Amanda Bettencourt

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel accepted the registrant’s admissions and an agreed statement of facts establishing sexual misconduct, boundary violations, exploitative communications, and false recordkeeping in relation to a vulnerable former client receiving mental health services.

The panel granted a publication ban and sealing order under s. 28(7) to protect the client’s identity and clinical information.

The misconduct was found to breach multiple provisions of the governing statute, regulation, and standards of practice, including sexual relations with a client, conflicts of interest, failure to maintain boundaries, and disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The panel accepted a joint penalty submission imposing a reprimand, revocation, a five-year reapplication bar, publication of the decision, and $5,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found that the registrant committed extensive professional misconduct arising from boundary violations with a vulnerable client, including a later sexual relationship with a former counselling client, confidentiality breaches, inadequate records, and conflicts of interest.

The panel accepted the registrant’s admissions and the agreed statement of facts, and held that the conduct contravened multiple provisions of the governing statute, regulation, and professional standards, including conduct reasonably regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

A publication ban protecting the client’s identity was granted in the public interest.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordered revocation, a five-year prohibition on re-application or reinstatement, publication of the finding and order, a reprimand, and $5,000 in costs.

The Discipline Committee considered whether a member committed professional misconduct by failing for years to disclose a Florida health-care-fraud conviction, a foreign licence revocation, and an Ontario impaired driving conviction in annual registration renewals.

The panel held that the admitted misconduct breached multiple reporting, honesty, record-keeping, and professionalism provisions under the governing statute, regulations, and standards of practice.

Applying disciplinary penalty principles centred on public protection, public confidence, and general deterrence, the panel revoked the member’s certificate, imposed a three-year bar on reapplication, directed publication with identifying information, and ordered an oral reprimand.

The panel also ordered costs of $20,000 payable within three years.

Professional discipline decision concerning a social worker who admitted professional misconduct arising from couples counselling in which she failed to adequately screen for, recognize, and respond to signs of intimate partner abuse.

The panel found that the member failed to make necessary inquiries, assess power dynamics, use appropriate screening tools, ensure a safety plan, and remain current in practice standards and supervision obligations.

The panel also found the conduct dishonourable and unprofessional, particularly given a prior caution on similar issues.

A joint penalty submission was accepted imposing a reprimand, a one-month suspension suspended for two years subject to compliance, remedial education and supervision terms, publication, and $5,000 in costs.

In this professional discipline decision, the panel found a social worker committed multiple acts of professional misconduct arising from family mediation, parenting coordination, and custody-access assessment work.

The admitted misconduct included acting beyond scope by using DSM-based diagnostic language, making unsubstantiated recommendations about clients and children, verbally abusing clients, prioritizing personal interests, using professional authority to harass or improperly influence clients, and failing to report child protection concerns forthwith under s. 72 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The panel held that the conduct contravened multiple provisions of the Professional Misconduct Regulation, the Act, and the College’s standards framework.

It accepted a joint penalty submission imposing a reprimand, a three-month suspension with one month remittable on compliance, remedial terms and conditions, publication, and $5,000 in costs.