OCSWSSW 2023

In a professional discipline proceeding, the registrant admitted allegations that he misrepresented himself as a friend's social worker in communications with another regulator and disclosed a client's personal health and identifying information to that friend without consent.

The panel found the admitted facts proved professional misconduct under the governing statute, regulation, handbook standards, and PHIPA, including dishonourable and unprofessional conduct, while stopping short of classifying the conduct as disgraceful because of significant mitigating personal health circumstances.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, emphasizing public protection, deterrence, remediation, and the principle that a joint submission should be accepted unless contrary to the public interest.

The resulting order imposed a reprimand, a three-month suspension with one month remittable on compliance, practice-related educational and regulatory conditions, publication, and $5,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found professional misconduct based on admitted boundary crossings with a vulnerable former client in an addiction treatment context, including an intimate and sexual relationship shortly after the counselling relationship, receipt of private aftercare fees, and misuse of a protected professional title before registration.

The panel held that the misconduct reflected on current suitability to practise and supported jurisdiction even though some conduct predated registration.

Applying the public-interest approach to joint penalty submissions, the panel accepted a jointly proposed order imposing a reprimand, revocation, a five-year prohibition on re-application, publication, and costs.

The panel emphasized public protection, deterrence, abuse of trust, and the seriousness of title misuse.

The discipline panel found that the registrant committed professional misconduct by engaging in repeated boundary violations with a vulnerable client, including personal self-disclosure, text messaging, acceptance of gifts, and cultivation of a dual relationship.

The panel also found that the registrant prepared an unauthorized report outside her scope of practice, charged and retained a cash fee using a generic receipt, failed to document the transaction in the client file, and later attempted to conceal the misconduct.

Proceeding in the registrant’s absence, the panel accepted viva voce and affidavit evidence, including hearsay admitted under the tribunal’s evidentiary powers.

The panel imposed a reprimand, a 10-month suspension with partial remission tied to completion of ethics training, supervision and practice restrictions on return to practice, publication of the decision, and costs of $42,778.63.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found professional misconduct arising from an instructor-registrant’s boundary violations with students and a supervisee who were also clients.

The admitted facts established repeated personal disclosures in class, requests for loans and rides, exploitation of information obtained through the professional relationship, and conflicts of interest contrary to the governing statute, regulation, and standards of practice.

The panel held the conduct was dishonourable and unprofessional, though not disgraceful in light of confidential health-related mitigating circumstances.

It accepted a joint submission on penalty as consistent with the public interest, ordering a reprimand, a conditional four-month suspension tied to any future reactivation, remedial training and supervision terms, publication, and $1,000 in costs.

Discipline proceeding arising from a registrant’s admitted sexual relationship with a former or active psychotherapy/counselling client, together with related boundary violations and nondisclosure of a prior complaint to another professional body.

The Panel held that the timing dispute over whether the client was still active when the sexual relationship commenced was immaterial because the professional standards prohibited sexual relations at any time following termination where psychotherapy or counselling had been provided.

The admitted misconduct was found to be disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, with significant aggravating factors including the client’s vulnerabilities, enduring psychological harm, and failure to disclose the earlier complaint on registration and renewals.

The Panel accepted a joint submission on penalty as consistent with the public interest and ordered a written reprimand, publication, and costs, in the context of the registrant’s irrevocable surrender and undertaking never to practise again.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found that the registrant committed extensive professional misconduct against multiple vulnerable counselling clients, including sexual abuse, sexualized communications, dual relationships, boundary violations, self-disclosure, and attempts to prevent reporting.

The panel proceeded in the registrant’s absence after finding proper service, granted a publication ban protecting certain clients’ identities, and combined two notices of hearing into one proceeding.

Relying on agreed statements of fact and the balance of probabilities standard, the panel found breaches of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, the Professional Misconduct Regulation, and the College’s standards of practice.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordered a reprimand, revocation of registration, a five-year reapplication prohibition, publication of the order, and costs of $5,000.

A discipline panel found professional misconduct after the registrant admitted sexually exploitative boundary violations and record-keeping failures arising from a counselling relationship with a vulnerable student client.

The panel held that the admitted conduct breached the profession’s standards, constituted sexual abuse within the meaning of the governing statute, and was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

Applying the public-interest approach to a joint penalty submission, the panel accepted a proposed order imposing reprimand, revocation, a five-year prohibition on reapplying for registration, publication of the order, and costs.

A publication ban protected the client’s identity.

Following prior findings of professional misconduct, the Discipline Committee determined penalty in a proceeding involving sexual abuse, sexual boundary violations, and dishonest record keeping affecting vulnerable clients.

The panel proceeded in the registrant’s absence after finding that notice requirements had been met and that the registrant had full notice of the proceedings.

Emphasizing public protection, denunciation, specific and general deterrence, and maintenance of confidence in self-regulation, the panel ordered revocation, a reprimand, a five-year prohibition on re-application or reinstatement, publication subject to an existing ban protecting client identities, and substantial costs.

The panel accepted the College’s submission that partial recovery of prosecution costs was appropriate and ordered payment of $100,000.