DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORKERS AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS

Indexed as:

Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers v Emma Clarkson, 2025 ONCSWSSW 10

Date:

20250925

BETWEEN:

THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORKERS AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS

• and -

EMMA CLARKSON

PANEL:

Charlene Crews

Chair, Professional Member

Nicole Bonnie

Public Member

Kimberley Westfall-Connor

Non-Council Community Member

Appearances:

Gavin Fior, counsel for the College

Sarah Martens, counsel for the Registrant

Andrea Gonsalves, Independent Legal Counsel to the Panel

Heard:

January 14, 2025

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

1This matter was heard by videoconference before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers (the “College”) on January 14, 2025. The Panel announced its decision on the misconduct allegations, penalty and costs orally on the record at the hearing. These are the Panel’s reasons for decision.

Publication ban

2The College requested an order banning publication of the name of the client in this matter (“Client A”) and of any information that would identify the client.

3The Registrant did not oppose the order sought.

4The Panel granted the order sought pursuant to s. 28(7) of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998, SO 1998, c 31 (the “Act”). This case involves sensitive personal information about Client A, including allegations of sexual abuse by the Registrant. The desirability of avoiding public disclosure about those matters in connection with the client’s identity outweighs the desirability of giving the public access to that information.

The allegations

5In the Notice of Hearing dated August 16, 2024, the Registrant, Emma Clarkson (née Fritz) is alleged to be guilty of professional misconduct pursuant to the Act in that he is alleged to have engaged in conduct that contravenes the Act, Ontario Regulation 384/00 (the “Professional Misconduct Regulation”), Schedule “A” to By-law No. 66 of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers, being the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers Code of Ethics (the “Code of Ethics”), and Schedule “B” to By-law No. 66 of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers, being the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers Standards of Practice Handbook (the “Handbook”).

6The factual particulars of the allegations against the Registrant as set out in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:

1. You are, and were at all times relevant to these allegations, a registered social work member with the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers (the “College”).

2. At all material times, you were employed by [employment] as a Transitional Case Manager in the Community Mental Health Programs (“CMHP”) in [location], Ontario. In this role, you provided individuals discharged from the hospital with intensive short-term crisis management and support, among other things.

3. As a Transitional Case Manager, you provided social work and counselling services to Client A between approximately October 14, 2022, and May 30, 2023, at which time Client A was discharged from your care but remained a client of CMHP.

4. During and subsequent to the social worker-client relationship you failed meet the standards of the profession, failed to maintain appropriate boundaries, and engaged in an inappropriate personal and sexual relationship with Client A, which included:

a) Becoming aware that Client A had feelings for you and taking no steps to draw boundaries;

b) Communicating with Client A on your personal phone, and through social media outside of work and for purposes unrelated to social work;

c) Engaging in inappropriate and/or romantic texts with Client A;

d) In or around May 13, 2023, transporting Client A in your personal vehicle to another city, outside of the [employment] boundary area, outside working hours;

e) Accepting gifts from Client A; and

f) Engaging in a sexual activity with Client A, including sexual intercourse.

5. When initially confronted by a peer about taking Client A to another city outside your working hours, you initially lied, suggesting, among other things, you had permission from your employer to do same.

6. When it came to the attention of your employer that you had taken Client A to another city outside working hours without permission, you were dishonest with your employer, [employment], and denied the personal and sexual relationship you had with your client at that time.

7. In an attempt to cover up your inappropriate relationship with Client A, you failed to follow [employment] policies and procedures when admitting Client A’s sister to the organization’s programs and services. Having served Client A, you were not permitted to handle Client A’s sister’s intake.

8. When your inappropriate and sexual relationship was reported to your employer by a colleague, you filed an unsubstantiated harassment complaint against your colleague, which was found to violate [employment] Whistleblower Policy.

9. On August 14, 2023, you were terminated for cause.

7The College alleges in the Notice of Hearing that by reason of engaging in some, or all of the conduct outlined above, the Registrant is guilty of professional misconduct as set out in ss. 26(2)(a) and (c) of the Act, as follows:

(a) In that you violated sections 2.2 and 2.10 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation and Principle I of the Handbook (commented on in Interpretations 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7) by:

i. failing to be aware of your values, attitudes and needs and how these impact on your professional relationship with your client;

ii. failing to distinguish your needs and interests from those of your clients and to ensure that, within professional relationships, your clients’ needs and interests remained paramount; and

iii. failing to maintain an awareness and consideration of the purpose, mandate and function of your organization and how these impact on and limit professional relationships with clients.

