Ontario (College of Psychologists of Ontario) v. Seidman, 2019 ONCPD 3

Ontario (College of Psychologists of Ontario) v. Seidman, 2019 ONCPD 3

Indexed as: Ontario (College of Psychologists of Ontario) v. Seidman, 2019 ONCPD 3

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF PSYCHOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO

IN THE MATTER OF

The Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c.18

and the Psychology Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c.38

Between:

The College of Psychologists of Ontario

• and -

Dr. Bonnie Seidman

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

Panel Members:

Dr. Allyson Harrison

Chair (Professional Member)

Ms. Christine DiZazzo

Member (Professional Member)

Dr. Elizabeth Levin

Member (Professional Member of Council)

Mr. Cory Richman

Member (Public)

Mr. Emad Hussain

Member (Public)

Hearing Date:

May 28, 2019

Decision Date:

May 28, 2019

Release of Written Reasons:

June 4, 2019

COUNSEL:

Mr. David Porter, Counsel to the College of Psychologists of Ontario

Mr. Kurt Pearson, Counsel for the Member

Mr. Ian Roland, Counsel to the Discipline Committee of the College of Psychologists of Ontario

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to the Health Professions Procedural Code, as amended, the Panel of the Discipline

Committee of the College of Psychologists of Ontario held a hearing on May 28, 2019, to hear and determine specific allegations of professional misconduct against Dr. Bonnie Seidman, as outlined in the Notice of Hearing, dated June 19, 2018.

PRELIMINARY ORDER

Counsel for the College requested that the Panel order a publication ban with respect to the name of the complainant and the name of the client. There was no objection to this request, and a publication ban was ordered in this regard. The complainant will hereafter be referred to as Ms. Y and the client as Mr. X.

ALLEGATIONS

In the Notice of Hearing, it is alleged that Dr. Seidman is guilty of professional misconduct under section 51(1)(c) of the Code, the Psychology Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c.38 (the “Act”) and the Regulations thereto, all as amended.

The particulars of the allegations are as follows:

1. In the course of rendering professional services to Mr. X, you sexually abused him, contrary to section 51(1)(b.1) of the Code.

2. You practiced the profession while you were in a conflict of interest, contrary to section 1.10 of Ontario Regulation 801/93, the Professional Misconduct Regulation under the Psychology Act, 1991 (“O. Reg. 801/93”).

3. You engaged in conduct or performed an act, in the course of practicing the profession that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to section 1.34 of O. Reg. 801/93.

4. You made a record or issued or signed a certificate, report, or similar document that you knew or ought to have known was false, misleading, or otherwise improper, contrary to section 1.20 of O. Reg. 801/93.

5. You failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to section 1.2 of O. Reg. 801/93. In particular, you failed to maintain standards:

o 2.1 (General Conduct); and

o 12.5 (Relations with Current or Former Clients).

By way of further particulars, it is alleged that:

(a) You are the owner of Onward Psychology and Neurofeedback, a clinic

which provides neurofeedback services.

(b) On or about September 9, 2014, Mr. X attended your clinic for the first time. At that time he met with you and filled out client information and consent forms, both of which were under your name.

(c) Thereafter, Mr. X began to receive neurofeedback services at your clinic on a weekly or bi-weekly basis until June 23, 2015.

(d) The neurofeedback sessions were administered by your Clinic Technician.

(e) The neurofeedback sessions constituted psychological services and were

conducted under your supervision as a psychologist and/or clinic owner.

(f) For each neurofeedback session Mr. X attended, you issued an invoice for "psychological services" to Mr. X.

(g) These invoices were submitted to Mr. X’s insurance company for reimbursement.

(h) In or around July 2015, you and Mr. X became involved in an intimate and romantic relationship.

(i) After the start of your intimate and romantic relationship, Mr. X attended your clinic again for neurofeedback sessions. Mr. X continued to receive neurofeedback services at your clinic between September 2015 to June 2016, and September 2016 to March 2017.

The College withdrew Allegations 1 and 4, and the allegations of “disgraceful, dishonourable” in Allegation 3.

THE PLEA

Dr. Seidman admitted to Allegations of misconduct 2, 3 (with respect to “unprofessional” only) and 5 as set out in the Notice of Hearing.

