David Keast

In a professional discipline proceeding, the registrant admitted that he practised psychotherapy while his certificate of registration was suspended and failed to respond to the College within 15 days as required by a prior discipline order.

The Tribunal found professional misconduct under subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code and paragraphs 45, 46, 47, and 52 of s. 1 of O. Reg. 317/12.

Applying the Anthony-Cook standard for joint submissions, the Tribunal accepted a jointly proposed penalty, emphasizing public protection, deterrence, governability, and rehabilitation despite serious concerns arising from repeated non-compliance and prior discipline history.

The Tribunal imposed a reprimand, a suspension for a minimum of four months continuing until specified remediation is completed, additional terms and possible mentoring, and costs of $4,700.

A discipline panel found professional misconduct where the registrant practised psychotherapy while his certificate of registration was suspended for non-payment of fees, used restricted titles during suspension, issued invoices containing false information, and continued online advertising that held him out as a psychotherapist.

The panel held that this conduct contravened the profession’s standards of practice, the title restrictions in the governing statute, and specific misconduct provisions addressing practising and benefiting while suspended.

Applying the Anthony-Cook framework to the parties’ joint submission, the panel concluded that the proposed sanction was not contrary to the public interest.

The panel imposed a two-month suspension, a reprimand, specified remedial study requirements, and costs of $4,700 payable over 24 months.

In an uncontested discipline hearing, the Tribunal found that a psychotherapist committed professional misconduct by engaging in sexual abuse and multiple boundary violations with a vulnerable client during an ongoing therapist-client relationship.

The misconduct included sexualized communications, physical contact, sexual touching, oral-genital contact, and sexual intercourse, alongside conflict of interest and conduct unbecoming the profession.

Applying the Anthony-Cook framework in the professional discipline context, the Tribunal accepted the parties’ joint submission on penalty.

The registrant’s certificate of registration was revoked, a reprimand was delivered, costs were ordered, and reimbursement plus security for therapy and counselling funding were required.

The College prosecuted a discipline case arising from the registrant's criminal guilty plea for recording images and videos of an individual without knowledge or consent.

The registrant admitted professional misconduct based on a finding of guilt for an offence relevant to suitability to practise and conduct unbecoming a psychotherapist.

Applying the stringent joint-submission standard, the tribunal held the proposed penalty was not so unhinged from the circumstances as to bring the discipline system into disrepute.

The tribunal imposed a two-month suspension, ethics-related educational terms, a reprimand, and costs.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the Tribunal found that the registrant used false identities to make repeated false accusations against a College employee, including allegations of anti-2SLGBTQIA+ bias and improper disclosure of confidential information.

The Tribunal admitted forensic IP-address expert evidence under the Mohan and White Burgess frameworks and relied on that evidence, together with the documentary record and the registrant’s non-participation, to conclude on a balance of probabilities that the accusations were fabricated by or at the direction of the registrant.

The conduct was found to contravene College standards, constitute disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct, and amount to conduct unbecoming a member of the profession.

Given the ongoing misconduct, failure to comply with prior regulatory requirements, and failure to participate in the discipline process, the Tribunal found the registrant ungovernable, revoked his certificate of registration, and ordered costs.

A discipline panel found professional misconduct where the registrant, while holding a qualifying certificate, publicly used the title of registered psychotherapist without the required qualifier and posted social media content spreading COVID-19 misinformation and making discriminatory comments about gender, sexuality, and ethnicity.

The panel held that the impugned communications were disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, and in part conduct unbecoming, and that the title misuse also breached registration terms and published standards.

Applying the Doré/Loyola proportionality framework, the panel concluded that the findings appropriately balanced freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter with the regulator’s public-interest mandate to prevent harmful misinformation and maintain trust in the profession.

The registrant’s complete failure to participate in the investigation and hearing process supported a finding of ungovernability.

Revocation and costs of $6,055 were ordered.