(b) In that you violated sections 2.2, 2.5, 2.6 and 2.10 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation and Principle II of the Handbook (commented on in Interpretation 2.1.5, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.8) by:

i. failing to engage in the process of self-review and evaluation of your practice and seeking consultation when appropriate;

ii. failing to ensure clients are protected from an abuse of power, including sexual misconduct, during and after the provision of professional services and/or failing to establish and maintain clear and appropriate boundaries in a professional relationship;

iii. by engaging in a professional relationship that constitutes a conflict of interest and/or in a situation in which you ought reasonably to have known that the client or former client would be at risk; failing to evaluate professional relationships and other situations involving clients or former clients for potential conflicts of interest; failing to avoid conflicts of interest and/or dual relationship with clients that could impair your professional judgment or increase the risk of exploitation or harm to clients; failing to declare a conflict of interest and taking appropriate steps to address it and eliminate it;

iv. by having sexual relations with a client;

v. by using your professional position of authority to coerce, improperly influence, harass, abuse or exploit a client or former client;

vi. by failing to avoid conduct which could reasonably be perceived as reflecting negatively on the profession of social work.

(c) In that you violated Sections 2.2 and 2.10 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation and Principle III of the Handbook (commented on in Interpretations 3.7) by failing to assume full responsibility for demonstrating that the client has not been exploited, coerced or manipulated intentionally or unintentionally where a personal relationship occurs with the client;

(d) In that you violated Section 2.5 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation by abusing a client sexually, verbally psychologically or emotionally, including sexually abusing a client withing the meaning of subsection 43(4) of the Act;

(e) In that you violated Sections 2.2 and 2.5 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation and Principle VIII of the Handbook (as commented on in Interpretations 8.1, 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.2.3, 8.3, 8.4, 8.6, 8.7) by:

i. failing to ensure that sexual misconduct did not occur;

ii. by engaging in sexual intercourse or another form of physical sexual relations between yourself and your client and/or former client;

iii. by engaging in touching, of a sexual nature, of your client and/or former client;

iv. by engaging in behavior or remarks of a sexual nature towards your client and/or former client which were not of a clinical nature appropriate to the service provided;

v. by developing sexual feelings towards your client and/or former client that could put the client and/or former client at risk, and failing to seek consultation/supervision or develop an appropriate plan;

vi. by failing to clearly state to the client and/or former client that behavior of a sexual nature is inappropriate by virtue of the professional relationship; and

vii. by engaging in sexual relations with your client and former client after having provided counselling and social work services to that client.

(f) In that you violated Section 2.36 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation by engaging in conduct or performing an act relevant to the practice of the profession that, having regard to all circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

Registrant’s position

8The Registrant admitted to all of the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. The Panel conducted an oral plea inquiry at the hearing. Additionally, in the Agreed Statement of Facts between the College and the Registrant (discussed below), the Registrant confirmed in writing her understanding of the nature of the allegations against her, that she is voluntarily admitting to the allegations, and that she understands the consequences of admitting to the misconduct.

9The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s admissions were voluntary, informed and unequivocal.

The evidence

10The evidence was tendered by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts, which provides in relevant part as follows:

A. Background and Overview

1. Emma Clarkson (the “Registrant”) obtained a bachelor’s degree in social work from the University of Western Ontario in 2019. She first registered with the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers (the “College”) as a Social Worker on June 8, 2020. Her registration was administratively suspended for non-payment of fees on April 3, 2024.

2. At all material times, the Registrant was employed by [employment] of [location] [employment] in the Community Mental Health Program (“CMHP”) as a Transitional Case Manager.

3. As Transitional Case Manager, the Registrant provided social work services to individuals coming out of hospitals, and intensive shot-term crisis management support. The role focused on preventing Emergency Room visits as well as providing urgent support to clients identified as requiring community based mental health support.

4. As set out below, [employment] terminated the Registrant’s employment on August 14, 2023, after she admitted to having an inappropriate and sexual relationship with her Client A.

B. Services Provided by the Registrant to Client A

5. Client A was referred to [employment] after being discharged from a hospital. The Registrant provided social work and counselling services to Client A between October 14, 2022 and May 30, 2023. As his Transitional Case Manager, she was providing general support with respect to Client A’s mental health and living situation.

6. During this time, the Registrant met with Client A weekly. The Registrant provided social work services which included:

(a) attending appointments with Client A’s psychiatrist who was treating his depression and anxiety;

(b) counselling Client A, including with respect to coping skills;

(c) providing Client A with assistance regarding personal finances and obtaining identification; and

(d) connecting Client A with a Cognitive Behavioural Therapy program.

