Indexed as: Ontario (College of Psychologists of Ontario) v. Dessaulles, 2023 ONCPD 2

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. André Dessaulles

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

Panel Members:

Dr. Michael Grand Chair, Professional Member

Dr. Fred Schmidt Professional Member of Council

Dr. Archie Kwan Professional Member of Council

Mr. Scott Warnock Public Member

Mr. Ilia Maor Public Member

Hearing Date: April 25, 2023

Decision Date: April 25, 2023

Release of Written Reasons: May 17, 2023

Counsel:

Robin McKechney Counsel for the College of Psychologists of Ontario

Todd Burke and Cristina Borbely Counsel for Dr. Dessaulles

Emily Lawrence Independent Legal Counsel for the Discipline Committee of the College of Psychologists of Ontario

Hearing held by way of videoconference

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. 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 April 25, 2023. This matter was heard electronically, by agreement of the parties.

2. Dr. Dessaulles did not attend the hearing but was represented by legal counsel.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

3. Upon the request of counsel for the College, without objection by the Member’s counsel, the Panel ordered that the name of the complainant not be published or broadcast, pursuant to subsection 3 of section 45 of the Health Professions Procedural Code.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

4. The allegations against Dr. Dessaulles were set out in a Notice of Hearing dated February 18, 2021. The Panel marked the Notice of Hearing as Exhibit 1.

5. At the commencement of the hearing, the College sought leave to withdraw certain of the allegations, which the Panel granted.

6. The allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing were:

IT IS ALLEGED that you [Dr. Dessaulles] are guilty of professional misconduct as set out below:

1. Clause 51(1)(b.1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code (the Code), which is Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 (the RHPA) (sexual abuse of a patient, more specifically, touching of a sexual nature and behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature); and/or

2. Clause 51(1)(c) of the Code and as defined in one or more of the following paragraphs of section 1 of Ontario Regulation 801/93 made under the Psychology Act, 1991:

a. Paragraph 2 (failing to maintain the standards of the profession, including the following standards: 2.1 general conduct, [withdrawn], 14.1 sexual harassment); and/or

b. [withdrawn]; and/or

c. Paragraph 6 (abusing a client); and/or

d. Paragraph 7 (practising the profession while under the influence of any substance); and/or

e. Paragraph 9 (providing a service that the member knows or ought to know is not likely to benefit the client); and/or

f. [withdrawn]; and/or

g. [withdrawn]; and/or

h. [withdrawn]; and/or

i. [withdrawn]; and/or

j. [withdrawn]; and/or

k. Paragraph 34 (disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct)

7. The Notice of Hearing contained a three-page Appendix of the particulars of these allegations, which the Panel reviewed but has not reproduced in this Decision.

THE MEMBER’S PLEA

8. Through his counsel, Dr. Dessaulles plead “no contest” to the allegations that were alleged and not withdrawn. His counsel made submissions that the plea of no contest was not an admission of or agreement with the accuracy of the facts contained in Statement of Uncontested Facts nor an admission of liability or culpability for use in any other proceeding. His counsel submitted that Dr. Dessaulles’ plea of no contest was voluntary and informed, and that Dr. Dessaulles understood that by pleading no contest, he was giving up the right to a full hearing with evidence and witnesses at which the College would have to prove the allegations against him on a balance of probabilities.

THE EVIDENCE

9. On consent of the parties, the College introduced into evidence a Statement of Uncontested Facts. The College and Dr. Dessaulles agreed that the Panel could rely on the facts contained in the Statement of Uncontested Facts as evidence on which the Panel could rely to determine if Dr. Dessaulles had engaged in professional misconduct as alleged. The Statement of Uncontested Facts stated in full:

Part I – FACTS

1. Dr. Dessaulles is a member of the College of Psychologists of Ontario. He is authorized to practice in clinical psychology, counselling psychology and industrial/organizational psychology. His authorized client populations include adolescents, adults, couples and organizations.

2. The complainant, (AW), became a client of Dr. Dessaulles in February 2019 on a referral from Dr. CK. AW saw Dr. CK in relation to trauma suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse and for the treatment of a chronic eating disorder. Dr. CK, however, was unable to continue care for AW as a result of health issues. Dr. CK referred AW to Dr. Dessaulles because of Dr. Dessaulles’ expertise in anxiety and trauma. Dr CK remained available for consultation about any eating disorder issues that could arise.

