Indexed as: Ontario (College of Psychologists of Ontario) v. Meier, 2021 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. Augustine Meier

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

Panel Members:

Dr. Marjory Phillips

Chair, Academic Member of Council

Dr. Michael Grand

Professional Member

Dr. Janice Currie

Professional Member

Mr. Ilia Maor

Public Member

Mr. Paul Stopciati

Public Member

Hearing Date:

November 25, 2021

Decision Date:

November 25, 2021

Release of Written Reasons:

December 9, 2021

COUNSEL:

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

Mr. Jeffrey Mutter, Counsel for the Member

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

Hearing held by way of videoconference

NOTICE OF PUBLICATION BAN

In the College of Psychologists of Ontario and Dr. Augustine Meier, this is notice that the Discipline Committee ordered that no person shall publish or broadcast the names of the Complainant, the Complainant’s spouse and children, or any information that would identify any of them referred to orally at the hearing or in the exhibits filed, under subsection 45(3) of the Health Professions Procedural Code (the Code), which is Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 18, as amended.

Subsection 93(1) of the Code, which is concerned with failure to comply with these orders, reads:

Every person who contravenes an order made under … section 45 or 47 … is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable,

(a) in the case of an individual to a fine of not more than $25,000 for a first offence and not more than $50,000 for a second or subsequent offence; or
(b) in the case of a corporation to a fine of not more than $50,000 for a first offence and not more than $200,000 for a second or subsequent offence.

REASONS FOR DECISION

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the College of Psychologists of Ontario (the “College”) in Toronto on November 25, 2021. This matter was heard electronically by agreement of the parties. Dr. Meier attended the hearing.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

2. Upon the request of counsel for the College, without objection by the member or his counsel, the Panel ordered that the name of Dr. Meier’s client, his spouse and their children not be published or broadcast, pursuant to subsection 3 of section 45 of the Health Professions Procedural Code. Instead, the parties shall use initials.

THE ALLEGATIONS

Certain allegations against Dr. Meier set out in the Notice of Hearing were withdrawn by agreement of the parties. The primary reason for withdrawal was explained as a duplication of facts with respect to the application to the standards allegedly breached, and with respect to the other alleged misconduct.
The allegations, set out in the Notice of Hearing that the College proceeded with, are as follows:

1. Dr. Meier failed to maintain the following standards of the practice:

(a) 2.1 (General Conduct),

(e) 9.2(f) (Individual Client Records),

(f) 10.3 (Rendering Opinions),

(g) 10.3.1 (Review Without Evaluation), and

(i) 10.5 (Freedom from Bias),

of the Standards of Professional Conduct, 2017, contrary to subsection 1(2) of Ontario Regulation 801/93, made under the Psychology Act, 1991 (O.Reg. 801/93);

2. Dr. Meier provided a service that he knew or ought to have known was not likely to benefit a client, contrary to section 1 of paragraph 9 of O. Reg. 801/93;

6. Dr. Meier 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 dishonourable and unprofessional, contrary to section 1, paragraph 34 of O. Reg. 801/93.

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

a) The complainant, ND, and JD, ND’s wife, were referred to Dr. Meier for couples counselling in or around April 2019.

b) Dr. Meier saw ND for an assessment in or around April 2019 and for one individual counselling session in or around May 2019. Dr. Meier also provided several individual counselling sessions to JD.

c) Dr. Meier did not provide psychological services to the two young children of ND and JD, nor did he conduct any clinical assessments or tests.

d) Dr. Meier was aware that ND and JD had an adversarial relationship, and that both had retained family law lawyers.

e) On or around June 3, 2019, ND’s lawyer requested Dr. Meier’s opinion on the parenting abilities of ND and JD. On or around June 6, 2019, Dr. Meier responded that he could not provide an opinion because he had not met with ND and JD together and had not met with their children.

f) On or around June 7, 2019, Dr. Meier provided an opinion to the Children’s Aid Society that ND should move out of the familial residence and the JD should have sole custody of the children.

g) On or around June 10, 2019, JD’s lawyer requested Dr. Meier’s recommendation regarding JD’s separation from ND and the children.

