Indexed as: Ontario (College of Psychologists of Ontario) v. Rovers, 2021 ONCPD 1

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. Martin Rovers

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

Panel Members:

Dr. Anthony Hopley

Chair, Professional Member

Dr. Janice Currie

Professional Member of Council

Dr. Wanda Towers

Professional Member of Council

Ms. Nadia Mocan

Public Member

Mr. Paul Stopciati

Public Member

Hearing Date:

June 29, 2021

Decision Date:

June 29, 2021

Release of Written Reasons:

July 5, 2021

COUNSEL:

Mr. Robin McKechney, Counsel to the College of Psychologists of Ontario

Mr. Todd Burke and Mr. Aweis Osman, Counsel for the Member

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

INTRODUCTION

1). Pursuant to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 (the “RHPA”) and the Health Professions Procedural Code (the “HPPC”, the Code), as amended, a Panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Psychologists of Ontario held an electronic hearing on June 29, 2021, to hear and determine specific allegations of professional misconduct against Dr. Martin Rovers, as outlined in the Notice of Hearing, dated July 28, 2020, as amended with consent of both parties on June 29, 2021, during the course of the hearing.

PRELIMINARY ORDER

2). No motion was made to close the hearing, though Counsel for the College requested that the Panel order a publication ban with respect to the name of the individual clients under subsection 45(3) of the HPPC. There was no objection to this request, and a publication ban was ordered in this regard. The clients will hereafter be referred to as Client “A” and Client A’s mother, consistent with the Agreed Statement of Facts entered into evidence by the parties.

ALLEGATIONS

3). It is alleged that Dr. Rovers is guilty of professional misconduct under subsection 51(1)(c) of the Code, the Psychology Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c.38, and the Regulations thereto, all as amended.

4). The particulars of the allegations, as amended by agreement of the parties at the hearing, are as follows:

1. You failed to maintain the standards of the profession with respect to the professional services that you rendered to Client A and her mother, including standards 2.1 (General Conduct), 3.1.1 (Meeting Client Needs), 4.1.1(1), (3), and (8) (Supervision), 5.1 (Competence), and 9.5 (Billing) [as amended] of the Standards of Professional Conduct (September 1, 2017), contrary to subsection 1(2) of the Ontario Regulation 801/93, made under the Act (O. Reg. 801/93).

2. You failed to supervise adequately a person who was under your professional responsibility and who was providing a psychological service, contrary to section 1(5) of O. Reg. 801/93.

3. [Removed as amended]

4. 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 unprofessional [as amended], contrary to section 1(34) of O. Reg. 801/93.

By way of further particulars in the Notice of Hearing, it is alleged that:

(a) In or around the spring of 2018, Client A’s family physician prescribed Client A medication for anxiety and depression, and suggested that she seek psychological treatment. Client A was 16 years old at the time;

(b) On May 15, 2018, Client A’s mother, contacted Capital Choice Counselling Group (CCCG) seeking therapy for Client A. A CCCG intake worker referred Client A and her mother to Ms. Michelle April, an independent practitioner and CCCG associate. Between May and June 2018, Ms. April provided psychological services to Client A and various family members (Services). The Services were provided under your supervision;

(c) Ms. April’s private practice website, www.michelleapril.com, and CCCG’s website, https://capitalchoicecounselling.com indicated that you supervised Ms. April’s services and that Ms. April provided individual counselling services to adolescents. You were not authorized to provide psychological services to adolescents at that time;

(d) Your receipts for the Services do not identify Ms. April’s relevant degrees and professional designations, or the recipients of the Services;

(e) Although psychological services are exempt from HST, your receipts indicate that HST was charged for the Services;

(f) You were responsible for the planning, delivery, supervision and billing practices of all of the Services; and

(g) You did not keep a record of your supervision activities and contacts with Ms. April.

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

5). Counsel for the College submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) dated June 25, 2021, with respect to the above allegations. This was entered into evidence along with Appendix A which was referenced in the ASF.

6). During deliberations, the Panel recognized that, in respect of paragraph 10 of the ASF, there was a lack of clarity regarding the supervision notes, and whether they failed to meet the standard of practice for recordkeeping. By agreement of the parties, paragraph 10 was amended to explicitly indicate that these notes were inadequate.

7). The ASF reads as follows:

1. Dr. Rovers is a member of the College of Psychologists of Ontario. He is authorized to practice counselling psychology in relation to adults, couples, families and organizations. He is not authorized to practice counselling psychology in relation to adolescents.

