by Esther Nwator August 22, 2017 4 min read

“What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Not so for an Ontario-based audiologist with a doctorate degree in audiology, who last year was found guilty of professional misconduct by the College of Audiologists and Speech Language Pathologists, suspended for 3 months and along with other steps, ordered to pay a fine of approximately $100,000 for inappropriately using the abbreviation ‘Dr.’ before her name. For this audiologist, it was important to be able to use the honorific ‘Dr.’ and she challenged the College’s decision to Ontario’s Divisional Court on the basis that she had a constitutional right to use it. She made the not unreasonable argument that there was no difference between a four-year degree on the eyes (for an optometrist), four years on the mouth and teeth (a dentist) and four years on the ears (an audiologist). Audiologists diagnose, treat and manage hearing problems and balance disorders. In Ontario, physicians, dentists, chiropractors, optometrists, and psychologists are among those allowed to use the abbreviation ‘Dr.’ before their name. Audiologists are not.

The Divisional Court Decision

Ontario’s Divisional Court decided her College’s decision was entitled to deference and upheld the decision. See the Divisional Court decision here. In essence, the audiologist could not use the abbreviation even though the other health professionals listed above, could. The court said:
“Unlike the five health professions authorized to use the “Doctor” title, no class of audiologist certificate required an applicant to have passed a licensing examination. Furthermore, unlike the other professions, audiologists were not entitled to communicate a diagnosis as the cause of an individual’s symptoms”.
This decision was largely based on provisions within the Regulated Health Professions Act (‘RHPA’), including a provision which states:

Restriction of title “doctor”

33(1) Except as allowed in the regulations under this Act, no person shall use the title “doctor”, a variation or abbreviation or an equivalent in another language in the course of providing or offering to provide, in Ontario, health care to individuals. 1991, c. 18, s. 33 (1).
It might seem unfair, illogical even. But this can be a harsh reality and a source of confusion for some who believe they are entitled to use the abbreviation ‘Dr.’, including some holders of doctorate degrees who can find themselves prevented at law (by the RHPA and The Medicine Act, among others) from using this abbreviation or the title ‘Doctor’. The reason has less to do with verifying those using the title ‘doctor’ (or a variation, abbreviation or equivalent in another language) have appropriate qualifications and training, and everything to do with the various Colleges’ mandate of protecting the public through regulation in Ontario. First, you have to be a member of one of the groups of health professionals with prima facie entitlement to use the title (see section 33(2) of the RHPA). Second, even if you are a member of one of those professions, if you are not registered with the relevant regulatory College in Ontario, say the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, or the College of Chiropractors of Ontario, you cannot use the title ‘while providing or offering to provide healthcare in Ontario’. A primary objective for the Colleges seems to be preventing confusion among members of the public. Among others, a problem can arise for:
  • ‘Doctors’ from other jurisdictions working in research, consulting or teaching roles in Ontario, but not registered with an Ontario College; and
  • Ontario health professionals who let their Ontario registration lapse and take time out, say, for business, or other endeavors.
Whether or not the health professional will be deemed to have inappropriately used a ‘restricted title’ will be determined by the relevant College, by applying the law to the facts of that situation. What some health professionals may find surprising is that even where a College has no jurisdiction over them, insofar as they are not members of the College, the College can still take legal action impacting the health professional directly, pursuant to the ‘public safety’ mandate. Some health professionals may therefore find themselves ‘named and shamed’ in the ‘Unregistered Practitioners’ page of the relevant College for their profession in Ontario, and possibly facing another penalty, which can include an injunction or other legal sanction.

Concluding Thoughts

Ignorance of the RHPA provisions (and other related Acts) on this issue does not constitute a defence, and health professionals with concerns about how these provisions might apply to them are advised to seek legal advice. For advice and guidance on health law matters, contact Wise Health Law.Our experienced lawyers focus on helping health professionals and national and provincial health professional associations, among others, find solutions to their legal and regulatory problems. For the convenience of our clients, we have offices in both Toronto and Oakville, Ontario, and are easily accessible. Contact us online, or at 416-915-4234for a consultation.

Also in Blog

Bill 218: Supporting Ontario’s Recovery Act, 2020

by Valerie Wise October 23, 2020 3 min read

On October 20, 2020, the Ontario government introduced legislation to provide protection from liability for workers, volunteers and organizations who make “good faith efforts” to comply with federal, provincial or municipal law and public health guidance relating to COVID-19.   
Cases to Watch: Marchi v. Nelson

by Mina Karabit September 22, 2020 3 min read

In August 2020, the Supreme Court heard and granted leave to appeal in Marchi v. Nelson, a case from the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision is one to watch as it will likely result in a renewed discussion of the distinction of policy versus operational decisions and their impacts on liability in tort law. The discussion will likely impact many of the anticipated post-COVID-19 lawsuits against public and government institutions.
Judicial Review: New Time Limits and a Helpful Primer

by Mina Karabit September 17, 2020 4 min read

In December 2019, Ontario’s Attorney General introduced Bill 161, the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act (the “Act”), which became law on July 8, 2020. The Act hopes to simplify a complex and outdated justice system by bringing changes to how legal aid services are delivered, how class actions are handled, and how court processes are administered.

Of note, the Act has amended the Judicial Review Procedures Act (JRPA) to establish new rules as to when an application for judicial review may be brought.

Any decisions made on or after July 8, 2020 are now subject to a 30-day limit for bringing an application for judicial review unless another Act provides otherwise. Courts, however, retain powers to extend the time for making an application for judicial review if satisfied that there are apparent grounds for relief and that no prejudice or hardship will be incurred by the delay. Before these amendments, the JRPA did not set out any time limits for bringing an application, but courts had powers to extend the time to bring an application if another Act prescribed the limit.