Candice Snake

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found the registrant guilty of multiple heads of professional misconduct arising from boundary violations, sexualized remarks, inappropriate self-disclosure, and exploitative communications with two clients in the course of counselling and psychotherapy services.

The panel held that the admitted conduct breached the governing statute, the Professional Misconduct Regulation, and the College’s Handbook standards, and constituted sexual abuse through behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature not clinically appropriate to the services provided.

The panel also accepted that out-of-session and post-termination text communications, including a semi-nude photograph sent to a former client, formed part of the misconduct analysis.

A publication ban protecting the clients’ identities was granted, the two notices were combined, and the joint submission on penalty was accepted.

The registrant was reprimanded, his certificate of registration was revoked, publication was ordered, and costs of $5,000 were imposed.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found that the registrant committed professional misconduct by entering into an inappropriate relationship with a vulnerable client, engaging in multiple boundary crossings, operating in a conflict of interest, and failing to maintain adequate clinical records.

The misconduct included out-of-session personal contact, exchange of gifts, purchase of the client’s vehicle at less than fair market value, discussion of end-of-life planning in circumstances later followed by a substantial testamentary bequest, and deficient documentation.

The panel accepted the registrant’s admissions and the agreed statement of facts, and concluded that the conduct was dishonourable and unprofessional and undermined public confidence in the profession.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, imposed a three-month suspension with two months remittable on conditions, ordered ethics-related remediation and publication, and awarded costs of $5,000.

In a professional discipline hearing, a registrant admitted serious boundary violations and sexual misconduct toward a vulnerable former inpatient addiction client, including continued off-hours personal contact, having the client live with him, ongoing counselling in a conflict of interest, and sexualized touching.

The panel found the agreed facts proved professional misconduct under the governing statute, regulation, code of ethics, and standards of practice, and held that sexual abuse did not require sexual intercourse because remarks, touching and behaviour of a sexual nature were sufficient.

A publication ban protecting the client's identity was granted under s. 28(7).

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty and costs, emphasizing public protection, deterrence, and the registrant's permanent undertaking never to return to practice, and ordered a reprimand, publication, and $5,000 in costs.

A discipline panel found a social worker guilty of extensive professional misconduct arising from a prolonged therapeutic relationship with a vulnerable client.

The admitted misconduct included boundary crossings, conflicts of interest involving multiple family members, confidentiality breaches, failure to respond appropriately to dependency and addiction issues, failure to report child protection concerns, improper termination, and inappropriate fee practices.

Applying the public-interest standard for joint penalty submissions, the panel accepted a joint submission imposing a reprimand, a nine-month suspension with a conditional remission component, remedial ethics training, practice restrictions, publication, and costs.

Because of the publication ban, identifying details concerning the client were not reproduced.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the registrant admitted conducting multiple unauthorized searches in the Child Protection Information Network and improperly accessing confidential records belonging to several child protection agencies.

The panel found that the conduct breached employer confidentiality policies, contravened Part X of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and constituted professional misconduct under the governing statute and regulation.

Accepting a joint submission, the panel imposed a reprimand, a three-month suspension, remedial coursework, practice restrictions and reporting obligations, and publication terms.

The panel also ordered costs of $5,000 payable to the College.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the registrant admitted allegations that he misrepresented himself as a friend's social worker in communications with another regulator and disclosed a client's personal health and identifying information to that friend without consent.

The panel found the admitted facts proved professional misconduct under the governing statute, regulation, handbook standards, and PHIPA, including dishonourable and unprofessional conduct, while stopping short of classifying the conduct as disgraceful because of significant mitigating personal health circumstances.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, emphasizing public protection, deterrence, remediation, and the principle that a joint submission should be accepted unless contrary to the public interest.

The resulting order imposed a reprimand, a three-month suspension with one month remittable on compliance, practice-related educational and regulatory conditions, publication, and $5,000 in costs.