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 George Theodoris, 2025 ONCSWSSW 3

Date:

20250623

BETWEEN:

THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORKERS AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS

• and -

GEORGE THEODORIS

PANEL:

Chisanga Chekwe

Chair, Public Member

Sana Imran

Professional Member

Lori Monroe

Professional Member

Appearances:

Amy Block, counsel for the College

Austen Metcalfe, counsel for the Registrant

Andrea Gonsalves, Independent Legal Counsel to the Panel

Heard:

December 16, 2024

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 December 16, 2024. 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.

2The Registrant was not present at the hearing but he was represented by counsel who confirmed he had instructions both to communicate the Registrant’s plea and to proceed with the hearing in the Registrant’s absence. The College did not object to proceeding in the Registrant’s absence. In the circumstances, the Panel agreed to proceed with the hearing.

Publication ban

3The College requested an order banning publication of the identity of the clients in this matter (referred to as “Client A”, “Client 1” or “C1” and “Client B”, “Client 2” or “C2”, respectively) and of any information that would identify the clients, including the name school where the Registrant provided social work services. The College’s request was made pursuant to s. 28(7) of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998, SO 1998, c 31 (the “Act”), and was based on the fact that the allegations and evidence in this case involve sensitive personal information about the clients, including allegations of sexual abuse of the clients by the Registrant. The clients were vulnerable and were adolescents at the time. The desirability of avoiding public disclosure about those matters in connection with the clients’ identities outweighs the desirability of giving the public access to that information.

4The Registrant, through his counsel, did not oppose the order sought.

5The Panel granted the order as requested. There is no compelling public interest in the clients’ identity. The publication ban does not undermine the public interest; rather, it serves the public interest by encouraging reporting of sexual misconduct.

The allegations

6In the Notice of Hearing dated February 6, 2024, the Registrant is alleged to be guilty of professional misconduct pursuant to the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c 31 (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”).

7The 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 practising at [the “School”], where you were employed as a school social worker by [the “School Board”] in … Ontario.

3. At the School, you provided counselling services to vulnerable teenaged youth with complex social, emotional and behavioural issues, and mental health issues.

Client A

4. You first began providing counselling to Client A (“Client A”) when she was in elementary school. In or around the fall of 2022, Client A, then a [age] student at the School, was referred to you for social work services. From about October 2022 to about December of 2022, you provided social work services, including, but not limited to, counselling services, to Client A.

5. To your knowledge, Client A was a vulnerable teenager whose history was well known to you.

6. On or about December 22, 2022, you engaged in behaviour and/or made remarks to the Client of an inappropriate and/or sexual nature that were not appropriate to the service provided.

7. On or about December 22, 2023, in a counselling session with Client A, while alone with Client A, you made comments, including:

a) in reference to Client A’s breasts, you told her to cover those “things” up, or words to that effect;

b) you told her to zipper up, or words to that effect; and,

c) you asked her, in reference to her appearance “why do you have to do that?” or words to that effect; and,

d) you remarked that you were an old man and could not focus, or words to that effect.

8. When confronted by the School Board, you denied making these statements, and questioned the credibility of Client A.

Client B

9. In or around the fall of 2022, Client A (“Client B”), then a [age] student at the School, was referred to you for social work services. From about October 2022 to about December of 2022, you provided social work services, including (but not limited to) counselling services, to Client B.

10. To your knowledge, Client B was a vulnerable teenager experiencing various issues including challenges with the law.

11. On or about December 22, 2022, you engaged in behaviour and/or made remarks to the Client of an inappropriate and/or sexual nature that were not appropriate to the service provided.

12. On or about December 22, 2023, and/or on other occasions, in counselling sessions with Client B, while alone with Client B, you made comments, including:

a) In reference to her clothing, including wearing crop-tops, you remarked “you should really cover up, it’s distracting” or words to that effect;

b) You remarked “You should be careful what you wear” or words to that effect.

13. When confronted by the School Board, you denied making these statements, and identified Client B as engaging in high risk behaviour.

