Gerald Mak

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 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.

A discipline panel found a registered social worker guilty of professional misconduct after she admitted issuing two letters for use in family-court custody and access proceedings without proper authorization, adequate evidentiary foundation, or balanced disclosure to all clients.

The panel held that the member failed to reset counselling goals after the parents' separation, breached confidentiality, made false, misleading, inaccurate or improper statements, and provided custody-related recommendations without conducting the type of comprehensive assessment required for such opinions.

Applying the public-interest approach to joint submissions, the panel accepted a joint submission on penalty.

The order imposed a reprimand, a six-month suspension with one month remittable on compliance, practice conditions including an ethics course, therapy, supervision-related terms, publication, and $5,000 in costs.

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.