2. Dr. Rovers owns Capital Choice Counselling Group (CCCG). CCCG is associated with counsellors with various areas of specialization, most of whom work under the supervision of Dr. Rovers.

3. Among the counsellors that Dr. Rovers supervised during the relevant time periods was Michelle April. Ms. April is a registered psychotherapist.

4. On the CCCG website, Ms. April’s profile indicated that she provided individual counselling for “adolescents and adults” for issues including “anxiety and depression.” Ms. April’s profile also specified that she is practising “under the direct supervision of Dr. Martin Rovers, Psychologist, Marriage and Family Therapy.” Ms. April’s personal website repeated the same claims. Attached as Appendix “A” is Ms. April’s profile from her personal website (www.michelleapril.com) and the CCCG website.

5. In or around May 2018, Client “A”, a 16 year old female, was diagnosed with depression and anxiety by her family physician. Client “A” was prescribed anti-depressant medication and provided a referral to see a psychologist.

6. As a result of the referral, Client “A”’s mother, conducted online research to find a therapist in their area that specialized in the treatment of adolescents, including depression and anxiety.

7. Client “A”’s mother contacted CCCG requesting a consultation with a therapist who specializes in the treatment of adolescents. In her initial contact, Client “A”’s mother described conflictual family dynamics. She was referred to Ms. April for family and individual counselling for Client “A”. Following an intake session on May 22, 2018, Client “A” and her mother agreed to a treatment plan consisting of family therapy only.

8. Dr. Rovers ought to have known that Ms. April, Dr. Rovers’ supervisee, held herself out to the public as being able to provide individual counselling to adolescents.

9. Ms. April met with Client “A” and various family members of Client “A” on May 22, May 29, June 5, June 12 and June 26, 2018, providing family therapy

10. Dr. Rovers met with Ms. April on May 24, June 8, June 21 and July 18, 2018 as part of regularly scheduled and ad hoc supervisory meetings. Dr. Rovers’ notes regarding his discussions with Ms. April about Client “A” and her family are written on the margin of the intake form and on the reverse side, and are insufficient to meet the standard of 4.1.1(3).

11. The receipts for the sessions provided by Ms. April did not include all the recipients of psychological services or Ms. April’s relevant degrees.

12. It is jointly submitted that in light of the above, Dr. Rovers engaged in the following professional misconduct:

a. Dr. Rovers failed to maintain the standards of the profession with respect to services rendered to Client “A” and Client “A”’s mother, including standards 2.1 (General Conduct), 3.1.1 (Meeting Client Needs), 4.1.1(1), (3) and (8) (Supervision), 5.1 (Competence) and 9.5 (Billing Records) of the Standards of Professional Conduct (September 1, 2005), contrary to subsection 1(2) of Ontario Regulation 801/93, made under the Psychology Act, 1991 (O.Reg. 801/93);

b. Dr. Rovers failed to supervise adequately a person who was under his professional responsibility and who was providing a psychological service, contrary to section 1 paragraph 5 of O. Reg. 801/93; and

c. Dr. Rovers 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, paragraph 34 of O.Reg. 801/93.

THE PLEA

8). Dr. Rovers admitted to the allegations of misconduct as set out in the amended Notice of Hearing. The Panel was satisfied, on inquiry, that the plea was informed, voluntary, and unequivocal.

THE DECISION

9). Based upon the admission of Dr. Rovers to the allegations of professional misconduct in the amended Notice of Hearing and amended Agreed Statement of Facts, The Panel found Dr. Rovers 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 that he failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to section 1, paragraph 2 of O. Reg. 801/93. In particular,

1. He failed to maintain the standards of the Standards of Professional Conduct (September 1, 2017):

a. 2.1 (General Conduct)

b. 3.1.1 (Meeting Client Needs)

c. 4.1.1(1), (3), and (8) (Supervision)

d. 5.1 (Competence)

e. 9.5 (Billing Records).

2. He failed to supervise adequately a person who was under his professional responsibility and who was providing psychological service, contrary to section 1 paragraph 5 of O. Reg. 801/93.

3. In addition, Dr. Rovers did, in the course of practising the profession, engage in conduct or performed an act that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional contrary to s. 1, paragraph 34 of O. Reg 801/93.

