OCSWSSW 2024

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found professional misconduct where a social service worker developed boundary-crossing interactions with a vulnerable addiction client during counselling and entered into a personal and sexual relationship less than eight months after the counselling relationship ended.

The panel held that the admitted facts established conflicts of interest, exploitation, sexual misconduct, and conduct reasonably regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional under the governing statute, regulation, and practice standards.

A publication ban protecting the client’s identity was granted under s. 28(7).

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

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel accepted the registrant’s admissions and an agreed statement of facts establishing sexual misconduct, boundary violations, exploitative communications, and false recordkeeping in relation to a vulnerable former client receiving mental health services.

The panel granted a publication ban and sealing order under s. 28(7) to protect the client’s identity and clinical information.

The misconduct was found to breach multiple provisions of the governing statute, regulation, and standards of practice, including sexual relations with a client, conflicts of interest, failure to maintain boundaries, and disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The panel accepted a joint penalty submission imposing a reprimand, revocation, a five-year reapplication bar, publication of the decision, and $5,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline hearing, a registrant admitted serious boundary violations and sexual misconduct toward a vulnerable former inpatient addiction client, including continued off-hours personal contact, having the client live with him, ongoing counselling in a conflict of interest, and sexualized touching.

The panel found the agreed facts proved professional misconduct under the governing statute, regulation, code of ethics, and standards of practice, and held that sexual abuse did not require sexual intercourse because remarks, touching and behaviour of a sexual nature were sufficient.

A publication ban protecting the client's identity was granted under s. 28(7).

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty and costs, emphasizing public protection, deterrence, and the registrant's permanent undertaking never to return to practice, and ordered a reprimand, publication, and $5,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found that the registrant committed extensive professional misconduct arising from boundary violations with a vulnerable client, including a later sexual relationship with a former counselling client, confidentiality breaches, inadequate records, and conflicts of interest.

The panel accepted the registrant’s admissions and the agreed statement of facts, and held that the conduct contravened multiple provisions of the governing statute, regulation, and professional standards, including conduct reasonably regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

A publication ban protecting the client’s identity was granted in the public interest.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordered revocation, a five-year prohibition on re-application or reinstatement, publication of the finding and order, a reprimand, and $5,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found that the registrant committed professional misconduct by breaching boundaries with a client, engaging in sexualized text communications, accepting gifts, and abusing the client within the meaning of the governing statute and regulation.

The panel held that the admitted conduct contravened multiple standards in the profession’s handbook, constituted sexual abuse, and was disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

A publication ban protected the client’s identity and a sealing order applied to an exhibit brief.

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

The registrant was reprimanded, his resignation and undertaking not to reapply were noted, publication was ordered, and costs of $5,000.00 were imposed.

A discipline panel found a social worker guilty of extensive professional misconduct arising from a prolonged therapeutic relationship with a vulnerable client.

The admitted misconduct included boundary crossings, conflicts of interest involving multiple family members, confidentiality breaches, failure to respond appropriately to dependency and addiction issues, failure to report child protection concerns, improper termination, and inappropriate fee practices.

Applying the public-interest standard for joint penalty submissions, the panel accepted a joint submission imposing a reprimand, a nine-month suspension with a conditional remission component, remedial ethics training, practice restrictions, publication, and costs.

Because of the publication ban, identifying details concerning the client were not reproduced.

Discipline proceeding arising from prolonged boundary violations by a social worker with a vulnerable client in a housing support setting.

The registrant admitted exchanging highly personal text messages, attending the client’s apartment to socialize, giving money and cannabis, accepting favours, failing to address romantic overtures appropriately, practising in a conflict of interest, and failing to document the full extent of the interactions.

The Panel found professional misconduct proved on a balance of probabilities and granted a publication ban protecting the client’s identity.

The Panel accepted an amended joint submission on penalty, imposed a written reprimand, a suspended five-month suspension triggered on any future re-registration, remediation and supervision conditions, publication of the order, and $5,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the registrant admitted conducting multiple unauthorized searches in the Child Protection Information Network and improperly accessing confidential records belonging to several child protection agencies.

The panel found that the conduct breached employer confidentiality policies, contravened Part X of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and constituted professional misconduct under the governing statute and regulation.

Accepting a joint submission, the panel imposed a reprimand, a three-month suspension, remedial coursework, practice restrictions and reporting obligations, and publication terms.

The panel also ordered costs of $5,000 payable to the College.