7. On May 30, 2023, the Registrant ceased providing services to Client A. Client A remained a client at [employment].

C. Boundary Violations and Sexual Relationship During the Client Relationship

8. During the client relationship, Client A disclosed to the Registrant that he wished to have a friendship outside of work with her. The Registrant was initially reluctant, citing her professional obligations, but the two eventually developed a friendship.

9. The Registrant communicated with Client A on her personal phone, and through social media outside of work and for purposes unrelated to social services work.

10. The Registrant accepted gifts from Client A.

11. While continuing to provide services, sometime prior to May 13, 2023, the Registrant’s relationship with Client A became sexual. While the Registrant was aware that Client A had feelings for her, she took no steps to draw boundaries.

12. The Registrant engaged in sexual abuse of Client A by:

(a) engaging in sexual intercourse and other sexual activities on multiple occasions;

(b) engaging in inappropriate, romantic and sexual texts with the Client A (using kissing and heart emojis).

13. In or around May 13, 2023, the Registrant transported Client A outside the [employment] boundary area, from [location] to [location], on her day off, to visit his mother in [location].

14. The Registrant continued her sexual relationship with Client A until July 2023.

D. Failure to Follow CMHP Intake Protocol

15. During the client relationship, at the Registrant’s suggestion, Client A’s sister sought services from [employment].

16. To cover up her inappropriate relationship with Client A, and avoid detection, the Registrant handled the intake of Client A’s sister. Having served Client A, the Registrant was aware that she was not permitted to handle Client A’s sister’s intake. In doing so, the Registrant failed to follow the organization’s intake protocols.

E. Dishonesty with Colleagues and Employer

17. In or around April 2023, the Registrant’s colleagues came to suspect she was having an inappropriate relationship with Client A after witnessing instances of the Registrant texting/messaging Client A, including on social media. The Registrant had also previously indicated to her colleagues that she had suspected one of her clients was attracted to her. The Registrant’s colleagues suggested transferring the client out of her care and the Registrant indicated that she would think about it.

18. Shortly after May 13, 2023 the Registrant’s colleagues also became aware that the Registrant had transported Client A outside of the [employment] Boundary Area.

19. When confronted, the Registrant was not honest with her colleagues and stated that (a) she had only driven Client A halfway to his destination [location] and (b) the Director of CMHP had authorized her to do so.

20. On May 21, 2023, the Director of CMHP was made aware of the trip outside of the boundary area. On May 30, 2023, the Director met with the Registrant. During that meeting, the Registrant admitted to transporting Client A to [location] and being dishonest to her colleagues, but denied having any personal relationship with him.

21. At this time, Client A was removed from the Registrant’s caseload and a discipline note was made on her file. Client A remained a client of [employment].

22. In or around July 2023, the colleagues witnessed another instance of the Registrant using social media to message Client A. When confronted, the Registrant admitted to her colleagues that she was in a personal/sexual relationship with Client A and asked for their advice.

F. Employer Investigation and Retaliatory Harassment Claim

23. On July 25, 2023, the Registrant’s colleagues reported to management that the Registrant was engaged in a personal/sexual relationship with Client A.

24. In a subsequent meeting with the Director on July 25, 2023, the Registrant admitted that she had engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with her Client.

25. Shortly after her colleagues reported her misconduct, the Registrant filed a harassment claim against her colleagues.

26. It was ultimately determined that the harassment claim was unsubstantiated, and an act of retaliation contrary to the [employment] Whistleblower policy.

27. On August 14, 2023, the Registrant was terminated for cause.

G. Admissions of Professional Misconduct

28. The Registrant agrees that the following are standards of the profession, as set out in the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice Handbook (the “Handbook”):

(a) Principle I addresses relationships with clients;

(b) Principle II addresses competence and integrity;

(c) Principle III addresses responsibility to clients; and

(d) Principle VIII addresses sexual misconduct.

29. The Registrant admits that by reason of engaging in the conduct outlined above, she is guilty of professional misconduct as set out in section 26(2)(a) and (c) of the Social Work and Social Service Word Act, 1998, SO 1998, c 31 (the “Act”), in that the Registrant:

(a) violated Section 2.2 and 2.10 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation and Principle I of the Handbook (as commented on in Interpretations 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7) by:

(i) failing to be aware of her values, attitudes and needs and how these impact her professional relationships with clients;

(ii) failing to distinguish her needs and interests from those of her client to ensure that, within professional relationships, clients’ needs and interests remain paramount; and

(iii) failing to maintain an awareness and consideration of the purpose, mandate and function of the organization which employs her and how these impact and limit professional relationships.

