Angèle Desormeau

Following prior findings of professional misconduct arising from boundary violations, inappropriate sexualized comments and disclosures, and deficient record-keeping in counselling sessions with a vulnerable client, the Discipline Committee determined penalty and costs.

The panel held that public protection, maintenance of confidence in the profession, general deterrence, specific deterrence, and remediation required a written reprimand, a five-month suspension, publication, and tailored remedial terms including coursework, reflective essays, employer notification, and practice supervision if the member returned to practice.

The panel treated the absence of mitigating factors flowing from non-participation as significant, while emphasizing the seriousness of the misconduct and the vulnerability of the client.

It also awarded the College $20,000 in costs, payable within 18 months, as fair and reasonable relative to the actual costs incurred.

In this professional discipline penalty decision, the panel imposed a substantial sanction after prior findings that the member deliberately disclosed and promoted access to confidential child-protection-related information belonging to numerous families.

The panel held that penalty had to be grounded in public protection, specific and general deterrence, and remediation, and rejected submissions that no order should issue because the member viewed herself as a whistleblower or had been acquitted in related criminal and Provincial Offences Act proceedings.

The order included a reprimand, a six-month suspension with one month conditionally remittable, educational and regulatory conditions, employer-notification or supervision requirements, publication, and costs.

The panel also held that the governing statute required it to make a penalty order once professional misconduct had been found.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted misconduct arising from counselling a client with an acquired brain injury while lacking relevant competence, using abusive and demeaning communications, breaching confidentiality, and engaging in boundary violations and conflicts of interest through overlapping family representation and personal self-disclosure.

The Panel found the admitted facts established multiple breaches of the governing regulation, the Code of Ethics, and the Standards of Practice Handbook, and further found the conduct disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

Applying the public-interest approach to joint submissions, the Panel accepted the jointly proposed order.

The member was reprimanded, suspended for four months with one month remittable on compliance, made subject to remedial terms and education requirements, and ordered to pay $5,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel dismissed the member's motion to close the hearing, holding that the evidence did not establish a compelling basis under the governing statute or the SPPA to overcome the presumption of public access.

The member admitted allegations arising from inappropriate personal disclosures, boundary violations, repeated contact with a vulnerable client outside sessions and after termination, and disclosure of client information to the client's sister.

The panel found professional misconduct proven and accepted a partial joint penalty submission imposing a reprimand, a five-month suspension with one month conditionally remittable, mandatory boundaries and ethics training, and costs.

On publication, the panel ordered publication with the member's name but directed limited redactions of specific details of the misconduct as a narrower measure addressing the asserted risk of harm.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel considered whether a registered social service worker committed professional misconduct by deliberately accessing confidential child-protection-related records on an agency website, posting a URL to one such document on Facebook, and posting a surreptitiously recorded video containing confidential material.

The panel held that posting the URL expanded public access to information that had the effect of identifying children or families involved in child protection proceedings, contrary to s. 45(8) of the Child and Family Services Act.

It further held that this statutory breach was relevant to suitability to practise, breached professional confidentiality standards under the governing regulation and handbook, and constituted conduct reasonably regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

The allegations of professional misconduct were proven on a balance of probabilities.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found that the member engaged in sexualized and coercive communications with a vulnerable client while providing social service work services, including repeated vulgar comments, requests for photographs, and misuse of his position in relation to medication assistance.

The member did not attend or participate in the hearing, and the panel proceeded in his absence after finding proper notice.

The panel held that the conduct breached the governing statute, the Professional Misconduct Regulation, and the Standards of Practice, and amounted to sexual, verbal, psychological, or emotional abuse, exploitation, and disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

A partial hearing closure and publication ban were ordered to protect the client's identity.

The panel imposed a written reprimand, revocation of registration, a five-year prohibition on reapplying, publication of the decision, and costs of $25,603.35.