ONTARIO AUDIOLOGISTS AND SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: 26-001-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 20, 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).
3Specifically, the College alleges that the registrant contravened the ASLPA, the RHPA or the regulations made under those statutes, practised while under suspension, falsified a record relating to the practice and called herself a doctor of audiology. It also alleges that her actions amounted to disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct.
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 proceedings and 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 $20,351.39 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. The evidence before us is that, 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.
14A review of records seized by investigators pursuant to a search warrant revealed that, while suspended, between July 2024 and October 2024, the registrant created a false record for a person who had never been a patient, never attended the registrant’s clinic, never obtained a hearing aid and never received the invoice created in his name. We find, therefore, that she falsified a record relating to her practice in contravention of paragraph 20 of s.1 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation.
15While suspended, the registrant could not perform the controlled act of prescribing a hearing aid. In doing so, she contravened s. 4 of the ASLPA and s. 31 of the RHPA. Furthermore, the registrant provided a referral letter in which she called herself a doctor of audiology, thereby contravening s. 8 of the ASLPA.
16Accordingly, we also found that the College established that the registrant: failed to comply with an order of a panel or committee of the College (paragraph 36.1 of s. 1 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation); practised while suspended (paragraph 35); falsified a record; contravened the ASLPA, the RHPA, or the regulations made under those statutes (paragraph 31); and called herself a doctor of audiology (paragraph 16); and that her actions amounted to disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct (paragraph 37).
Penalty and costs
Penalty
17The 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. The penalty must be proportionate to the misconduct.
18The 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)).
19In 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).
20We 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.
21The registrant’s breach of an order, her continuing to practise despite being suspended and her falsifying records merit 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.
22In 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. In both College of Early Childhood Educators v. Debbi Kelley, 2013 ONCECE 4 and College of Pharmacists v. Ayigbe, 2016 ONCPDC 3, falsification of records resulted in revocation.
23We conclude, therefore, that revocation and a reprimand are the appropriate penalties in this case. Remediation is not a factor.
Costs
24The 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.
25We 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.
26We 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.
27We order that the registrant pay costs in the amount of $20,351.39, which represents two-thirds of the actual and anticipated costs of this matter, within a year of the order.
Order
28We 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 $20,351.39 by March 11, 2027.