Case information

Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Freedom of expression — Appeal — Fresh evidence — Conflict of interest — Costs — Whether Court of Appeal erred by denying motion to adduce fresh evidence and by denying leave to appeal — What justification is there in law to prohibit audiologists with doctorate degree in audiology from using the title Doctor in the course of providing or offering health care in Ontario —Whether such a broad and arbitrary prohibition curtails freedom of speech and is not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society — How should appellate courts treat fresh evidence pointing to prosecutorial misconduct in the context of professional discipline cases and applicable standard of review — Whether professional regulatory bodies and courts should order costs against professionals challenging constitutionality of legislation or whether public interest litigation exception should apply?

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Ms. Berge is an audiologist who has a doctorate degree and who practices in Ontario. She was disciplined by the College of Audiologists and Speech Language Pathologists of Ontario for using the title “Doctor” in the course of providing health care to individuals in contravention of s. 33 of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, ch. 18. After exhausting appeal proceedings, she filed motions to the Divisional Court of Ontario seeking an order setting aside or varying the decision of the Divisional Court and other relief. The Divisional Court dismissed the motions. The Court of Appeal denied leave to file fresh evidence and denied leave to appeal.