(b) violated Sections 2.2, 2.5, 2.6 and 2.10 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation and Principle II of the Handbook (commented on in Interpretations 2.1.5 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2., 2.2.3, and 2.2.8) by:

(i) failing to engage in the process of self-review and evaluation of her practice and seeking consultation when appropriate;

(ii) failing to ensure clients are protected from an abuse of power, including sexual misconduct, during and after the provision of professional services and failing to establish and maintain clear and appropriate boundaries in a professional relationship;

(iii) engaging in a professional relationship that constitutes a conflict of interest and/or in a situation in which she ought reasonably to have known that the client or former client would be at risk; failing to evaluate professional relationships and other situations involving clients or former clients for potential conflicts of interest; failing to avoid conflicts of interest and/or dual relationships with clients that could impair her professional judgment or increase risk of exploitation or harm to clients; failing to declare a conflict of interest and taking appropriate steps to address it and eliminate it;

(iv) engaging in sexual relations with a client or former client, through sexual intercourse, touching of a sexual nature and behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature, where these relations, combined with the professional relationship, would create a conflict of interest;

(v) using information obtained in the course of a professional relationship, and using her professional position of authority, to coerce, improperly influence, harass, abuse or exploit a client or former client;

(vi) engaging in conduct that could reasonably be perceived as reflecting negatively on the profession of social service work.

(c) violated Sections 2.2 and 2.10 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation and Principle III of the Handbook (commented on in Interpretation 3.7) by failing to assume full responsibility for demonstrating that her client has not been exploited, coerced or manipulated intentionally or unintentionally where a personal relationship occurs with the client.

(d) violated Section 2.5 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation by abusing a client sexually, verbally psychologically or emotionally, including sexually abusing a client withing the meaning of subsection 43(4) of the Act;

(e) violated Sections 2.2 and 2.5 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation and Principle VIII of the Handbook (as commented on in Interpretations 8.1, 8.2.1., 8.2.2, 8.2.3, 8.3, 8.4, 8.6, and 8.7) by:

(i) failing to ensure that sexual misconduct did not occur;

(ii) by engaging in sexual intercourse or another form of physical sexual relations between her and her client and/or former client;

(iii) by engaging in touching, of a sexual nature, of her client and/or former client;

(iv) by engaging in behavior or remarks of a sexual nature towards her client and/or former client which were not of a clinical nature appropriate to the service provided;

(v) by developing sexual feelings towards her client that could put the client at risk, and failing to seek consultation/supervision or develop an appropriate plan; and

(vi) by failing to clearly state to the client and/or former client that behavior of a sexual nature is inappropriate by virtue of the professional relationship; and

(vii) by engaging in sexual relations, including with her client to whom she provided counselling services, following the termination of the professional relationship.

(f) Violated Section 2.36 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation by engaging in conduct or performing an act relevant to the practice of the profession that, having regard to all circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by Registrants as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional.

Decision of the Panel

11The College bears the onus of proving the allegations against the Registrant on the balance of probabilities, using clear, cogent and convincing evidence.

12Having carefully considered that burden and standard of proof, the Registrant’s admissions, the evidence contained in the Agreed Statement of Facts, and the submissions of counsel, the Panel found that the Registrant committed the acts of professional misconduct alleged in the Notice of Hearing. With respect to allegation (f), the Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. The Panel announced its decision orally on the record at the hearing.

Reasons for decision

13The Agreed Statement of Facts contained the necessary facts to prove all allegations against the Registrant set out in the Notice of Hearing. In addition, following an oral plea inquiry, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s admissions of professional misconduct were voluntary, informed and unequivocal.

14In respect of allegation (a), the Registrant committed professional misconduct under sections 2.2 and 2.10 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation by failing to meet the standards of the profession set out Principle I of the Handbook, Interpretations 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7, and providing a professional service to the Client while she was in a conflict of interest. By engaging in a dual relationship with the Client and then taking steps to conceal it, the Registrant acted in her own interests rather than the Client’s best interests. She failed to maintain awareness of her values, attitudes, and needs and their influence on professional relationships with clients; she failed to differentiate her personal needs and interests from those of her Client and to prioritize the Client’s' needs and interests. The Registrant’s failure to transfer the Client, her attempts to conceal the relationship by admitting the Client’s sister for services, her dishonesty with colleagues and employer, and her false harassment complaint all demonstrate self-serving actions, posed psychological risk to the client, and constitute professional misconduct.

