ONTARIO AUDIOLOGISTS AND SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: 25-002-AS
BETWEEN:
College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario
College
- and -
Feby Sabu
Registrant
FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS
Heard: February 10, 2026
Panel:
Sherry Liang (panel chair)
Geoffrey Lind (public)
Rebecca Minogue (public)
Cara Jelinek (audiologist)
Yvonne Wyndham (speech-language pathologist)
Appearances:
Bernard LeBlanc and Carly Waisglass, for the College
RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Rule 2.2.2 of the HPDT Rules of Procedure and ss. 45-47 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, no one shall publish or broadcast the names of patients or any information that could identify patients or disclose patients’ personal health information or health records referred to at a hearing or in any documents filed with the Tribunal. There may be significant fines for breaching this restriction.
Niiti Simmonds, for the registrant
The Ontario Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists Discipline Tribunal is the Discipline Committee established under the Health Professions Procedural Code
Introduction
1The registrant, Feby Sabu, is a speech-language pathologist who was employed as a care co-ordinator with a home and community care services organization. The College alleges that the services she provided during her period of employment failed to maintain standards of practice of the profession and in other ways amounted to professional misconduct.
2At the hearing, the parties agreed on the facts and the registrant admitted to the misconduct. They made a joint submission that the penalty should be a two-month suspension of the registrant’s certificate of registration, a reprimand, and that the registrant be required to complete a course on informed consent and a mentorship and monitoring program. The parties also agreed that the registrant should pay $2,000 to the College for its costs.
3The panel found that the registrant engaged in professional misconduct and accepted the joint submission, making the order proposed by the parties.
Misconduct findings
4The registrant was hired as a care co-ordinator during the later part of the COVID-19 pandemic, her first time in this role. She immediately acquired a large caseload. Within a few months, her colleagues started raising concerns about her performance. This ultimately led to the termination of the registrant’s employment as well as a mandatory report by her former employer to the College outlining practice concerns in five areas. An expert opinion obtained by the College substantiated these concerns.
5Section 1 of Ontario Regulation 749/93 (Professional Misconduct Regulation) under the Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 19 (Act), sets out various categories of misconduct. The panel finds that the registrant engaged in professional misconduct under para. 2 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation when she failed to maintain the standards of practice of the profession.
6With respect to capacity assessments, the registrant did not practise within the limits of her competence as required by the College’s Code of Ethics (Principle 3. E). The registrant did not exercise independent professional judgment with respect to high-risk patients, falling short of the standard in the Code of Ethics (Principle 3. D). In one example, she accepted a physician’s order to put home care services in place without assessing the appropriateness of such services to the client’s functional state. In two cases, her conduct did not meet the College’s Collaboration Standard 1, which states that “[r]egistrants must communicate effectively and collaboratively with all involved, focusing on a patient-centred approach,” in that she did not collaborate with a patient and patient’s spouse about services and did not take into account a patient and patient’s family’s wishes when pursuing the option of a long-term care placement.
7The registrant did not adequately or accurately document her observations, discussions, findings and/or recommendations, which fails to meet the College’s Documentation Standards. This also amounts to misconduct under para. 19 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation, which requires registrants to keep records in accordance with Ontario Regulation 21/12 (General Regulation) made under the Act.
8The registrant’s conduct failed to maintain the College’s Consent and Capacity Standards, which require that registrants document every consent received regarding intervention. She did not obtain informed consent to treatment in the case of at least one patient. This also amounts to misconduct within the meaning of para. 3 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation under which the delivery of services without consent required by law is an act of misconduct.
9Having regard to the above facts and the registrant’s admission, we found that she engaged in conduct that members of the profession would reasonably regard as dishonourable and unprofessional, within the meaning of para. 37 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation.
Penalty and Costs
10The parties’ agreement on penalty must be implemented unless it is so “unhinged from the circumstances” that implementing it would bring the administration of the College’s professional discipline system into disrepute: see R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303 (Div. Ct.). We are satisfied that the proposed penalty is not contrary to the public interest in this manner.
11The parties provided us with several decisions, all based on joint submissions, that demonstrate that this penalty is proportionate to the misconduct. In those cases, the Tribunal (and in one case, the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists) imposed suspensions between one and four months in length for misconduct that included record-keeping deficiencies, failure to conduct appropriate assessments, failure to obtain consent and breaches of other standards of practice. While each case was based on its own set of unique facts, we conclude that the two-month suspension proposed is reasonably within the range of penalties for similar misconduct.
12The suspension and reprimand serve the goals of specific and general deterrence. The terms, conditions and limitations imposed on the registrant’s certificate of registration serve the purpose of remediation and ensure that the registrant has the tools to return to practice in keeping with the standards of practice of the profession. The penalty shows the public that the College takes seriously misconduct by its registrants and enhances public confidence in the College’s ability to protect the public.
13We considered the mitigating factors addressed in the agreed facts. Among other things, by admitting to the misconduct, the registrant has shown insight and remorse and spared the parties and the Tribunal the time and expense of having a contested hearing.
14Having regard to the relevant penalty principles as well as the caselaw, we are satisfied that the joint submission is not contrary to the public interest.
15We also accept the parties’ joint costs submission of $2,000. The installment provisions of the costs order are reasonable.
Order
16We ordered:
Penalty
The Tribunal requires the Registrant to appear before the panel to be reprimanded, with the fact of the reprimand and the text of the reprimand to appear on the public register of the College.
The Tribunal directs the Registrar of the College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario (the “Registrar”) to suspend the Registrant’s certificate of registration for a period of two months, commencing February 11, 2026, at 12:01 a.m.
The Tribunal directs the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Registrant’s certificate of registration requiring that the Registrant complete the following, to the satisfaction of the Registrar and at the Registrant’s expense:
a. Successful completion, with written proof thereof to the Registrar’s satisfaction, of a Registrar-approved course on informed consent, to be successfully completed within one year following the completion of the suspension of the Registrant’s certificate of registration;
b. Successful completion, with written proof thereof to the Registrar’s satisfaction, of a Registrar-approved mentorship and monitoring program requiring the Registrant to meet eight times for at least one hour over the course of 18 months with a practice mentor/monitor to review ethical and professional obligations regarding obtaining informed consent to treatment and practising within the Registrant’s areas of competencies as raised by the facts and findings of professional misconduct in this case, and identifying areas in the Registrant’s practice regarding these issues that require remediation, to be successfully completed within one year following the successful completion of an approved course on informed consent (paragraph 3a), provided that the number of meetings can be reduced to four if, in the Registrar’s opinion, the Registrant demonstrates appropriate competencies following the first four meetings.
Costs
- The Tribunal requires the Registrant to pay to the College costs in the amount of $2,000.00 in two installments of $1,000.00. The first installment will be due within one year of the date of the Order, by February 10, 2027, and the remaining
payment will be due within two years of the date of the Order, by February 10, 2028.