14. In or about February 28, 2023, you were terminated from your employment with the School Board.

8The 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 Section 2.2 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation by failing to meet the standards of the profession, including (but not limited to): Principle I of the Handbook (commented on in Interpretations 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7) by failing to be aware of your values, attitudes and needs and how those impact on your professional relationship with clients; by failing to distinguish your needs and interests from those of your clients to ensure that, within your professional relationship, clients’ needs and interests remained paramount; by failing to maintain awareness and consideration of the purpose, mandate and function of the organization by which you were employed and how these impact and limit professional relationships with clients.

b) In that you violated Sections 2.2, 2.6 and 2.10 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation by failing to meet the standards of the profession, including (but not limited to): Principle II of the Handbook (commented on in Interpretations 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.3 and 2.2.8) by:

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

ii. 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 risk of exploitation or harm to clients;

iii. failing to ensure you do not use your position of authority to coerce, improperly influence, harass, abuse or exploit a client;

iv. engaging in conduct that could reasonably be perceived as reflecting negatively on the profession of social service work;

c) In that you violated Section 2.2 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation by failing to meet the standards of the profession, including (but not limited to): Principle VIII of the Handbook (commented on in Interpretations 8.1, and 8.2.3) by:

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

ii. engaging in behaviour or making remarks of a sexual nature towards the client, other than behaviour or remarks of a clinical nature appropriate to the service provided;

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 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

9Through his counsel, the Registrant admitted to the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.

10Although the Panel was unable to conduct an oral plea inquiry at the hearing due to the Registrant’s non-attendance, and no written plea inquiry was filed, in the Agreed Statement of Facts between the College and the Registrant (discussed below), the Registrant confirmed in writing his understanding of the nature of the allegations against him, that he was voluntarily admitting to the allegations, and that he understood the consequences of admitting to the misconduct. These acknowledgements overlap with the substance and purpose of the plea inquiry.

11The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s admissions were voluntary, informed and unequivocal.

The evidence

12The evidence was tendered by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts, which provides in relevant part as follows:

A. Background and Overview

1. George Theodoris (the “Registrant”) was first registered with the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers (the “College”) as a Social Worker on October 4, 2000. The Registrant was administratively suspended for non-payment of fees on April 3, 2024.

2. At all material times the Registrant was employed by the [“School Board”] as a social worker. The Registrant provided counselling services to youth with complex social, emotional and behavioural issues, and mental health issues.

3. As set out below, the Registrant was terminated by [the School Board] on February 28, 2023.

B. The Registrant’s Conduct with Respect to Client 1

4. Client 1 (“C1”) was a [age] student at a high school within [the “School Board”] (the “School”). In the fall of 2022, the Registrant commenced providing counselling services to C1 at the School in his capacity as a school social worker approximately once per week throughout the school year. The Registrant had previously provided counselling services to C1 when she was in elementary school.

5. C1’s mental health concerns and complex history was well known to the Registrant.

6. On or about December 22, 2022, the Registrant made remarks to C1 which were inappropriate and were of a sexual nature that were not appropriate to the service provided.

7. Specifically, during a counselling session with C1 on that day, the Registrant made comments to C1 in reference to her body and attire. C1 was wearing a fitted tank top with an unzipped sweatshirt overtop. The Registrant requested of C1, with reference to her breasts, to “please cover those things up”. He told C1 to “zipper up” in reference to her sweatshirt. The Registrant asked C1 “why do you have to do that?” He told her: “I am an old man. I can’t focus”.

8. C1 recorded the conversation on her cell phone. A copy of the recording is attached at Tab 1 to this Agreed Statement of Facts [omitted from these Reasons for Decision].

9. C1 reported that the Registrant’s comments made her feel disgusting. She decided that she would not see the Registrant again.

10. If the Registrant were to testify, he would state that he made these remarks to preserve the therapeutic environment as he was concerned with the appropriateness of C1’s dress. C1’s dress was, at all times, compliant with the school dress code. The Registrant acknowledges that his remarks irreparably harmed the therapeutic relationship and constitute sexual abuse in accordance with section 43(4) (c) of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998, SO 1998, c 31 (the “Act”).