h) Dr. Meier responded to JD’s lawyer by way of letter dated June 18, 2019. Dr. Meier recommended that ND and JD live in separate dwellings. Dr. Meier also strongly recommended that the children spend each night at the home of JD and that ND have access to the children.

i) In Dr. Meier’s June 18, 2019, letter, Dr. Meier also provided information about ND and JD’s oldest child, including descriptions of projective tests the child had completed. Dr. Meier provided observations about the child’s therapy and opinions about the child’s emotional state and relationship with each parent.

j) Dr. Meier did not disclose in his letter of June 18, 2019, that he did not conduct the projective testing completed by the oldest child nor did he provide any other psychological services to her. The projective tests were, in fact, completed by the child’s therapist. Further, the projective tests were conducted for therapeutic purposes. Dr. Meier did not obtain consent to change the use of the projective tests from a therapeutic to a forensic use.

k) Dr. Meier provided a follow-up letter dated July 15, 2019, to JD’s lawyer. In this letter, Dr. Meier confirmed his recommendation that the children spend each night with JD at her home. Dr. Meier stated that his recommendation was based in part on information obtained from ND during the two sessions Dr. Meier conducted with ND as well as phone calls and email s with ND.

l) Dr. Meier’s recommendations that the children stay in the family home with JD, provided to the Children’s Aid Society on or about June 7, 2019, and to JD’s lawyer on or about June 18, 2019, and again on or about July 15, 2019, constitute custody and access recommendations. Dr. Meier’s custody and access recommendations were based on inadequate information, failed to identify the limits of certainty of the recommendation and exhibited bias and compromised objectivity.

m) In Dr. Meier’s letters to JD’s lawyer dated June 18, 2019, and July 15, 2019, Dr. Meier disclosed personal information and/or personal health information of ND. Dr. Meier did not obtain informed consent from ND to disclose ND’s personal information or personal health information to JD’s lawyer.

THE MEMBER’S PLEA

Dr. Meier admitted the allegations of professional misconduct set out in the Notice of Hearing that the College proceeded with.

The Panel was satisfied that Dr. Meier’s admission was voluntary, informed, and unequivocal, as a result of his acknowledgements made at the hearing, and as set out at paragraph 14 of the Agreed Statement of Facts.

THE EVIDENCE

On consent of the parties, the College introduced into evidence an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) which substantiated the allegations. The ASF provides as follows:
Dr. Meier has been a registered clinical psychologist in the Province of Ontario since June 1983. He does not have a discipline history.
The complainant in this matter, ND, and his then spouse JD, were referred to Dr. Meier for couples therapy by Micheline Boivin, in April 2019. Ms. Boivin (who is Dr. Meier’s wife) was providing therapy for ND and JD’s children.
Subsequent to the referral, Dr. Meier met with JD and ND separately to conduct an assessment. Dr. Meier subsequently met with JD on several occasions and with ND one further time, on May 15, 2019. By this time, ND and JD were engaged in family law proceedings and had both engaged their own lawyers.
In May of 2019, JD asked Dr. Meier if he would conduct a “family assessment”. According to Dr. Meier, he declined as it would “constitute a conflict of interest and a dual relationship.”
On June 3, 2019, counsel for ND emailed Dr. Meier and requested an assessment. By letter of June 6, 2019, Dr. Meier again declined to provide a report. Dr. Meier stated the following:

I met with [ND] on two occasions, once for the assessment interview and once, at his request, to talk about the marital and family situation and what to do about it. I met with [JD] on five occasions, once for the assessment interview and four times to discuss the marital, family and home situation. I did not meet with the children. Since I did not meet with the children and did not meet with ND and JD together where there would be check(sic) and balances resulting in a more clear image of their parenting attitudes and practices, I am not able to make any statements regarding their parenting abilities.

Notwithstanding Dr. Meier’s expressed view that he could not provide an assessment of parenting abilities, the next day, on June 7, 2019, Dr. Meier reported to the Children’s Aid Society that the children should stay with JD at night.
On June 10, 2019, JD’s lawyer emailed Dr. Meier requesting, among other things, for Dr. Meier to “comment on the situation [JD] has been discussing with you, with respect to her separation and the children with making any recommendations you might have to share.”
On June 18, 2019, Dr. Meier provided a letter to JD’s lawyer with the following recommendation:

[It] is recommended that the parents live in separate dwellings. I strongly recommend that the children spend each night at the home of their mother and that their father have access to the children. The children need both parents and both parents want their children. The recommendation that the children sleep in the house of the mother is based on the young age of the children, particularly on the age of the youngest. At age three and a half, a child is going through an important phase regarding psychologically separating from the parents, particularly, from the mother. This task needs to be completed successfully to prevent serious emotional problems in the future.

