ONTARIO AUDIOLOGISTS AND SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: 25-004-AS
BETWEEN:
College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario
College
- and -
Brenda Berge
Registrant
FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS
Heard: March 11, 2026
Panel:
Jay Sengupta (panel chair)
Erin Gilchrist (speech-language pathologist)
Jane Loncke (speech-language pathologist)
Rebecca Minogue (public)
Sam Sinjari (public)
Appearances:
Bernard LeBlanc and Carly Waisglass, for the College
Brenda Berge, not present or represented
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.
Introduction
1The registrant is an audiologist whose certificate of registration was suspended on June 12, 2024 (College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario v. Berge, 2024 ONCASPD 4) and whose certificate of registration was subsequently revoked on July 10, 2025 (College of Audiologists and Speech Language Pathologists of Ontario v. Berge, 2025 ONASLPDT 6).
2The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario alleges that the registrant committed professional misconduct pursuant to s. 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code (Code), Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c.18 (RHPA) and paragraphs 1, 16, 31, 35, 36.1 and 37 of section 1 of Ontario Regulation 749/93 (Professional Misconduct Regulation) under the Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 19 (ASLPA).
3The specific allegations are that the registrant practised while under suspension (treating at least 70 patients between June 12, 2024 and October 18, 2024), inappropriately identified herself with the terms or titles of doctor and audiologist while suspended, and made inappropriate social media posts between April 2024 and June 2024.
4This is one of three applications that were heard by this panel, one after the other, on March 11, 2026. The registrant did not participate in these proceedings. We found that she had been properly notified of the proceeding, was aware that the hearing was taking place on March 11, 2026. We therefore proceeded in her absence.
5At the hearing, we concluded that the College had established that the registrant had committed professional misconduct as alleged. We ordered that her certificate of registration be revoked, that she receive a public, written reprimand with the text to appear on the College’s public register and that she pay costs to the College in the amount of $33,284.27 by March 11, 2027.
6The reasons for our decision follow.
Preliminary procedural issues
7Notice of this proceeding was sent to the registrant at the email address that the College has on file for her. The registrant was clearly aware of the hearing date, as she made a reference to it and indicated she would not attend in a document included in a package of materials received by counsel for the College on March 10, 2026.
8We are satisfied that the registrant received notice of the proceedings, knew the hearing was taking place on March 11, 2026, and elected not to attend. We proceeded in her absence, pursuant to s. 4.1.2 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure and s. 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c. S.22, both of which state that where a party to a proceeding has been notified of a hearing and does not attend or participate, the Tribunal may proceed in their absence and the party is not entitled to any further notice.
9The Tribunal can hear and decide this matter despite the previous revocation pursuant to s. 14(1) of the Code, which makes a former registrant subject to the jurisdiction of the College for professional misconduct that happened while they were a registrant.
10The package sent to counsel for the College also contained materials similar to those sent in April 2024, on the eve of another hearing involving this registrant. In paras. 4 through 6 of College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario v. Berge, 2024 ONCASPD 1, the panel made the following comments about the materials received:
On the eve of the hearing, the registrant sent a large volume of documents to the Committee. They did not consist of a motion under the Committee’s Rules of Procedure, nor were they documents filed for the purpose of responding to the allegations at the hearing. Although the registrant did not appear at the hearing to speak to the meaning of this package, we have reviewed it and find that it has no bearing on the issues before us.
In a Case Management Direction, Committee Co-Chair David Wright described the practice of Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) and stated that, regrettably, it appears that the registrant is adopting such tactics. The package delivered to the Hearings Office bears some of the characteristics of OPCA practices and beliefs, as described in decisions such as Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 and Anderson v Ossowski, 2021 ABQB 428. The package contains notices or demands purporting to impose deadlines and obligations on individuals that, if not met, create a legally enforceable obligation or findings of fact and/or law (see Anderson at para. 17). It contains a “fee schedule” applicable in the event of failing to respond to the demands (see Anderson at para. 18). It uses unusual variations on the registrant’s personal name, in this case, a copyright and trademark symbol (see Meads at para. 7).