PENALTY

10). Having accepted the admission by Dr. Rovers of professional misconduct on the basis of the agreed facts admitted by him and entered into evidence at the hearing by agreement of the parties, the Panel also accepted the jointly proposed penalty, and so orders the following:

The following terms, conditions and limitation will be entered on Dr. Rovers’ Certificate of Registration:

1. For a period of 12 months from the date of this order, Dr. Rovers may only supervise a supervisee while Dr. Rovers’ participates in a Coaching Program.

2. The Coach will be appointed by the Registrar. Dr. Rovers must provide to the Registrar an agreement signed by the Coach as set out in Appendix “A”. The qualifications of the Coach shall include the following:

a. A member who has a practice that involves supervision;

b. A member with an authorized client population including adults, couples, and families;

c. A member who does not have a current remediation or discipline history with the College of Psychologists of Ontario (the “College”).

3. For the first 6 months of the coaching program, Dr. Rovers must meet with the Coach for no less than one hour and no more than two hours on a biweekly basis. For the final 6 months of the coaching program, Dr. Rovers must meet with the Coach a minimum of once per month for at least one hour per meeting with additional meetings to be set at the Coach’s discretion.

4. During the course of the coaching program, and in particular during the meetings with Dr. Rovers, of which the first two meetings may consist of review only, the Coach will review and monitor whether:

a. the number and type of clients are appropriate with respect to each of Dr. Rovers’ supervisees, and, in aggregate, with respect to Dr. Rovers’ ability to actively monitor and direct each client’s care, and to be able to take over direct care for each client should that be necessary;

b. Dr. Rovers’ supervision agreements are in full compliance with the Standards of Professional Conduct;

c. clients are appropriately informed of the supervisory relationship, in accordance with the Standards of Professional Conduct;

d. Dr. Rovers is meeting with supervisees on an appropriately regular basis to allow for active monitoring and direction of every case under supervision;

e. Dr. Rovers is adequately reviewing the work conducted by supervisees;

f. Dr. Rovers’ supervision records are in full compliance with the Standards of Professional Conduct;

g. Dr. Rovers is in possession of, or has access to, client records at all times;

h. Dr. Rovers is aware of his supervisees’ public statements, and ensures that any advertisements of psychological services and fees are offered in his name, in accordance with the Standards of Professional Conduct;

i. billing and receipts are in Dr. Rovers’ name, and clearly identify Dr. Rovers and the name, relevant degrees and professional designations of the supervisee; and

j. Dr. Rovers discontinues services by giving clients notice with a reasonable opportunity to arrange alternative services, as necessary.

5. The Coach will report to the Registrar every 3 months. The Coach’s reports to the Registrar will address each of the items in paragraph 4 (a) to (j). Where the Coach finds that Dr. Rovers is failing to meet the standard of practice of the profession in relation to any of the areas in paragraph 4 (a) to (j), the Coach shall indicate this in the report and notify Dr. Rovers.

6. Dr. Rovers will be required to complete the coaching program to the satisfaction of the Registrar on the basis of the Coach’s reports.

7. Dr. Rovers shall be responsible for the costs of the coaching program.

8. Upon completion of the coaching program, Dr. Rovers’ may only supervise psychological services in accordance with the Standards of Professional Conduct.

9. Dr. Rovers is ordered to pay Discipline Hearing costs in the amount of $3500 within 90 days of the date of the Discipline Committee’s order.

The coaching agreement is found in Appendix A of the Order of the Panel.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION ON PENALTY

The parties submitted a joint submission on penalty. They also filed into evidence a letter from Dr. Lynette Eulette, the pre-hearing conference chair, which supports the joint penalty. Submissions were made by Counsel for the College and by Counsel for Dr. Rovers. Several mitigating factors were raised, including a lengthy clinical and academic career prior to the complaint, immediate correction of issues once brought to the member’s attention, acceptance of responsibility and remorse as identified in his plea that spared the need for a hearing and calling of witnesses including the clients, and Dr. Rovers’ willingness to address deficiencies in his practice of supervision. This affords Mr. Rovers the opportunity to continue his career, provided he implements and follows the necessary remedial steps, serving as a specific and general deterrent. The Panel considered that no suspension was sought by the College and both sides agreed to a remedial penalty, also supported by the pre-hearing conference chair. The Panel deems that the penalty is in the best interest of the College, the public, and Dr. Rovers.

“Anthony Hopley”

(Chair) Dr. Anthony Hopley

“Janice Currie”

Dr. Janice Currie

“Wanda Towers”

Dr. Wanda Towers

“Nadia Mocan”

Ms. Nadia Mocan

“Paul Stopciati”

Mr. Paul Stopciati