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

Counsel for the College and Dr. Seidman submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts with respect to the Allegations. It reads as follows:

1. Dr. Bonnie Seidman (“Dr. Seidman”) obtained her Certificate of Registration for a Psychologist authorizing autonomous practice on June 9, 1994, having completed her PhD in psychology at Queen’s University at Kingston in 1992. Her authorized area of practice is clinical psychology and her authorized client populations are for couples and adults.

2. Dr. Seidman established the Kingston Psychology and Neurofeedback Clinic in 2012. Dr. Seidman owns the Clinic, which was renamed Onward Psychology and Neurofeedback (the “Clinic”) in 2016. Dr. Seidman engages in the practice of psychology at the Clinic.

3. At the Clinic, Dr. Seidman offers neurofeedback training (NF) which is administered by a technician employed in the Clinic. In or about 2014-2017 Dr. Seidman’s internet profile stated the following:

“I am sensitive to the differing needs and challenges of clients I work with, and offer a variety of therapeutic approaches. I am interested in the thoughtful integration of evidence-based therapies (e.g. cognitive-behavioural therapy) with adjunctive practices (e.g. meditation, yoga, neurofeedback). I am pleased to announce that our clinic offers neurofeedback training. Neurofeedback, a form of

E.E.G. biofeedback, is a non-invasive, drug-free form of brain training which has been found to improve overall cognitive functioning. Neurofeedback training can help reduce symptoms of various psychological problems, can improve overall cognitive abilities (e.g. attention/focus), and can help with the ability to regulate emotions.”

4. For most clients at the Clinic, Dr. Seidman provides psychotherapy and her technician provides neurofeedback training. A small percentage of clients attend at the Clinic to receive neurofeedback training only, which is provided by her technician who is an employee of the Clinic.

5. At all material times, it was Dr. Seidman’s practice to speak to all potential clients who were interested in neurofeedback to ask them a few questions as to why they wanted to start neurofeedback to ensure that the person was an appropriate candidate for neurofeedback training.

6. Mr. X first attended the Clinic on September 9, 2014 for the purpose of obtaining neurofeedback training. At the time of his attendance, Mr. X met briefly with Dr. Seidman and her technician and reviewed with them his suitability for neurofeedback training. He advised that he was attending for neurofeedback as a result of several concussions and his post-concussion syndrome. He told them that he was very familiar with NF as he had previously received neurofeedback at another clinic and it was giving him relief with respect to his ability to sleep, his concentration and his irritability.

7. On September 9, 2014, Mr. X signed the Neurofeedback Training Consent Form (the “consent form”) attached to this Agreed Statement of Facts as Appendix A. In the consent form Dr. Seidman accepted overall responsibility for the provision of the neurofeedback training to Mr. X at the Clinic.

8. Mr. X began neurofeedback training at the Clinic and attended generally weekly from September 9, 2014 to June 23, 2015, from September 8, 2015 to June 29, 2016, and from September 22, 2016 to March 15, 2017. The Clinic records for the neurofeedback training in this time period are attached as Appendix B to this Agreed Statement of Facts.

9. Each neurofeedback training session was provided by Dr. Seidman’s technician at the Clinic.

10. The neurofeedback technology used in the Clinic was NeurOptimal by Zengar, an Electroencephalogram (EEG) machine. For each attendance, the technician hooked the client up to the neurofeedback machine, and left the client alone in a room in the Clinic for approximately 30 minutes while the neurofeedback training occurred. This practice was followed in the neurofeedback training received by Mr. X. Apart from the brief contact she had on September 9, 2014, Dr. Seidman did not herself have contact with Mr. X when he received his neurofeedback training at the Clinic.

11. In July 2015, Dr. Seidman began to take sailing lessons with a friend at the Kingston Yacht Club. She saw Mr. X at a social gathering related to sailing in July 2015.

12. Dr. Seidman and Mr. X began a personal, romantic and sexual relationship from in or about July 2015 which continues to the present day. At no point did Mr. X receive psychotherapy from Dr. Seidman.

13. After the personal, romantic and sexual relationship began with Mr. X in July 2015, Mr. X continued to attend the Clinic for neurofeedback training sessions from September 2015 to June 2016 and September 2016 to March 2017.

14. For all of his neurofeedback sessions at the Clinic, Mr. X obtained invoices signed by Dr. Seidman for “psychological services”. From in or about September 2014 to September 2015, the receipts were handwritten. An example of a handwritten receipt, dated February 3, 2015, is attached as Appendix C to this Agreed Statement of Facts.