For the purposes of this hearing, it appears that the registrant is demanding that this hearing cease. As noted in para. 4 of Meads, OPCA litigants exhibit “a general rejection of court and state authority.” The material asserts that the Committee is operating beyond the scope of its authority and jurisdiction. On our review, we see nothing in the registrant’s documents that casts doubt on the Committee’s authority to proceed with the hearing, which is based in the provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code, Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 18. The registrant’s arguments, to the extent we can discern what they are, are spurious and we reject them.
11We find, similarly, that the materials sent to counsel for the College have no bearing on the matters before us.
Misconduct
12The College bears the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities in this matter. The registrant is deemed to have denied the allegations, given her absence.
13The College alleges that the registrant provided audiology services while her certificate of registration was suspended. In a decision dated June 4, 2024, a panel of the Discipline Committee ordered the suspension of the registrant’s certificate of registration (see College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario v. Berge, 2024 ONCASPD 4). As the registrant did not appeal the Discipline Committee’s orders, her certificate of registration was suspended on June 12, 2024, and remained so until it was revoked in 2025.
14Investigators retained by the College attempted to conduct site visits at the registrant’s office on June 25 and September 23, 2024, to ascertain whether the registrant was practising while suspended, but were asked to leave on both occasions. They executed a search warrant on October 18, 2024.
15A review of patient records, patient history forms, invoices and hearing device order forms revealed that the registrant had treated at least 70 patients between June 12, 2024 (the date of her suspension) and October 18, 2024 (the date the search warrant was executed). The registrant used the title of “audiologist” and represented herself as a person who was qualified to practise in Ontario as an audiologist or in a speciality in audiology and was permitted to prescribe hearing aids for hearing impaired persons. She was not permitted to perform this controlled act. In doing so, she contravened s. 4 of the ASLPA and s. 31 of the RHPA.
16The registrant also referred to herself as a doctor on a public social media site. Whether or not suspended, audiologists may not use this term in the course of providing health care services, see s. 8 of the ASLPA. We find that she inappropriately used a term, title or designation, contrary to paragraph 16 of s. 1 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation.
17The College alleged that the contents of three social media posts from an account titled “Dr. Berge” made between April 2024 and June 2024 are inappropriate and amount to conduct that is disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. The posts are described by the College as relating to “COVID misinformation,” “2SLGBTQAI+ hate” and “unprofessional comments.”
18The registrant does not identify herself as a member of the profession in the account titled “Dr. Berge.” However, the College argued that it is possible to connect that profile with Dr. Berge’s profession and, indeed, there is evidence a complaint was filed about one of these posts by a member of the public that had made the connection.
19Although the registrant was not present to assert her right to freedom of expression in relation to these posts, we must ensure our decision conforms to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). As the panel in College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario v. Berge, 2024 ONCASPD 3 held, the Charter right to freedom of expression must be balanced against the public’s right to equal treatment in respect of services without discrimination, and the College’s Ethical Principle 3(h) of its Code of Ethics, which requires that registrants maintain the standards and dignity of the profession in all communications, including on social media. The panel went on to state at paras. 19 and 20:
We find that the College has an interest in maintaining the integrity and reputation of the profession and promoting trust in the profession by ensuring that registrants do not make public comments that are uncivil and discriminatory, in particular given that such individuals may be potential or actual clients. We agree with the College’s submission that the social media post the registrant retweeted is transphobic. It contains disparaging comments about individuals’ gender identity or gender expression. Such communication reflects poorly on the registrant’s professionalism and can undermine public trust in the profession.
We are satisfied that, by retweeting this communication, the registrant engaged in conduct that members of the profession would reasonably regard as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. While we recognize the importance of the registrant’s expressive rights, we are satisfied that a finding of professional misconduct is a proportionate balancing of the College’s statutory objectives and those rights.
20We found the post described as “2SLGBTQAI+ hate” falls within the category of communications that contain disparaging and uncivil comments about members of the 2SLGBTQAI+ community and, as with the transphobic comments identified by the previous panel, could undermine public trust in the profession and its commitment to ensuring equal treatment in respect of services on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. We therefore concluded that the registrant’s right to freedom of expression is outweighed by the statutory objectives and the post amounts to conduct that members of the profession would reasonably regard as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
21The remaining posts express views that may well be viewed as controversial or outside the mainstream about COVID vaccines, the legal profession and administrative or regulatory justice. While the tone and tenor of the posts expressing views about the vaccine and legal issues are somewhat heated and elevated, and may be viewed by some as lacking in the dignity contemplated by the College’s Ethical Principle 3(h), we do not consider them to be at the same level as the post criticizing a community whose members are identified by a ground protected by the Human Rights Code. Taking into account the importance of the Charter value of freedom of expression, we find that they do not constitute professional misconduct.