In the June 18th letter, Dr. Meier conceded that he had not seen the children in therapy and that he was only able to provide information about the oldest daughter, for whom he provided the results of various tests.
Dr. Meier provided the letter of June 18, 2019, to JD’s lawyer without the informed consent of ND.
Furthermore, although Dr. Meier’s letter of June 18, 2019, appeared to leave the impression that Dr. Meier carried out the tests on the oldest daughter, it was later confirmed that the tests were in fact carried out by Ms. Boivin. In addition, Dr. Meier failed to clarify that the testing was done for therapeutic purposes, not assessment purposes, nor did he obtain the consent of ND for the disclosure of the test results or change in purpose for the testing. Lastly, Dr. Meier did not turn his mind to the conflict of interest that could result in using information from the children’s file in a letter produced for JD’s lawyer for which it was reasonably foreseeable that the letter could form part of the family law proceedings.
On July 15, 2019, Dr. Meier sent a further letter to JD’s lawyer. Dr. Meier stated that he was sending the letter as a “rebuttal” to a letter sent by ND’s lawyer to JD’s lawyer regarding Dr. Meier’s letter of June 18th. Dr. Meier requested that his rebuttal be “submitted to the powers that be.” In this letter, Dr. Meier stated the following:

Dr. Meier stated that his parenting recommendation was based on his sessions and contacts with JD and ND. Dr. Meier stated that he had had two sessions with ND as well as multiple phone calls and emails.
Dr. Meier rejected the suggestion that he had never met the children, citing two occasions in which he interacted with the children, once before and once following a session with the children’s therapist (Ms. Boivin). Dr. Meier added that he also had “lengthy conversations with the children’s psychotherapist”
Dr. Meier stated that based on reports from JD, ND had been “minimally involved” in child care and was “impatient, strict and severe” with the children. Dr. Meier stated that this was likely to continue, “unless [ND] has radically changed his ways.” Dr. Meier said that “I do find [JD] to be credible as her stories are consistent.”
Dr. Meier stated that his recommendation that the children stay at the home of their mother “is not meant to be a permanent arrangement and nor is the recommendation meant to be a negative statement about the children’s father.

Dr. Meier made his recommendations in what he believed were the best interests of the children for their protection. He recognizes, however, that he was in a conflict of interest by making recommendations that could be considered by an objective third party to be custody and access recommendations.
It is jointly submitted that, in light of the above, Dr. Meier engaged in the following professional misconduct:

(a) Dr. Meier failed to maintain the standards of the profession including Standards 2.1 (General Conduct), 9.2 (Individual Client Records), 10.3 (Rendering Opinions), 10.3.1 (Review Without Evaluation), and 10.5 (Freedom from Bias) of the Standards of Professional Conduct, 2017, contrary to section 1, paragraph 2 of Ontario Regulation 801/93, made under the Psychology Act, 1991 (O.Reg. 801/93);

(b) Dr. Meier provided a service that he knew or ought to have known was not likely to benefit a client, contrary to section 1, paragraph 9 of O. Reg. 801/93;

(c) Dr. Meier provided information about a client to a third party without consent contrary to section 1, paragraph 11 of O. Reg. 801/93; and

(d) Dr. Meier performed an act, in the course of practising the profession that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as dishonourable and unprofessional, contrary to section 1, paragraph 34 of O.Reg. 801/93.

Mr. McKechney, counsel for the College, made the following submissions concerning the breach of Standards:

2.1 General Conduct: As set out in paragraphs 6 and 8 of the ASF, Dr. Meier ought to have known that his communication with the Children’s Aid Society and letter to the lawyer would have been interpreted as recommendations for Custody and Access.