15. From in or about September 2015 the receipts for psychological services for the neurofeedback training were provided in typewritten form on the letterhead of Kingston Psychology and Neurofeedback Clinic in the name of Dr. Bonnie Seidman, PhD., C. Psych. No. 2674, charging for psychological services (NF-P) which Dr. Seidman indicates referred to neurofeedback – private. An example of the typed form of receipt, dated September 8, 2015, is attached as Appendix D to this Agreed Statement of Facts.

16. Dr. Seidman was aware at this time that receipts for “psychological services” could be submitted to insurers for reimbursement if a client had insurance coverage. Mr. X submitted the receipts for psychological services provided by Dr. Seidman for the neurofeedback training to his group insurer, Sun Life Financial.

17. The Psychology Act, 1991 S.O. 1991, Chapter 38 defines the scope of practice of psychology as follows:

“The practice of psychology is the assessment of behavioural and mental conditions, the diagnosis of neuropsychological disorders and dysfunctions and psychotic, neurotic and personality disorders and dysfunctions and the prevention and treatment of behavioural and mental disorders and dysfunctions and the maintenance and enhancement of physical, intellectual, emotional, social and interpersonal functioning.”

18. The Standards of Professional Conduct of the College of Psychologists, dated September 1, 2005 (Revised March 27, 2009), Standard 4.1 “Responsibility for Supervised Psychological Services Providers” states:

“Members shall assume responsibility and accountability for the actions and services of all supervised providers of psychological services, including but not limited to employees….”

19. The Standards of Professional Conduct, September 1, 2005 (Revised March 27, 2009) define psychological services as follows:

“Psychological services refer to services of a psychological nature that are provided by or under the direction of a member. Psychological services include, but are not limited to one or more of the following…

(b) interventions with individuals and groups.

20. The College of Psychologists obtained an expert opinion from Dr. Ian R. Nicholson who opined in part in relation to this matter as follows:

“In this situation, a Clinic Technician is providing services that are being receipted as “psychological services” in a Clinic run by the psychologist. The services are dependent upon the psychologist providing/approving the clinic’s clients…. Thus, the supervising member would be expected to have the professional responsibility for all the services provided by the supervisee, which, by virtue of the supervisory relationship becomes delivery of psychological services.[emphasis in the original] … …In this instance, the service was provided to a client who self-identifies as having a diagnosable condition to provide relief for sleep, concentration and irritability. It was provided to clients who are reviewed, albeit briefly, by Dr. Seidman before being provided with the service. Dr. Seidman describes the service as “complimentary [sic] therapy” and as “adjunctive practice” that can “help reduce symptoms of various psychological problems, can improve overall cognitive abilities (e.g. attention/focus) and can help to regulate emotions”. ...

It is my opinion that, this shared understanding of the potential use of this neurofeedback service by Dr. Seidman and Mr. X, combined with the Clinic receipts issued for the service, the supervisory relationship of the direct service provider to the psychologist, and the consent form signed by the client would, together, support the conclusion that the services provided to Mr. X by the Clinic Technician at Dr. Seidman’s clinic would constitute “psychological services”.

21. Mr. X and Dr. Seidman continue a personal, romantic and sexual relationship as partners. Mr. X never initiated, nor does he make any complaint against Dr. Seidman. The College became aware of the personal, romantic relationship between Dr. Seidman and Mr. X as a result of a complaint filed by Ms. Y, with whom Mr. X had previously been in a relationship.

22. The College and Dr. Seidman agree that, in the circumstances described herein, Dr. Seidman was providing psychological services to Mr. X while being engaged in a personal, romantic and sexual relationship with Mr. X from September 2015 throughout the duration of the provision of neurofeedback training until at least March 2017.

23. Dr. Seidman and the College agree that, by continuing to provide psychological services to Mr. X while being involved with him in a personal, romantic and sexual relationship from September 2015 to March 2017, and thereafter, Dr. Seidman practiced the profession while in a conflict of interest contrary to section 1.10 of Ontario Regulation 801/93.

24. Dr. Seidman also acknowledges that the conduct described herein is conduct in the course of practicing the profession that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, contrary to section 1.34 of O. Reg. 801/93.

25. Dr. Seidman and the College also agree that Dr. Seidman failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to section 1.2 of O. Reg. 801/93 in that she failed to maintain standards 2.1 (General Conduct) and 12.5 (Relations with Current or Former Clients). Accordingly, Dr. Seidman acknowledges that she committed professional misconduct as alleged in paragraphs 2, 3, and 5 of the Notice of Hearing dated June 19, 2018.