15In addition, the Registrant failed to maintain consideration of her organization’s purpose, mandate, and function and how they affect and limit professional relationships with clients. The agency’s mandate and purpose, and the Registrant’s role within the agency, were to provide support for vulnerable individuals like the Client; instead of advancing that purpose, the Registrant abused her position of trust and took advantage of her Client’s vulnerability. The Panel found that the College satisfied its burden of proof to establish professional misconduct as set out in allegation (a).

16Under allegation (b), the Panel found that the Registrant violated sections 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.10 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation and failed to meet the standards of the profession set out Principle II of the Handbook, including Interpretations 2.1.5, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, and 2.2.8 when she had sexual relations with the Client and used her professional position to improperly influence, abuse and exploit the Client. The Registrant failed to conduct self-review, evaluate her practice, seek consultation, or protect her client from abuse of power—specifically sexual misconduct—during and after services, all of which was required under the standards of the profession. The Registrant failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with the Client. She engaged in a conflicted professional relationship, failed to identify or address conflicts of interest (including dual relationships with the Client and his sister), and failed to take action, despite intervention efforts by her colleagues and manager, to eliminate such conflicts.

17The course of conduct by the Registrant could reasonably be perceived as reflecting negatively on the social work profession and eroding the public’s trust and confidence in the profession. The standards of the profession required the Registrant to avoid such conduct.

18Accordingly, the College met its onus under allegation (b).

19Regarding allegation (c), the Registrant breached sections 2.2 and 2.10 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation and Principle III of the Handbook (Interpretation 3.7) by not taking full responsibility to show the Client was not exploited, coerced, or manipulated, intentionally or unintentionally, during a personal relationship. Not only did the Registrant engage in professional misconduct by entering into a sexual relationship with the Client, but she declined early intervention recommended by her manager and did not seek supervision, which might have reduced the impact of her actions on the Client. She subsequently engaged in ongoing attempts to conceal and cover up the inappropriate romantic and sexual conduct with the Client over an extended period of time. Allegation (c) was proven on the agreed facts.

20As alleged in allegation (d), the Panel found that the Registrant violated section 2.5 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation by abusing the Client sexually, including sexually abuse the Client within the meaning of s. 43(4) of the Act. Subsection 43(4) of the Act defines sexual abuse, with respect to a client by a member of the College, to mean:

(a) sexual intercourse or another form of physical sexual relations between the member and the client,

(b) touching, of a sexual nature, of the client by the member, or

(c) behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by the member towards the client, other than behaviour or remarks of a clinical nature appropriate to the service provided.

21As set out in the agreed facts, the Registrant engaged in sexual intercourse and other sexual activities with the Client on multiple occasions, and exchanged inappropriate, romantic and sexual texts with the Client A (using kissing and heart emojis). Such conduct falls within the definition of “sexual abuse” in s. 43(4). The College has met its burden in respect of allegation (d)

22The Panel’s findings on allegation (d) apply equally to allegation (e): the Registrant violated sections 2.2 and 2.5 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation and Principle VIII of the Handbook, as commented on in Interpretations 8.1, 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.2.3, 8.3, 8.4, 8.6, 8.7) by failing to ensure that sexual misconduct did not occur and by actively participating in a romantic and sexual relationship with the Client, which included sexual intercourse, other sexual activities, and exchanging romantic and sexual texts. The Registrant became aware that the Client was attracted to her but declined to transfer him from her caseload, rejecting her colleague’s advice to do so, and did not implement a plan to maintain boundaries. Instead, the Registrant crossed boundaries over an extended timeframe, allowing the relationship to progress to a sexual relationship.

23With respect to allegation (f), the Panel found that the Registrant engaged in professional misconduct under section 2.36 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation by engaging in conduct or performing an act relevant to the practice of the profession that, having regard to all circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. By sexually abusing the Client, the Registrant engaged egregious misconduct. Her actions included an element of moral failing—the evidence shows that she knew that her conduct was wrong, but she pursued it anyway. By the very nature of the Registrant’s work with the Client, they were aware of the Client’s particular vulnerability, and exploited that vulnerability by engaged in a romantic and sexual relationship. These actions by the Registrant destroyed the fundamental ingredient of trust in the social worker-client relationship. Her actions were a disgrace to the profession and to herself. The Panel had no hesitation in concluding that members of the social work profession would reasonably regard the Registrant’s behaviour as unprofessional, dishonourable and disgraceful.

