Charlene Crews

In a professional discipline proceeding subject to a publication ban protecting the client’s identity, the panel found that the member committed professional misconduct by engaging in repeated boundary crossings and a sexual relationship with a vulnerable counselling client during and after the therapeutic relationship.

The panel held that the admitted conduct contravened multiple provisions of the Professional Misconduct Regulation and the College’s Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice Handbook, including obligations concerning sexual misconduct, conflicts of interest, professional boundaries, and responsibility to clients.

The panel accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty, applying the principle that a joint submission should not be rejected unless following it would bring the tribunal’s integrity into disrepute.

The member’s certificate of registration was revoked, re-application was barred for five years, a reprimand was ordered, and costs of $5,000 were imposed.

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.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted extensive misconduct involving forged client signatures, fabricated clinical records, backdated documentation, inaccurate service information, and emailing confidential client records to a personal email account.

The panel accepted the admissions and found professional misconduct proven under the governing statute and regulation, while holding that the conduct was dishonourable and unprofessional but not disgraceful given the acknowledged health context.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty aimed at public protection and remediation.

The order included a reprimand, a suspended eight-month suspension effective only upon any future reissuance of registration, conditions requiring ethics and clinical documentation courses, publication, and $5,000 in costs.

Following earlier findings of professional misconduct, the discipline panel conducted a penalty and costs hearing by videoconference.

The parties presented a joint submission seeking a reprimand, revocation of registration, a five-year bar on re-application or reinstatement, publication, and fixed costs.

The panel accepted the joint submission, holding that the proposed order served public protection, maintained confidence in professional regulation, and advanced specific and general deterrence.

The panel considered revocation appropriate for sexual abuse or sexual misconduct findings and approved agreed costs of $15,000 inclusive of HST.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found that a social work practicum student supervised by the member was a client within the meaning of the governing standards.

The panel accepted the student's evidence of repeated boundary violations, sexualized remarks, inappropriate personal conduct, and sexual touching occurring during and immediately after the placement relationship.

It held that the member failed to maintain professional boundaries, acted in a conflict of interest, and sexually abused a client within the statutory framework.

The panel further found the conduct dishonourable and unprofessional, though not disgraceful, and imposed a publication ban protecting the student's identity.

In a professional discipline hearing, the tribunal found the member guilty of professional misconduct for repeatedly accessing sealed adoption records without authorization, copying or noting their contents, and disclosing the information to an adoptee with whom she was in a personal relationship.

The tribunal held that pre-registration conduct could ground discipline where it bore on current suitability to practise and found the member's confidentiality breach, dishonesty during the employer investigation, and resulting harm to affected persons demonstrated disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty despite expressing concern that revocation might otherwise have been warranted.

It imposed an oral reprimand, a 16-month suspension with partial remission conditional on compliance, remediation terms, publication, and $13,000 in costs.

The member moved to stay disciplinary proceedings arising from alleged unauthorized access to child protection records and online disclosure of confidential information until the completion of related criminal and Provincial Offences Act proceedings.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald framework and the principle that stays of parallel civil or disciplinary proceedings are exceptional, the panel found the asserted prejudice to fair trial rights was speculative and unsupported by clear evidence.

The panel held that overlap in underlying facts did not eliminate the distinct public protection purpose, issues, and standard of proof in the discipline matter.

The balance of convenience favoured the College and the public interest in timely professional regulation, particularly given the seriousness of the allegations, prior delay, and the indefinite nature of the requested stay.

The motion was dismissed and the parties were directed to schedule the discipline hearing.

In a professional discipline motion, the member sought to quash a notice of hearing on the basis that the alleged misconduct occurred before registration.

The Panel held that the Discipline Committee has jurisdiction over pre-membership conduct where a broad and purposive reading of the governing statute, informed by the College's public protection mandate, supports that result.

The Panel rejected the submission that the registration regime exhaustively addresses pre-registration misconduct and held that the presumption against retrospectivity does not bar jurisdiction in this public protection context.

It adopted a suitability-based threshold, holding that jurisdiction extends to pre-membership conduct that calls into question the member's current suitability to practise.

The College prosecuted a discipline case arising from a social worker’s prolonged boundary violations with a client receiving counselling and psychotherapy, including frequent after-hours electronic communications, inappropriate self-disclosure, inadequate charting, and termination of services without a proper termination session.

The Panel accepted an agreed statement of facts and found professional misconduct under the governing statute and regulation, including failures to maintain boundaries, document care, obtain timely consultation, and provide professionally grounded services.

The Panel held that the conduct would reasonably be regarded as dishonourable or unprofessional.

It accepted a joint submission on penalty and imposed a reprimand, a three-month suspension, remedial terms including training, psychotherapy and supervision, publication, and $1,000 in costs.