9.2 Individual Client Records: As set out in paragraph 11 of the ASF, Dr. Meier obtained and reviewed assessment results without consent and used the results for a new purpose without consent.

10.3. Rendering Opinions: As set out in paragraphs 8 and 12 of the ASF, Dr. Meier rendered an opinion on access based on insufficient and unreliable information.

10.3.1 Review Without Evaluation: As set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the ASF, Dr. Meier reported the results of tests without citing the source and without stating that he did not meet the child directly.

10.5 Freedom from Bias: As set out in paragraphs 4 to 8 and 12 of the ASF, despite acknowledging a conflict of interest, Dr. Meier provided a custody and access opinion and he failed to provide a report that was fair and unbiased.

In respect to the other professional misconduct allegations, Mr. McKechney submitted:

Professional misconduct, Section 1, paragraph 9 of the Regulations (Services not likely to benefit the client): As set out in paragraphs 8 and 12 of the ASF, Dr. Meier ought to have known that his recommendations for changes in living arrangement would be considered custody and access and, since the opinion was rendered without proper process, they would not be a benefit for either ND or JD.

Section 1, paragraph 11 of the Regulations (Giving information without the consent of the client): As set out in paragraph 8 of the ASF, Dr. Meier disclosed information about ND without his consent.

Section 1, paragraph 34 of the Regulations (conduct regard as dishonorable or unprofessional): As set out in paragraphs 4 to 12, Dr. Meier issued a report that he knew or ought to have known would be considered a Custody and Access recommendation that did not meet the standards of the profession. He misused assessment data and he disclosed personal health information without consent.

Mr. McKechney indicated that the College accepted Dr. Meier’s assertion that his misconduct was not due to any malicious intent. Instead, Dr. Meier asserted that he intended his conduct to be for the benefit of the family. However, Dr. Meier exercised a fundamental lack of professional judgment.
Mr. Mutter, counsel for Dr. Meier, submitted that his client accepted that the ASF and the summary of the surrounding facts submitted by Mr. McKechney to be substantially correct.

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

The Panel carefully reviewed the Agreed Statement of Facts and each of the documents appended to it. Dr. Meier admitted the allegations from the Notice of Hearing that the College proceeded with, and he agreed with and admitted that the facts presented in the ASF are substantially correct.
The Panel finds that Dr. Meier engaged in professional misconduct as set out in the allegations proceeded with by the College.
The Panel was satisfied that the facts contained in the Agreed Statement of Facts established that Dr. Meier engaged in a failure to meet the standards of the profession (2.1, 9.2,10.3, 10.3.1, 10.5); provided a service that he knew or ought to have known was not likely to benefit a client; and provided information about a client to a third party without consent.
The Panel was satisfied that the facts established that Dr. Meier engaged in conduct or performed an act relevant to the practice of the profession that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as dishonourable or unprofessional.
Despite acknowledging the conflict of interest and dual relationship, Dr. Meier proceeded nonetheless to provide opinions that would reasonably be considered as custody and access recommendations. Moreover, he rendered opinions that were not consistent with standards for conducting a custody and access assessment. Dr. Meier used test results from another professional without the appropriate consents and for a purpose for which they were not intended. He accessed and provided information about a client to a third party without consent.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS

The parties presented the Panel with a draft Order on penalty, which provides for terms, conditions and limitations to be entered on Dr. Meier’s certificate of registration for a period of 12 months (or such other period as determined by the Registrar pursuant to paragraph 9) from the date of this order, during which Dr. Meier is required to participates in a coaching program.
The parties also presented a letter from the Chair who conducted the pre-hearing conference. The letter supported the draft Order on penalty, as appropriate, in all the circumstances.
College counsel submitted that the penalty should meet three goals:

(1) act as a deterrent to others; (2) provide opportunities for rehabilitation; and (3) address public protection.

He pointed out that the College is not seeking a suspension of registration, but rather is recommending continuing education as a means of addressing serious mistakes made with good but misguided intentions.

Dr. Meier’s counsel submitted that his client admitted to the allegations at the first possible opportunity. He has been fully cooperative with the College. He submitted that Dr. Meier is an experienced and respected member of the College, and that this is the first complaint to the College about his conduct. Dr. Meier admits his actions in this situation fell below standards and were unprofessional.