THE DECISION

Based upon the facts set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts, the Panel accepted the admission of professional misconduct made by Dr. Seidman. The Panel found Dr. Seidman guilty of professional misconduct under section 51(1)(c) of the Code, the Psychology Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 38 (the “Act”) and the Regulations thereto, all as amended. In particular, the Panel found that:

(a) Dr. Seidman practised the profession while in a conflict of interest contrary to Section 1.10 of Ontario Regulation 801/93;

(b) Dr. Seidman engaged in conduct or performed an act, in the course of practising the profession that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, contrary to Section 1.34 of O. Reg. 801/93; and

(c) Dr. Seidman failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to Section 1.2 of O. Reg. 801/93 in that she failed to maintain standards: Section 2.1 (General Conduct), and Section 12.5 (Relations with Current or Former Clients).

PENALTY

The parties made a joint submission on penalty. On the basis of the finding of professional misconduct and the joint submissions made by counsel for the College and Dr. Seidman, the Panel accepted the joint submissions that Dr. Seidman receive a reprimand and that her Certificate of Registration be suspended for 12 months, with 5 months of the suspension to be itself suspended on the condition that Dr. Seidman attend and complete the PROBE course with an unconditional pass. The parties agreed that the period of suspension shall begin on May 29, 2019.

Consequently, the Panel ordered as follows:

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Dr. Seidman will attend before the Discipline Committee to be reprimanded; and

2. Dr. Seidman’s certificate of registration will be suspended immediately (starting on May 29. 2019) for a period of 12 months, with 5 months of the suspension to be suspended on the condition that Dr. Seidman attends and completes the PROBE Course with an unconditional pass.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION ON PENALTY

Reprimand

The reprimand serves as a specific and personal deterrent. It is seen as an appropriate means by which members of the Panel could make clear to the member their concerns with respect to the seriousness of her behaviour, in view of the impact of her misconduct on members of the public and members of the profession.

Dr. Seidman waived her right of appeal. The oral reprimand was delivered to Dr. Seidman immediately following the hearing on May 28, 2019.

Requirement that Dr. Seidman attend the PROBE course

This serves the important public interest of assuring public protection by requiring Dr. Seidman to attend an adjudicated and evaluated course specifically tailored to the specific regulations she was found to have violated. Dr. Seidman expressed remorse for and accepted responsibility for her actions, and the Panel was convinced that this penalty would offer sufficient remediation such that the public will be protected in the future.

Dated this 29th day of May, 2019.

“Allyson Harrison”

(Chair) Dr. Allyson Harrison, C.Psych.

“Elizabeth Levin”

Dr. Elizabeth Levin, C.Psych.

“Christine DiZazzo”

Ms. Christine DiZazzo, C.Psych.Assoc.

“Cory Richman”

Mr. Cory Richman, Public Member

“Emad Hussain”

Mr. Emad Hussain, Public Member

TEXT OF REPRIMAND DELIVERED TO DR. SEIDMAN

Dr. Seidman; you are here today in front of this panel of the College of Psychologists of Ontario Discipline Committee to be reprimanded on your conduct as a psychologist with respect to the allegations to which you pleaded guilty today. We trust that you understand the seriousness of your behaviours. You practiced the profession while you were in a conflict of interest position, engaged in unprofessional behaviour, and failed to maintain the standards of profession.

Dr. Seidman we hope you understand the impact your behaviour has had on the trust placed in our profession by members of the public. Regardless of your mistaken belief that you were not providing direct psychological services, you now understand that supervision itself is considered a direct psychological service, and in no circumstances can you engage in an intimate relationship with a client while clinical services are being provided in your name.

This type of behaviour reflects badly on the profession and undermines the confidence that the public places in our profession.

Dr. Seidman, to your credit, you accepted responsibility for your actions and agreed to the joint submission of penalty without the need for a lengthy hearing. We agree that this penalty is fair, proper, and reflects the seriousness of your behaviour. Your agreement to participate successfully in the PROBE course demonstrates your willingness to learn from this experience to ensure that in future you will not engage in any actions that violate the standards of the profession. This penalty, along with your suspension, will restore confidence to the public and members of our profession that behaviour of this type will not be tolerated.

This is not an official transcript