3. Dr. Dessaulles diagnosed AW with complex post-traumatic stress disorder and engaged in cognitive behavioural therapy and trauma-oriented interventions.

Proximity Exercises

4. As part of the therapy, Dr. Dessaulles engaged in proximity exercises with AW. Initially, the proximity exercises were similar to what AW had engaged in with Dr. CK where Dr. Dessaulles would roll his chair progressively closer to AW.

5. In August of 2019, Dr. Dessaulles began to sit beside AW during therapy sessions with AW leaning against him. If AW were to testify, she would state that this evolved into Dr. Dessaulles putting his arm around AW and holding her during the course of their sessions.

6. During February and March 2020, the proximity exercises evolved again. Dr. Dessaulles incorporated an exercise Dr. Dessaulles called “in and over” in which Dr. Dessaulles would hold AW and she would place her legs on his lap. “In and over” is not a recognized clinical technique. The term “in and over” or “I&O” is a term Dr. Dessaulles created. Dr. Dessaulles referred to “I&O” in emails to AW and stated that he found it to be “special”.

Alcohol and Therapy Sessions

7. Dr. Dessaulles and AW consumed alcohol during the course of therapy sessions on at least three occasions. Dr. Dessaulles also referred to consumption of alcohol in conjunction with therapy sessions in several emails to AW.

Non Clinical/Personal Communications and Interactions

8. Between January and June of 2020, Dr. Dessaulles and AW exchanged numerous emails of an increasingly personal nature as well as some emails focusing on her treatment progress.

9. During the course of May and June 2020, Dr. Dessaulles began to increasingly use language in emails to AW that was overly personal in nature, including the use of terms of endearment to refer to AW. Dr. Dessaulles admitted in emails that the emails had become more personal and that the boundaries of the relationship had changed.

10. During the course of a therapy session in May 2020, Dr. Dessaulles spontaneously kissed AW on the cheek.

June 12, 2020 Session

11. During the course of a session on or around June 12, 2020, Dr. Dessaulles and AW consumed alcohol and then laid down on the couch together at Dr. Dessaulles’ request. While lying on the couch, Dr. Dessaulles kissed AW and touched her inappropriately. The touching was unwanted by AW. [footnote not included] When the session concluded, Dr. Dessaulles hugged AW and kissed her again. AW did not return to see Dr. Dessaulles after June 12, 2020.

12. Following the June 12, 2020 session, Dr. Dessaulles sent multiple follow-up emails and made multiple calls to AW. These e-mails and calls were not invited nor were they welcomed by AW and were felt to be inappropriate and concerning.

PART II – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

13. It is uncontested that the conduct set out above constitutes professional misconduct pursuant to:

a. Clause 51(1)(b.1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, (sexual abuse of a patient, more specifically, touching, behaviour and remarks of a sexual nature by the member towards the patient); and

b. Clause 51(1)(c) of the Code and as defined in the following paragraphs of section1 of Ontario Regulation 801/93 made under the Psychology Act, 1991:

(i) Paragraph 2 (failing to maintain the standards of the profession, including the following standards: 2.1 general conduct, and 14.1 sexual harassment);

(ii) Paragraph 6 (abusing a client);

(iii) Paragraph 7 (practicing the profession while under the influence of any substance);

(iv) Paragraph 9 (providing a service the member knows or ought to know is not likely to benefit the client); and

(v) Paragraph 34 (disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct).

THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

10. College Counsel made submissions that the Statement of Uncontested Facts supported findings of professional misconduct. Summarizing the evidence, College Counsel submitted that:

a. Dr. Dessaulles abused and sexually abused AW by kissing her three times, lying on a couch with her, and touching her in an inappropriate and unwanted manner.

b. Dr. Dessaulles failed to maintain the standards of the profession (Standard 2.1, General Conduct) in that he did not keep an appropriate physical distance between himself and AW, held her and put his arm around her, had AW put her legs over his lap, kissed her and touched her in an inappropriate manner, consumed alcohol with her on at least three occasions, used language in emails with AW that were overly personal including using terms of endearment and, after AW had broken off contact with Dr. Dessaulles, he sent multiple emails and made several phone calls to AW that were not invited, welcomed or thought to be appropriate.

c. Dr. Dessaulles failed to maintain the standards of the profession (Standard 14.1 Sexual Harassment) by sexually harassing AW. He shared emails with AW of a personal nature, used terms of endearment in emails with her, kissed her and touched her in an inappropriate manner, and after AW had broken off contact with Dr. Dessaulles, he sent multiple emails and made several phone calls to AW that were not invited, welcomed or thought to be appropriate.

d. While treating AW, Dr. Dessaulles practiced the profession while under the influence of a substance in that he consumed alcohol with her at least three times.

e. Dr. Dessaulles provided a service that the member should know is not likely to benefit the client. He engages in progressively more intimate physical contact with AW, including having AW place her legs in his lap, a technique of his own naming, “in and over.”

f. Dr. Dessaulles’ behaviour, in sum, was disgraceful, dishonorable and unprofessional.

11. Dr. Dessaulles’ counsel did not make submissions.

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

12. The Panel carefully reviewed the Statement of Uncontested Facts.

13. The Panel finds that Dr. Dessaulles engaged in the alleged professional misconduct as alleged in the Notices of Hearing as established by the facts set out in the Statement of Uncontested Facts, on which the Panel was entitled to rely.

14. In particular, the facts contained in the Statement of Uncontested Facts established that Dr. Dessaulles sexually abused patient AW by kissing her three times, lying on a couch with her, instructing her to put her legs in his lap, and touching her in an inappropriate and unwanted manner. This conduct was of a sexual nature, and not for a clinical purpose. This conduct was also abuse of a patient.

15. The Panel also finds that Dr. Dessaulles breached the standards of practice of the profession. The physical contact, use of alcohol, exchange of numerous emails of an increasingly personal nature, Dr. Dessaulles’ use of terms of endearment, and Dr. Dessaulles’ email and calls to AW after she broke contact with him, together demonstrate that Dr. Dessaulles did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries with the patient. His conduct was contrary to the Standard 2.1(General Conduct).

16. The Panel also finds that Dr. Dessaulles was in violation of Standard 14.1 (Sexual Harassment) in that as AW’s therapist, he encouraged her to allow him to engage in progressively more intimate behaviour with her with the assurance that this would be beneficial to her psychological well-being. His actions escalated from sitting progressively closer to her, to having his arm around her, placing her legs in his lap, lying on a couch together, touching her in a sexual manner, and kissing her. This conduct was a misuse of the power and authority he had as her therapist to coerce her to tolerate his sexual advances, which he ought to have known would reasonably be expected to cause harm, insecurity, discomfort, offence, or humiliation to AW.

17. Dr. Dessaulles and AW consumed alcohol during the course of therapy on at least three occasions. The Panel also finds that Dr. Dessaulles practiced the profession while under the influence of alcohol when he did so.

18. The Panel also finds that Dr. Dessaulles provided a “service” that he knew or ought to have known was not likely to benefit A.W. Initially, Dr Dessaulles had AW engage in proximity exercises. While proximity exercises are a recognized subset of interventions, the evidence before the Panel demonstrated that Dr. Dessaulles’ use of proximity work evolved to progressively more intimate contact between him and AW, including what Dr. Dessaulles referred to as “in and over,” the placing of AW’s legs in his lap while he held her. The Panel finds that this physical conduct was not for a clinical purpose and Dr. Dessaulles should have recognized that he was engaging in interactions with AW that would not benefit her therapeutically. The fact that AW explicitly broke off contact with Dr. Dessaulles is evidence that she found his behavior to be unwelcomed and of no benefit.

