Indexed as: Ontario (College of Psychologists of Ontario) v. Manion, 2019 ONCPD 5
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. Ian Manion
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION
Panel Members:
Ms. Christine DiZazzo
Chair (Professional Member of Council)
Dr. Denise Milovan
Member (Professional Member of Council)
Dr. Donna Reist
Member (Professional Member)
Mr. Cory Richman
Member (Public)
Mr. Emad Hussain
Member (Public)
Hearing Date:
December 3, 2019
Decision Date:
December 3, 2019
Release of Written Reasons:
December 12, 2019
COUNSEL:
Mr. David Porter, Counsel to the College of Psychologists of Ontario
Mr. Todd Burke, Counsel for the Member
Mr. Ian Roland, Counsel to the Discipline Committee of the College of Psychologists of Ontario
DECISION WITH RESPECT TO PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
AND REASONS FOR DECISION
Pursuant to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 (the “RHPA”) and the Health Professions Procedural Code, as amended, a Panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Psychologists (the “Panel”) held a hearing on December 3, 2019, to hear and determine specific allegations of professional misconduct against Dr. Ian Manion, as noted in the Notice of Hearing dated May 31, 2019.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
Counsel for the College requested that the Panel order a publication ban with respect to the name of the client. There was no objection to this request. The Panel ordered a publication ban of the name of the client. The client will be referred to as Dr. X.
The first of the 3 specified allegations against Dr. Manion described in the Notice of Hearing was withdrawn by agreement of the parties. The remaining allegations are as follows:
ALLEGATIONS
In the course of rendering professional services to Dr. X, you failed to maintain the standards of the profession, including standards 2.1 (General Conduct) and 12.5 (Relations with Current or Former Clients) of the Standards of Professional Conduct (Effective September 1, 2005, Revised March 27, 2009), contrary to section 1, paragraph 2 of O. Reg. 801/93.
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, paragraph 34 of O. Reg. 801/3.
By way of further particulars in the Notice of Hearing, it is alleged that:
(a) Between March 16, 2015 and October 1, 2015, Dr. X attended approximately nine therapy sessions with you at your private practice office on Russell Road in Ottawa, Ontario.
(b) In May, June, July, and August 2015, emails between you and Dr. X reflect a mix of [information redacted], personal and [information redacted] communications.
(c) In email exchanges dated October 2, 2015, you and Dr. X made plans to meet on October 16, 2015, to discuss a non-therapy related matter. You met with Dr. X at your office at the Centre of Excellence on October 16, 2015, and again on October 30, 2015, to discuss non-therapy related matters.
(d) On or around November 14, 2015, Dr. X visited you at your office at the Centre for Excellence. During the visit there was sexual contact between you and Dr. X involving hugging, kissing and touching of a sexual nature. As a result of the sexual contact, you concluded that there could be no additional therapeutic contact and offered to assist Dr. X in finding a new therapist.
(e) Starting in late 2015 or early 2016, you engaged in a romantic and sexual relationship with Dr. X, which included oral/genital sexual contact in the spring of 2016 and sexual intercourse in May of 2017.
At the hearing, Dr. Manion admitted to these allegations of professional misconduct.
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts into evidence at the hearing. It states:
1- Dr. Ian Manion was engaged in the practice of psychology in Ottawa in 2015. His private clinical office was located at 1929 Smyth Road, Suite 220 in Ottawa, Ontario. Beginning in March 2015 he saw an adult, [information redacted], Dr. X, as a client for psychological services in relation to stressors that she was experiencing [information redacted]. Dr. Manion’s chart contains billings, and clinical notes, for 8 therapeutic sessions with Dr. X commencing March 16, 2015 and recording the last therapeutic session on October 1, 2015.
2- In addition, Dr. Manion has notes in Dr. X’s chart for October 30, 2015 concerning Dr. X’s meeting with him at the Ontario Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental Health (“Centre”) located at 695 Industrial Ave in Ottawa, Ontario, about [information redacted]. Dr. Manion also has notes of a subsequent incident on Sunday, November 14, 2015 concerning another meeting with Dr. X at the Centre and the events of that date. It is agreed that the notes of November 14, 2015 accurately record the events of that date.
3- On Sunday, November 14, 2015, Dr. X contacted Dr. Manion at the Centre and then went and saw him there. While there, she disclosed that she was having recurring thoughts about him and was attracted to him. Dr. Manion’s notes state:
“discussed not unusual in therapy – we should discuss in a therapy session”.
Dr. Manion acknowledges that, in this session, there was sexual contact. His notes state:
“[X] got up to leave – hugged – escalated to mutual kissing and some petting”.