22We found that the registrant contravened a term, condition or limitation on her certificate of registration, contrary to paragraph 1 of s. 1 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation; practised audiology while suspended; contrary to paragraph 35 of s. 1 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation’ and inappropriately used a term, title or designation in respect of her practice (paragraph 16). Her actions also constitute a failure to comply with an order of a panel or committee of the College (paragraph 36.1); disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct (paragraph 37); and a contravention of the RHPA and the ASLPA or the regulations made under them (paragraph 31).
Penalty and costs
Penalty
23The goals of penalty orders are public protection (which includes maintaining public confidence in the profession), denunciation of the misconduct and remediation of the registrant where appropriate to ensure public protection upon their return to the profession. The penalty must be proportionate to the misconduct.
24The registrant continued to be subject to the authority of the College despite being suspended. She has a lengthy prior history of discipline and was found to be ungovernable by a previous panel (College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario v. Berge, 2025 ONASLPDT 6 (the 2025 Berge decision)).
25In considering whether the registrant is ungovernable, we have considered the nature, duration and repetition of the misconduct, any prior discipline history, character evidence, the existence or absence of remorse or insight, any evidence of the degree of willingness to be governed, any relevant medical evidence that explains the conduct, and any evidence of ongoing cooperation and opportunities for remediation and non-compliance with (para. 18 of Park v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, 2021 ONSC 8088).
26We concur with the panel in the 2025 Berge decision and find that the registrant’s actions show a clear and prolonged inability and unwillingness to be governed by the regulator.
27Not only did the registrant treat at least 70 patients in the months following her suspension, but there is clear and uncontroverted evidence that she also refused entry to investigators retained by the College, who were entitled to enter her place of practice under s. 76 of the Code, on two occasions, requiring them to return on a third occasion to execute a search warrant.
28The registrant’s breach of an order and continued practice despite being suspended merits denunciation in the clearest possible terms. The registrant’s certificate of registration was revoked in 2025, and revocation is the appropriate penalty in the present circumstances.
29In College of Chiropodists of Ontario v. Lustig, 2024 ONCOCOO 8, a registrant who breached an order and undertaking not to practise and held himself out as a chiropodist was reprimanded, and his registration revoked. Similarly, in College of Physiotherapists of Ontario v. Vogel, 2025 ONCPO 74, revocation of a physiotherapist’s certificate of registration resulted when he used the title, practised while suspended and failed or refused to participate in the investigation or hearing process.
30We conclude, therefore, that revocation and a reprimand are the appropriate penalties in this case. Remediation is not a factor.
Costs
31The costs sought by the College represent two-thirds of the actual and anticipated costs of this matter. The College referred us to the Divisional Court’s decision in Bayfield v. College of Physiotherapists of Ontario, 2014 ONSC 6570, paras. 9 and 10, where the Court approved the method of calculating the quantum of the cost award in that case at two-thirds of the actual costs incurred by the regulator.
32We have also noted the Tribunal’s rulings in four previous decisions involving this registrant. In each of those cases two-thirds of the actual costs incurred by the College were ordered to be paid by the registrant. See College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario v. Berge, 2024 ONCASPD 4, College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario v. Berge, 2024 ONCASPD 5, College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario v. Berge, 2024 ONCASPD 6, and College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario v. Berge, 2025 ONASLPDT 6.
33We find this to be an appropriate case in which to order costs in the amount sought by the College. The College has established misconduct as alleged. It should not fall to other registrants to bear the full cost of the College’s prosecution of the registrant in this matter.
34We order that the registrant pay costs in the amount of $33,284.27, which represents two-thirds of the actual and anticipated costs of this matter, within a year of the order.
Order
35We made the following order:
Penalty
The Tribunal requires the Registrant to receive a public, written reprimand, 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 to revoke the Registrant’s certificate of registration.
Costs
- The Tribunal requires the Registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $33,284.27 by March 11, 2027.