Penalty submissions

24The parties were in agreement on the issue of penalty. They presented a Joint Submission on Penalty (“Joint Submission”) asking this Panel to make an order as follows.

1. The Registrant shall be reprimanded by the Discipline Committee and the fact and nature of the reprimand shall be recorded on the College’s Register.

2. The Registrar shall be directed to revoke the Registrant’s certificate of registration.

3. The period of time during which the Registrant may not apply to the College for a new certificate of registration shall be fixed at five (5) years from the date of the Discipline Committee’s Order.

4. The Discipline Committee’s finding and Order (or a summary thereof) shall be published, with identifying information concerning the Registrant included, in the College’s official publication and on the College's website, and the results of the hearing shall be recorded on the Register and in any other media-related format that is provided to the public and is deemed appropriate by the College.

5. The Registrant shall pay costs to the College in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) by the date of the Discipline Committee’s Order.

25In support of the Joint Submission, the parties jointly submitted that this penalty is proportionate to the nature of the misconduct, the circumstances of the Registrant, and the College’s mandate to protect the public. This penalty reflects the gravity of the Registrant’s actions, aims to deter future misconduct, and appropriately considers both mitigating and aggravating factors. The parties jointly submitted that overall, this sanction falls within the established range and aligns with penalties imposed by the Discipline Committee of this College for comparable misconduct under similar conditions.

Penalty decision

26Having considered the Panel’s findings of professional misconduct, the evidence and the submissions of the parties, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission and made an order as follows:

1. The Registrant shall be reprimanded by the Discipline Committee, and the fact and nature of the reprimand shall be recorded on the College’s Register.

2. The Registrar is hereby directed to revoke the Registrant’s certificate of registration.

3. The period of time during which the Registrant may not apply to the College for a new certificate of registration shall be fixed at five (5) years from the date of the Discipline Committee’s Order.

4. The Discipline Committee’s finding and Order (or a summary thereof) shall be published, with identifying information concerning the Registrant included, in the College’s official publication and on the College's website, and the results of the hearing shall be recorded on the Register and in any other media-related format that is provided to the public and is deemed appropriate by the College.

5. The Registrant shall pay costs to the College in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) by the date of the Discipline Committee’s Order.

27The Panel announced its order orally on the record at the hearing.

Reasons for penalty decision

28A discipline penalty should maintain high professional standards, preserve the public’s trust and confidence in the ability of the College to regulate its members, and, above all, protect the public. Those purposes are achieved through a penalty that considers the principles of general deterrence, specific deterrence and, where appropriate, rehabilitation and remediation of the Registrant’s practice. The Panel considered these principles when reviewing the Joint Submission.

29The Panel also recognized that it must accept a joint submission on penalty unless doing so would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is contrary to the public interest.

30The Panel determined that the Joint Submission is fair and appropriate in the circumstances of this case, and on a proper application of the principles of penalty.

31The penalty includes revocation of the Registrant’s certificate of registration with the College, together with a five-year ban before she can reapply for registration. This component of the penalty order, the most severe order within the Discipline Committee’s jurisdiction, fulfills the College’s duty to protect the public is warranted given the seriousness of sexual abuse of a vulnerable client. Revocation is a strong general and specific deterrent, and no lesser penalty would restore public confidence in the profession. If the Registrant seeks re-registration after five years, the College will thoroughly assess her suitability at that time. Revocation with a five-year ban before reapplying is consistent with orders this Discipline Committee has imposed in other cases of sexual abuse.

32The oral reprimand allows the Panel to formally express its disapproval of the Registrant’s misconduct, and communicate its denunciation directly to the Registrant. The reprimand serves as a measure of deterrence for future similar actions, advancing the objectives of specific and general deterrence.

33Publishing the Panel’s decision together with Registrant’s name, achieves both general and specific deterrence, and protects the public. Through this decision, which will be made public, the Discipline Committee can communicate unequivocally to the public and the profession that misconduct of this nature is totally unacceptable. Publication also provides transparency in the discipline process, maintaining public confidence.

34Finally, the $5,000 cost order agreed to by the parties aligns with costs orders made in uncontested discipline cases before this Committee and other regulatory colleges.

35At the end of the hearing, the Panel delivered an oral reprimand to the Registrant in accordance with paragraph 1 of the Panel’s order.

I, Charlene Crews, sign this decision as chairperson of the Panel and on behalf of the Panel members listed below.