Hearing Tribunal Decision & Sanctions

As per ACSLPA Policy, the following was published on June 30, 2025, and will remain on the website for a period of five (5) years after the regulated member completes all outstanding requirements arising from the Hearing Decision.

–

ALBERTA COLLEGE OF SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS AND AUDIOLOGISTS

IN THE MATTER OF THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS ACT

AND IN THE MATTER OF A HEARING REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF

WUN CHIN KELLY CHAN

Summary of the DECISION OF THE HEARING TRIBUNAL & SANCTIONS

Click here for the Full Decision of the Hearing Tribunal & Sanctions

ALLEGATIONS

The Allegations in the Notice to Attend a Hearing were as follows:

1. Between January 26, 2024 – February 7, 2024, you increased the fees charges for SLP services of Client SC without consent from, or notice to, their parent, RC.
2. Between June 2023 – February 2024, you did not fully disclose and/or justify your fees for SLP services to Client SC that were based on a Family Support for Children with Disabilities (“FSCD”) Agreement between Client SC and the Government of Alberta when:
   • Relating to invoices provided for SLP services in June 2023, July 2023, August 2023, September 2023, October 2023, November 2023 and December 2023:
     • You did not describe the allocation of direct and indirect services (as defined by FSCD) being provided to Client SC and by doing so, did not justify the fees charged; and
     • You did not disclose the length of your SLP treatment sessions with Client SC (noted as “home sessions” on invoices), which were 60 minutes between June – September 2023 and 45 minutes between October 2023 – December 2023, and by doing so, did not justify the fees charged.
   • Relating to invoices provided for SLP services in January 2024:
     • You did not describe the allocation of direct and indirect services (as defined by FSCD) being provided to Client SC and by doing so, did not justify the fees charged;
     • The original invoice you provided, and that charged $201.36 for SLP services, inaccurately reflected that Client SC’s “home session” was 90 minutes when the SLP treatment session was only 45 minutes; and
     • The amended invoice you provided, and that charged $176.19 for SLP services, inaccurately reflected that Client SC’s “home session” was 75
       minutes when the SLP treatment session was only 45 minutes.
3. On February 7, 2024, you improperly discontinued SLP services for Client SC including without implementing any discharge planning.

(referred to altogether as the “Allegations”)

FINDINGS

After hearing from both parties and upon reviewing the evidence before it, the Hearing Tribunal finds that Allegations 1, 2, and 3 are proven. The Hearing Tribunal further finds that Ms. Chan’s conduct is unprofessional conduct under subsections 1(1)(pp)(i) and (ii) of the HPA.

CONCLUSION

The Hearing Tribunal finds that the Allegations against Ms. Chan are proven and constitute unprofessional conduct.

The Hearing Tribunal makes the following orders on the terms and conditions outlined in the Joint Submission on Penalty:

1. Ms. Chan shall receive a caution and the Hearing Tribunal’s decision shall serve as a caution.
2. Within 90 days of receiving the Hearing Tribunal’s decision, Ms. Chan shall complete the following remedial education, at her own cost, and shall provide
   proof of completion to the Complaints Director:
   • Education on billing practices: Ethical Documentation and Billing for SLPs (Speechpathology.com) (https://www.speechpathology.com/slpceus/course/ethicaldocumentation-and-billing-for-10747);
   • Education on ethical behavior: Professionalism and Ethics for Healthcare Professionals (NAIT) (https://www.nait.ca/nait/continuing-education/courses/iphe201-professionalismand-ethics-for-healthcare).
   • If any of the required education becomes unavailable, Ms. Chan shall make a written request to the Complaints Director to be assigned alternative education. Upon receiving Ms. Chan’s written request, the Complaints Director, in her sole discretion, may assign alternative education in which case, Ms. Chan will be notified in writing of the new education requirements.
3. Within 90 days of receiving the Hearing Tribunal’s decision, Ms. Chan shall submit a written reflective essay (the “Essay”) to the Complaints Director on
   the following terms and conditions:
   • The Essay must be titled “The Importance of Fee Billing and Client Management: What it Means to my Practice and Profession as a SLP”;
   • The Essay must be at least 600 words;
   • Ms. Chan must review the following documents prior to writing the Essay:
     • ACSLPA’s Standards of Practice (https://www.acslpa.ca/members/standards-ofpractice/), including a specific focus on Standard 4.7 Fees and Billing, Standard 1.3 Client Assessment and Intervention (regarding discharge of clients);
     • ACSLPA’s Code of Ethics (https://www.acslpa.ca/code-of-ethics/).
   • The Essay must be typed and comply with professional formatting guidelines (e.g. APA); and
   • The Essay must demonstrate at least three (3) goals of improvement on:
     • Ms. Chan’s fee billing practices,
     • Ms. Chan’s practices regarding discharge planning (client management), and/or
     • Ethical obligations and other professional obligations as a SLP relating to fee billing.
4. Ms. Chan shall pay 25% of the total costs of the investigation and hearing, to a maximum of $2,000.00 (the “Costs”) and on the following terms:
   • the Costs are due 24 months after the date that Ms. Chan’s receives a copy of the Hearing Tribunal’s written decision;
   • the Costs must be paid to ACSLPA, whether or not Ms. Chan holds an active practice permit with ACSLPA; and
   • the Costs are a debt owed to ACSLPA and if not paid by the deadline indicated, may be recovered by ACSLPA as an action of debt.
5. Should Ms. Chan fail to comply with any of the orders above within the deadline specified or within the period of the extended deadline granted by
   the Complaints Director, the Complaints Director (or her delegate) may do any or all of the following:
   • Treat Ms. Chan’s non-compliance as information for a complaint under section 56 of the HPA;
   • In the case of failure to complete the course, or pay costs within the timelines referred to above, or within the amended deadline agreed to by the Complaints Director, Ms. Chan’s practice permit will be suspended until she has complied with the outstanding order(s); or
   • Refer the matter back to a hearing tribunal for further direction.
6. Orders 2 – 4 will appear as conditions on Ms. Chan’s practice permit and ACSLPA’s online public register until they are completed and notice of the conditions may be provided pursuant to section 119 of the HPA, as follows:
   • Conduct requirement – Coursework required arising from a disciplinary matter;
   • Conduct requirement – Essay arising from a disciplinary matter;
   • Conduct requirement – Costs arising from a disciplinary matter.
7. Where mutual agreement is required between Ms. Chan and the Complaints Director relating to an outstanding requirement, and an agreement cannot be reached by Ms. Chan and the Complaints Director on the implementation of the outstanding requirement, the Complaints Director (or her delegate) may refer the matter back to a hearing tribunal for further direction.

–