C. The Registrant’s Conduct with Respect to Client 2

11. Client 2 (“C2”) was, at the time, a [age] student at the same high school attended by C1. The Registrant provided counselling services approximately once per week. C2 was experiencing various psychosocial struggles known to the Registrant including difficulties with her family and the law.

12. On various occasions between October 6, 2022, and December 2022, the Registrant made remarks to C2 that were inappropriate and were of a sexual nature that were not appropriate to the service provided.

13. Specifically, during counselling sessions with C2, the Registrant made comments to C2 in reference to her body and attire. When C2 was wearing a crop top during counselling sessions, the Registrant told C2 that she should “really cover up” and remarked that her attire was distracting. The Registrant told C2 she should “be careful” with what she wears.

14. This behaviour made C2 uncomfortable.

15. If the Registrant were to testify, he would state that he made these remarks to preserve the therapeutic environment as he was concerned with the appropriateness of C2’s dress. C2’s dress was, at all times, compliant with the school dress code. The Registrant acknowledges that his remarks irreparably harmed the therapeutic relationship and constitute sexual abuse in accordance with section 43(4) (c) of the Act.

D. School Board Investigation

16. Immediately after C1’s counselling session on December 22, 2022, C1 reported the Registrant’s behaviour to the Vice Principal of the School.

17. Shortly thereafter, her mother submitted a report to the College. The matter was also reported to [the School Board], [omitted] Children’s Aid Society, and the [omitted] District Police.

18. The [School Board] initiated an investigation on December 22, 2022, which revealed similar allegations from another student at the school had been made – C2.

19. The Registrant was initially interviewed by the Vice Principal and his manager on January 25, 2023. During the interview the Registrant denied making some of the comments and attempted to undermine C1’s credibility by indicating that C1 was “out of sorts” at the time, referencing the medication she takes, and divulging that she had been upset about a grade she had received. With respect to his interactions with C2, the Registrant denied making some statements and indicated that other comments were made out of concern for C2 who was a “high risk student”.

20. The Registrant was interviewed again on February 10, 2023, and again denied making the comments, notwithstanding his communication with C1 was recorded.

21. The Registrant’s employment with [the School Board] was terminated by letter dated February 28, 2023. A copy of the termination letter is attached at Tab 2 to this Agreed Statement of Facts [omitted from these Reasons for Decision].

E. Admissions of Professional Misconduct

22. The Registrant agrees that the following are standards of the profession, as set out in the Code of Ethics¹ and Standards of Practice Handbook² (the “Handbook”):

(a) Principle I addresses relationships with clients;

(b) Principle II addresses competence and integrity;

(c) Principle VIII addresses sexual misconduct.

23. The Registrant admits that by reason of engaging in the conduct outlined above, he is guilty of professional misconduct as set out in section 26(2) (a) and (c) of the Act in that the Registrant:

(a) violated Section 2.2 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 his values, attitudes and needs and how these impact his professional relationships with clients; and/or

(ii) failing to distinguish his needs and interests from those of his 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 him and how this impacts and limits professional relationships.

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

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

(ii) engaging in a professional relationship that constitutes a conflict of interest and/or in a situation in which he ought reasonably to have known that the client would be at risk; failing to evaluate professional relationships and other situations involving clients for potential conflicts of interest; failing to avoid conflicts of interest and/or dual relationships with clients that could impair his professional judgment or increase the risk of exploitation or harm to clients;

(iii) failing to ensure he did not use his professional position of authority, to coerce, improperly influence, harass, abuse or exploit a client;

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

(c) violated Sections 2.2 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation and Principle VIII of the Handbook (as commented on in Interpretations 8.1, 8.2.3) by:

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

(ii) engaging in behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature towards the client, other than behaviour or remarks of a clinical nature appropriate to the service being provided.

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

(e) 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.

Decision of the Panel

13The Panel recognized that the College bears the onus of proving the allegations against the Registrant on the balance of probabilities, using clear, cogent and convincing evidence.

14Having carefully considered the onus and standard of proof, the admissions of the Registrant, 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 (e), the Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. The Panel announced its findings orally on the record at the hearing.

Reasons for decision

15The Panel found that the College met its burden in proving each of the allegations as follows.

