Administrative Law - OCASPD

The College alleged that the registrant audiologist engaged in professional misconduct and sexual abuse by inappropriately touching a student volunteer during a clinic visit.

The Discipline Committee found the complainant's evidence credible and concluded that the non-consensual touching occurred.

However, applying the Redhead criteria, the Committee determined the complainant was not a 'patient' under the Code, as the interaction was an educational demonstration rather than a clinical relationship.

Consequently, the sexual abuse allegation was dismissed, but the registrant was found to have committed professional misconduct for disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct, and for failing to maintain the standard of practice.

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 College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought professional misconduct proceedings against the respondent for failing to keep proper records of her speech-language pathology services.

The respondent admitted to the misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, finding it would not bring the administration of the discipline system into disrepute.

The respondent was ordered to serve a one-month suspension, complete an individualized mentorship program and a medical record-keeping course, receive a reprimand, and pay $5,000 in costs.

The registrant, a speech-language pathologist, admitted to professional misconduct for failing to comply with a previous order of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) requiring practice monitoring.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, finding it did not bring the administration of the discipline system into disrepute.

The registrant was reprimanded, suspended for one month, subjected to permanent practice restrictions regarding dysphagia intervention and acute care settings, and ordered to pay $2,000 in costs.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the respondent for failing to comply with an order of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) and failing to respond to College communications.

The respondent admitted to the allegations, citing stress and business issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Discipline Committee found the respondent engaged in professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a minimum three-month suspension, completion of specified courses, compliance with the outstanding ICRC orders, and $10,000 in costs.

The College and the self-represented member brought a joint motion to adjourn the discipline hearing indefinitely.

The member had entered into an undertaking to permanently resign from the College, cease practicing in Ontario, and never reapply for membership.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the permanent removal of the member from practice satisfied the College's mandate to protect the public interest.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member for professional misconduct.

The allegations included submitting improper OHIP claims using a retired physician's billing number, providing inadequate counselling and follow-up care for FM systems, and failing to maintain accurate patient records.

The Member pleaded no contest to the agreed statement of facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member engaged in professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, a public reprimand, and $10,000 in costs, emphasizing the need for specific and general deterrence given the scope and intentionality of the improper billing scheme.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for engaging in a sexual relationship with a former patient shortly after their therapeutic relationship ended.

The member admitted to the allegations and the panel found she engaged in professional misconduct.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty and costs, ordering a public reprimand, a four-month suspension (with three months remitted upon completion of an ethics and boundaries remediation program), a two-year monitoring period, and $5,000 in costs.

The panel noted the member's cooperation, lack of prior disciplinary history, and proactive completion of the remediation program as mitigating factors.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against the respondent, a speech-language pathologist, including failure to supervise support personnel and irregular billing practices.

During the hearing, the respondent notified the College of her decision to close her practice and resign from the College.

The respondent requested that the allegations be withdrawn and removed from the public register.

The Discipline Committee determined it had continuing jurisdiction despite the resignation and could not dismiss the allegations or remove them from the register without the College's consent.

With the consent of both parties, the Committee ordered the hearing adjourned sine die.

The Member, an audiologist, was alleged to have committed professional misconduct by using the title 'doctor' or 'Dr.' in her practice, contrary to section 33 of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The Member brought a motion challenging the College's jurisdiction, the validity of the professional misconduct regulation, the referral process, and the constitutionality of the title restriction under sections 2(b) and 7 of the Charter.

The Discipline Committee dismissed the motion, finding the regulation valid and the Charter rights not infringed, relying on binding precedent that professional title restrictions do not violate freedom of expression or security of the person.

The Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct, ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension (one month remitted), an ethics course, practice inspections, and costs of $97,595.

The Member, an audiologist, faced allegations of professional misconduct for prescribing hearing aids without being involved in patient assessment, selection, or validation, and for failing to keep adequate records.

The Member admitted to the allegations and an Agreed Statement of Facts was presented.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a one-month remitted suspension, remedial education, random audits for two years, and $4,000 in costs.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct relating to inadequate swallowing assessments, failure to obtain informed consent, and failure to keep proper records for two patients.

The member admitted to the allegations and an Agreed Statement of Facts was presented.

The Discipline Committee found that the member committed professional misconduct by failing to maintain standards of practice, failing to keep records, and engaging in unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a two-month suspension (with one month remitted upon completion of remedial courses), practice monitoring, and $2,000 in costs.

The Member, an audiologist, faced allegations of professional misconduct including inadequate record keeping, failure to refer patients for medical evaluation, improper prescription of hearing aids, incomplete assessments, and misleading a College investigator.

The Member admitted to the allegations in an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted a Joint Submission as to Penalty, ordering a reprimand, a four-month suspension (two months suspended upon completion of conditions), monitoring, and costs of $2,000.

The Member, a speech-language pathologist, admitted to professional misconduct including billing inaccuracies, failing to provide services, and conducting visits that were consistently shorter than required.

The Discipline Committee accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts and found the Member committed professional misconduct.

Pursuant to a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a four-week suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, and $3,000 in costs.

The member, a speech-language pathologist, admitted to professional misconduct for inappropriately accessing the personal health information of patients not under her care at the Ottawa Hospital.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the member committed professional misconduct by contravening the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 and hospital policy.

The Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Penalty, ordering a reprimand, a $1,000 fine, and publication of the decision with the member's name.

The member, a speech-language pathologist, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to maintain appropriate client records and for using an unregistered name in her practice.

Following a motor vehicle accident, the member's employer discovered that many client records were missing, incomplete, or kept at her home.

The member admitted to the allegations in an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found that the member committed professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a one-month suspension, the completion of a 1,000-word paper on record-keeping, and $500 in costs.

The member pleaded guilty to professional misconduct after initiating magazine subscriptions in the name of a complainant whose previous complaint against the member had been dismissed.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty.

During the penalty phase, the panel denied a request for standing from the complainant's counsel.

The panel also rejected a joint submission on penalty that proposed withholding the member's name from the public register, finding that publication was necessary for general deterrence and public accountability.

The member was reprimanded, ordered to pay $1,500 in costs, and her name was published.