OCSWSSW 2025

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found the registrant guilty of multiple heads of professional misconduct arising from boundary violations, sexualized remarks, inappropriate self-disclosure, and exploitative communications with two clients in the course of counselling and psychotherapy services.

The panel held that the admitted conduct breached the governing statute, the Professional Misconduct Regulation, and the College’s Handbook standards, and constituted sexual abuse through behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature not clinically appropriate to the services provided.

The panel also accepted that out-of-session and post-termination text communications, including a semi-nude photograph sent to a former client, formed part of the misconduct analysis.

A publication ban protecting the clients’ identities was granted, the two notices were combined, and the joint submission on penalty was accepted.

The registrant was reprimanded, his certificate of registration was revoked, publication was ordered, and costs of $5,000 were imposed.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found that a social worker committed professional misconduct by refusing counselling services based in part on the complainant's Chinese ethnicity and assumptions about social media use and boundary risks.

Applying the prima facie discrimination framework under the Ontario Human Rights Code, the panel held that the complainant suffered adverse treatment in the provision of services and that the protected ground was a factor in the refusal.

The panel accepted expert evidence on social work boundaries and cultural competence, found that the registrant failed to make adequate inquiries before asserting a boundary conflict, and rejected the registrant's procedural fairness and abuse of process arguments.

Some allegations were dismissed, including those tied to self-determination, referral adequacy, and the intake-form language error, but multiple standards breaches and Code-related misconduct findings were made.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found the registrant guilty of professional misconduct after admissions and an agreed statement of facts established a personal and sexual relationship with a vulnerable client during and after the therapeutic relationship, together with boundary breaches, concealment, dishonesty, and retaliatory conduct toward colleagues.

The panel held that the conduct contravened multiple provisions of the governing statute, the Professional Misconduct Regulation, and the profession’s standards, including the prohibition on sexual abuse of a client.

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

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty and ordered a reprimand, revocation, a five-year bar on reapplication, publication of the order with the registrant’s identifying information, and $5,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline proceeding subject to a publication ban, the panel accepted the registrant’s admissions that she entered a personal and sexual relationship with a vulnerable client shortly after providing counselling and psychotherapy services to that client and the client’s spouse.

The panel found professional misconduct based on boundary violations, conflicts of interest, sexual abuse, misuse of confidential information, failure to terminate the therapeutic relationship appropriately, and conduct disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional under the governing statute and regulation.

On a joint submission, the panel imposed a reprimand, revocation of registration, a five-year prohibition on reapplication, publication of the order, and $1,000 in costs.

The panel held the proposed penalty was consistent with public protection, denunciation, and specific and general deterrence.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found the registrant guilty of multiple acts of professional misconduct arising from counselling a vulnerable client, engaging in boundary violations and sexual misconduct, failing to maintain competence, and keeping deficient records.

The panel relied on the registrant’s admissions and an Agreed Statement of Facts establishing abuse of power, dual relationships, failure to involve the client in treatment planning, inadequate documentation, and sexualized communications and conduct.

A publication ban was ordered under s. 28(7) of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998 to protect the client’s identity.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, noting that the registrant’s permanent resignation and undertaking not to practise provided robust public protection.

The registrant was reprimanded, publication of the decision and undertaking was ordered, and costs of $6,000 were awarded.

The College discipline panel found a registrant social worker guilty of professional misconduct for making sexualized remarks to two vulnerable teenage clients during school counselling sessions.

Applying the balance of probabilities to an agreed statement of facts and admissions, the panel held the conduct breached professional standards, constituted sexual abuse within the governing statute, and amounted to disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

A publication ban was granted to protect the clients’ identities and identifying school information.

The panel accepted a joint submission imposing a reprimand, publication of the finding and order, and $5,000 in costs, noting the registrant had permanently surrendered his certificate and undertaken never to practise again.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found that the registrant committed professional misconduct by entering into an inappropriate relationship with a vulnerable client, engaging in multiple boundary crossings, operating in a conflict of interest, and failing to maintain adequate clinical records.

The misconduct included out-of-session personal contact, exchange of gifts, purchase of the client’s vehicle at less than fair market value, discussion of end-of-life planning in circumstances later followed by a substantial testamentary bequest, and deficient documentation.

The panel accepted the registrant’s admissions and the agreed statement of facts, and concluded that the conduct was dishonourable and unprofessional and undermined public confidence in the profession.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, imposed a three-month suspension with two months remittable on conditions, ordered ethics-related remediation and publication, and awarded costs of $5,000.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found professional misconduct arising from unauthorized access to child protection records and misuse of professional status to seek information about children at a school.

The registrant admitted the allegations, and the panel held that the conduct breached the governing statute, the professional misconduct regulation, and standards concerning integrity, records, confidentiality, and consent.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, emphasizing public protection, general and specific deterrence, and remediation.

A six-month suspension, reprimand, practice-related terms and conditions, publication, and $5,000 in costs were ordered.