19. The Panel also finds that Dr. Dessaulles’ conduct, as set out at paragraphs 5 to 13 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts, was made in the course of practicing the profession, and, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, dishonourable and disgraceful. Dr. Dessaulles’ conduct was unprofessional in that he displayed a persistent disregard for professional standards, namely, he sexually abused, abused, and sexually harassed his client. It was also dishonourable in that his behaviour displayed a wilful disregard of professional standards. It was disgraceful in that it brought shame to himself and to the profession and involved an element of moral failing. There is no reason to excuse his shameful, sexually abusive behaviour. Members of the public must be able to trust that when they receive services from a member of the College, they will be treated in a manner that not only meets the clinical standards of the profession but also does not cross a professional boundary put in place to safeguard their well-being. Dr. Dessaulles has failed on both counts.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS

20. The parties presented the Panel with a Draft Order, which provided the following jointly submitted penalty and costs submission:

1. Dr. Dessaulles will attend before the Discipline Committee within sixty (60) days by video conference to be reprimanded;

2. Dr. Dessaulles’ Certificate of Registration is to be suspended, such suspension to continue until a signed Undertaking to Resign and Never Reapply, acceptable to the Registrar or the Registrar’s designate, is received by the College. The Undertaking to Resign and Never Reapply must specify that application will not be made in any jurisdiction in the world for licensure or registration to engage in the practice of psychology;

3. Dr. Dessaulles is to pay costs in the amount of $6,372.50 within 30 days of the date of this order.

21. College Counsel submitted that section 51(5) the Code requires that the Panel’s order on penalty must include a reprimand and a suspension because of the Panel’s finding of sexual abuse. College Counsel submitted that the penalty as proposed was consistent with the legislative requirements, meet the goals of penalty, and was reasonable. College Counsel also submitted that the costs are consistent with the costs of a half day hearing.

22. Dr. Dessaulles’ counsel had no further submissions on penalty.

PENALTY DECISION

23. In light of the Draft Order, and the submissions, the Panel agreed and accepted the jointly proposed penalty and costs and ordered that:

24. Dr. Dessaulles will attend before the Discipline Committee within sixty (60) days by video conference to be reprimanded; and

25. Dr. Dessaulles’ Certificate of Registration is to be suspended, such suspension to continue until a signed Undertaking to Resign and Never Reapply, acceptable to the Registrar or the Registrar’s designate, is received by the College. The Undertaking to Resign and Never Reapply must specify that application will not be made in any jurisdiction in the world for licensure or registration to engage in the practice of psychology.

26. Dr. Dessaulles is to pay costs in the amount of $6,372.50 within 30 days of the date of this order.

REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

24. 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, rehabilitation and remediation (if applicable), protection of the public and maintenance of confidence in the profession’s self-regulation.

25. The Panel is also mindful of the principle that joint submissions should not be interfered with lightly.

26. The Panel was satisfied that the penalty jointly proposed by the parties is a fair, reasonable, and proportionate penalty. The indefinite period of suspension meets the ultimate goal of protecting the public, as Dr. Dessaulles cannot practice while suspended, and will be permanently removed from the profession by way of the undertaking, should he provide one to the College.

27. Dr. Dessaulles abused his power, his clinical knowledge, and the trust AW placed in him. His use of alcohol in sessions, use of progressively intimate physical interaction including an unrecognized clinical technique, and overly personal email correspondence were serious and unacceptable breaches of professional boundaries and the standards of practice of the profession. Sexual abuse, which here occurred after a period of breaching professional boundaries, cannot be tolerated within the profession. As the Code appropriately requires, sexual abuse warrant a significant penalty.

28. The penalty as ordered reflects the seriousness of the findings of professional misconduct and will communicate to both Dr. Dessaulles and to the membership of the College that sexual abuse, breaching the boundaries including sexual abuse and sexual harassment, and the use of alcohol during practice will not be tolerated. In doing so, the penalty maintains the public’s confidence in the profession and its self-regulation. Given the components of proposed penalty, terms for remediation or rehabilitation are not required.

29. The Panel also accepts the parties’ negotiated costs order as reasonable.

30. Dr. Dessaulles will appear before the Panel to receive the oral reprimand at a time to be fixed. The reprimand will be published on the Register of the College.

Dated this 17th day of May, 2023

“Michael Grand” (Chair) Dr. Michael Grand

“Archie Kwan” Dr. Archie Kwan

“Fred Schmidt” Dr. Fred Schmidt

“Scott Warnock” Mr. Scott Warnock

“Ilia Maor” Mr. Ilia Maor