Dr. Manion indicate that they stopped when he said “we had to talk about this boundary violation”. He notes:
“[X], [information redacted], and knows this too
compromised therapeutic rel.
I can’t continue to work as her therapist, can’t see her outside of [therapy] either”.
Dr. Manion’s note continues:
“[X] said she understood. I offered to assist in finding a new therapist – [X] declined. She said she would prefer to do that herself.
Dr. Manion’s notes included a plan which states
“no additional therapeutic contact. No more contact permitted”.
4- After November 14, 2015 Dr. X did not continue in therapy with Dr. Manion.
5- After the termination of the psychologist/client relationship in 2015, Dr. Manion and Dr. X had an intimate relationship. There was oral/genital sexual contact in the spring of 2016 and Dr. X and Dr. Manion had sexual intercourse in May 2017.
6- It is agreed that Dr. Manion had a sexual relationship with Dr. X within two years of the ending of the therapeutic relationship between Dr. Manion and Dr. X.
7- Accordingly, the College and Dr. Manion agree that Dr. Manion committed professional misconduct as alleged in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the original Notice of Hearing.
PENALTY AND REASONS FOR PENALTY
Based upon the admission by Dr. Manion to the allegations of professional misconduct and the Agreed Statement of Facts, the Discipline Committee Panel found Dr. Manion guilty of professional misconduct as follows:
In the course of rendering professional services to Dr. X, you failed to maintain the standards of the profession, including standards 2.1 (General Conduct), and 12.5 (Relations with Current or Former Clients) of the Standards of Professional Conduct (Effective September 1, 2005, Revised March 27, 2009), contrary to Section 1, paragraph 2 of Ontario Regulation 801/93 (“O. Reg. 801/93”).
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, paragraph 34 of O. Reg. 801/93.
The parties submitted a joint submission on penalty in the form of a draft Order. They also filed a letter from Dr. Mountain, the pre-hearing chair, that supports the joint penalty.
After hearing submissions from counsel for the College and counsel for Dr. Manion, the Panel accepted the joint submission on penalty. It concluded that the penalty fairly expressed the seriousness of Dr. Manion’s misconduct while, at the time, afforded him the opportunity to continue his professional career, provided he take necessary remedial steps. In accepting the joint penalty, the panel recognised that Dr. Manion has had a long and, until now, unblemished career, and that he fully co-operated with College throughout the investigation and discipline process.
PENALTY
The penalty is as follows:
Dr. Manion will attend before the Discipline Committee to be reprimanded; and
Dr. Manion’s Certificate of Registration will be suspended, for a period of twelve months, commencing on December 4, 2019, the last four months of which will be suspended on the conditions that:
3. Dr. Manion, at his own expense, attends and completes the PROBE course with an unconditional pass; and Dr. Manion thereafter, at his own expense, attends the PROBE PLUS course and obtains a pass, and Dr. Manion provides the results of the PROBE and PROBE PLUS courses to the Registrar on or prior to August 4, 2020.
In addition, Dr. Manion is ordered to pay Discipline Hearing costs in the amount of $2,000, within 30 days of December 3, 2019.
Dr. Manion waved his right to appeal. Consequently, the Panel delivered the oral reprimand to Dr. Manion at the conclusion of the hearing.
Dated this 10th day of December, 2019
“Christine DiZazzo”
(Chair) Ms. Christine DiZazzo, C.Psych.Assoc.
“Donna Reist”
Dr. Donna Reist, C.Psych.
“Denise Milovan”
Dr. Denise Milovan, C.Psych.
“Cory Richman”
Mr. Cory Richman, Public Member
“Emad Hussain”
Mr. Emad Hussain, Public Member
TEXT OF REPRIMAND DELIVERED TO DR. MANION
Dr. Manion, 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 have pleaded guilty today.
We trust that you understand the severity of your behaviours. You failed to maintain the standards of the profession and engaged in a romantic and sexual relationship with a former client.
Dr. Manion, we hope that you understand the impact that your behavior has had on the trust and respect placed in our profession by members of the public.
In working with a vulnerable person who had not had time to separate from the therapeutic relationship, your actions crossed the boundary between the personal and professional. Your behaviour was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.
Dr. Manion, to your credit, you accepted responsibility for your actions and agreed to the joint submission of penalty without the need for a lengthy hearing. Your agreement to participate in the PROBE and PROBE Plus courses and to proactively register in these programmes as well as to accept a lengthy suspension of your license, demonstrate your remorse and willingness to learn from this experience. We expect that this will ensure that in the future you will not engage in any actions that violate the standards of the profession.
We agree that this penalty is fair, proper and reflects the seriousness of your behaviour. This penalty along with your suspension will restore confidence to the public and to the members of our profession, that behaviour of this type will not be tolerated.
This is not an official transcript