime in the summer of 2020. He has also provided inconsistent information as to when he has been practising and he has failed to make any effort to comply with the SCERP during times when he has in fact practised.

Allegations of Professional Misconduct

11. Mr. Field thereby engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs 2 (failing to maintain a standard of practice of the profession), 15 (failing to co-operate with the College during the course of the complaints process), 22 (signing or issuing, in the member’s professional capacity, a document that the member knows contains a false or misleading statement), and 37 (engaging in conduct or performing an act, relevant to the practice of the profession, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional) of section 1 of Ontario regulation 749/93 under the Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 19.

APPENDIX

1. The documents to be tendered in evidence at the hearing will be sent separately.

2. Take notice that the documents that will later be disclosed to you may be tendered as business documents pursuant to the Evidence Act of Ontario.

3. All documents that are disclosed to you in this matter are disclosed on the basis that they are to be used solely for the purpose of this proceeding and for no other purpose.

COLLEGE OF AUDIOLOGISTS AND SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS - and - BRIAN FIELD

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF AUDIOLOGISTS AND SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO

NOTICE OF HEARING

STEINECKE MACIURA LEBLANC Barristers & Solicitors 401 Bay Street, Box 23 Suite 2308 Toronto, ON M5H 2Y4

Bernard C. LeBlanc Telephone: (416) 644-4780 Facsimile: (416) 593-7867 Email: bleblanc@sml-law.com

Lawyers for the College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario

Schedule “B”

COLLEGE OF AUDIOLOGISTS AND SPEECH-PATHOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO v BRIAN FIELD

REPRIMAND

As you know, Mr. Field, as part of its penalty, this Discipline panel has ordered you be given an oral reprimand.

The fact that you have received this reprimand will be part of the public portion of the Register and, as such, part of your record with the College.

Although you will be given an opportunity to make a statement at the end of the reprimand, this is not an opportunity for you to review the decision made by the Discipline panel, nor a time for you to debate the merits of our decision.

The panel has found that you have engaged in professional misconduct in your failure to comply with the orders of the ICRC and failed to respond appropriately or at all to correspondence from the College.

The fact that you engaged in professional misconduct is a matter of profound concern. Your decision to ignore that very clear direction from the ICRC and then later ignore the College’s inquiries has brought discredit to yourself and the profession. The privilege of self-regulation is built on a foundation of trust and respect. The public must have confidence that the College’s communications and orders from College committees will not be ignored by members of this profession.

We appreciate that you have finally decided to take responsibility here and that you were willing to admit misconduct.

We also want to make it clear to you that while the penalty that this panel has imposed upon you is a fair penalty, a more significant penalty will likely be imposed by another Discipline panel in the event that you are ever found to have engaged in professional misconduct again.

As you heard earlier, you will now be given an opportunity to respond if you wish. Do you wish to make any comments?

Thank you for attending today. We are adjourned.