PENALTY DECISION

In light of the draft Order, and the submissions, the Panel agreed and accepted the Order. It ordered that:
Dr. Meier will attend before the Discipline Committee by video to be reprimanded;
The following terms, conditions and limitations will be entered on Dr. Meier’ Certificate of Registration:
For a period of 12 months (or such other period as determined by the Registrar pursuant to paragraph 9) from the date of this order, Dr. Meier participates in a Coaching Program.
The Coach will be appointed by the Registrar. Dr. Meier 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 with an authorized client population including adults, couples, and families;

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

Dr. Meier must meet with the Coach for no less than one hour and no more than two hours on a monthly basis with additional meetings to be set at the Coach’s discretion.
The Coaching Program shall focus on the following issues:

a. potential conflicts that may result from referrals, in particular referrals from Dr. Meier’s spouse;

b. potential conflicts and ethical considerations where Dr. Meier and his spouse treat members of the same family;

c. potential conflicts that may result from acting in a consulting role with another psychologist;

d. ethical boundaries involved in couples counselling;

e. obligations and duties to clients where therapy/counselling has been discontinued;

f. obligations and duties where formal or informal inquiries are made with regard to custody and access during the course of a family law dispute; and

g. complex cases identified by Dr. Meier.

At least one week in advance of every coaching session, Dr. Meier shall provide the Coach a list of all current files that meet the following criteria:

a. the client(s) was referred to Dr. Meier by his spouse;

b. the clients are engaged in couples therapy; and

c. the client(s) is involved in family law proceedings;

At least one week in advance of every coaching session, Dr. Meier shall also provide a summary of his consultation activities with respect to his spouse’s clients.
For each coaching session, the Coach shall select at least three files from the list provided by Dr. Meier pursuant to paragraph 5 to review with Dr. Meier with specific attention to the issues listed in paragraph 4. The Coach shall also review any complex cases identified by Dr. Meier. Finally, the coach will review Dr. Meier’s consultation practices with respect to his spouse.
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 (f). Where the Coach finds that Dr. Meier is failing to meet the standard of practice of the profession in relation to any of the areas in paragraph 4 (a) to (f), the Coach shall indicate this in the report and notify Dr. Meier.
Dr. Meier will be required to complete the coaching program to the satisfaction of the Registrar on the basis of the Coach’s reports.
After a minimum of 6 months from the date of this order, the Coach may recommend to the Registrar that the Coaching Program has been completed, if the Coach is satisfied that the goals of the Coaching Program have been fully met. The Coach may also recommend, after a period of 12 months, that the Coaching Program should be extended, should the Coach believe that the goals of the Coaching Program not have been fully met.
Dr. Meier shall be responsible for the costs of the coaching program.
Any variations to this order may be made on consent of the Registrar, such consent not be unreasonably withheld.
Dr. Meier is ordered to pay Discipline Hearing costs in the amount of $3500 within 90 days of the date of the Discipline Committee’s order.

REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

The Panel understands that the penalty ordered should protect the public and enhance public confidence in the ability of the College to regulate members’ conduct. This is achieved through a penalty that addresses specific deterrence, general deterrence and, where appropriate, rehabilitation and remediation.
The Panel is also mindful of the principle that joint submissions should not be interfered with lightly.
The Panel is satisfied that the Order jointly proposed by the parties is a fair, reasonable, and a proportionate penalty. Dr. Meier’s behaviour had the potential to negatively impact the lives of a family and also to lessen the community’s confidence in the work of the psychology profession. The Panel concluded that the penalty expresses the seriousness of Dr. Meier’s misconduct and provides a method of remediation that promotes public protection. By undertaking a 12-month period of coaching, Dr. Meier will be provided with opportunities to reflect on his practice, to exercise better judgment in understanding his scope of practice, and appreciate how to adhere to College standards and ethical practice. The public hearing and public reprimand act as a general deterrent for members of the profession.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Meier agreed to waive the right to appeal this decision. The Chair then delivered the oral reprimand to the Member. The reprimand is published on the Register of the College.

Dated this 9th day of December 2021

“Marjory Phillips”

(Chair) [Dr. Marjory Phillips]

“Michael Grand”