16The Registrant provided counselling services to C1 and C2 (at different time periods) at a frequency of once per week. Both C1 and C2 were vulnerable teenagers whose mental health struggles were known to the Registrant.

17During private, counselling sessions, where the Registrant holds a position of authority, the Registrant made remarks to both C1 and C2 on their bodies and their attire, which were sexual in nature and not appropriate to the service provided.

18The Registrant admitted to making remarks in December 2022 to C1 of an inappropriate and/or sexual nature that were not appropriate to the service the registrant was to be providing. The Registrant’s remarks included comments about C1’s breasts, their overall appearance, and choice of clothing. In addition, the Registrant made comments on their inability to focus due to C1’s choice of clothing and appearance.

19The Registrant admitted to making remarks in December 2022 to C2 of an inappropriate and/or sexual nature that were not appropriate to the service the registrant was to be providing. The Registrant’s remarks included comments about C2’s clothing, their overall appearance, and choice of clothing. In addition, the Registrant made comments on their inability to focus due to C2’s choice of clothing and appearance, further adding they “should be careful what you wear.”

20Under allegation (a), the College alleged that the Registrant engaged in professional misconduct by failing to maintain the standards of the profession as set out in Principle I of the Handbook, including as commented on in interpretations 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7. Principle I relates to a registrant’s relationship with clients. By making the comments he did to C1 and C2 during the counselling sessions, the Registrant failed to be aware of his values, attitudes and needs and how those impact on his professional relationship with his clients, C1 and C2, and failed to distinguish his needs and interests from those of his clients to ensure that, within the professional relationship, his clients’ needs and interests remained paramount. The Registrant lacked an understanding of the inappropriateness of his comments and the adverse impact they had on the clients. He also failed to maintain awareness and consideration of the purpose, mandate and function of [“School Board”], his employer, and how they impact and limit professional relationships with clients. For these reasons, the College met its burden on allegation (a).

21Allegation (b) relates to failing to maintain the standards of the profession and misconduct under ss. 2.6 and 2.10 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation in respect of abuses of power, failing to maintain appropriate boundaries, conflicts of interest or dual relationships with clients, and exploitation in the social worker-client relationship. The College proved in the Agreed Statement of Facts that the Registrant failed to maintain client and appropriate boundaries ensure C1 and C2 were protected from an abuse of power, including sexual misconduct, during the provision of professional services and failed to establish and maintain clear and appropriate boundaries in the professional relationship. The Registrant failed to ensure he did not use his position of authority to coerce, improperly influence, harass, abuse or exploit a client and engaged in conduct that could reasonably be perceived as reflecting negatively on the profession of social service work. The findings establish all the elements of professional misconduct. When confronted by his employer, the Registrant denied making statements of a sexual and inappropriate nature, and instead, listed reasons to suggest C1 and C2 lacked credibility and could not be trustworthy sources.

22Allegation (c) relates to failing to maintain the standards of the profession by failing to ensure that sexual misconduct did not occur and engaging in remarks of a sexual nature towards the client that are not appropriate to the service being provided. Allegation (d) relates to violating s. 2.5 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation by abusing a client sexually, verbally, psychologically, or emotionally, including sexually abusing a client within the meaning of subsection 43(4) of the Act. The College proved this two allegations on a balance of probabilities through the facts regarding the Registrant’s marks made to C1 and C2 that were of a sexual nature and no appropriate to the service being provided.

23With respect to allegation (e), the Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. The Registrants boundary violations and sexual abuse was entirely improper and constitutes misconduct of the most serious kind: sexual abuse of clients. He exploited clients whom he knew were vulnerable and abused the position of trust and authority he held by virtue of the professional relationship. The Registrant’s conduct demonstrates serious moral failings. He knew or ought to have known that his behaviour was completely unacceptable.

Penalty submissions

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

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

2. 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 posted to . 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.

3. The Registrant shall pay costs to the College in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), which amount shall be paid to the College in installments according to the following timetable:

• $418.67 – On or before the hearing date.

• $418.67 – Within one (1) month of the hearing date.

• $418.66 – Within two (2) months of the hearing date.

• $104 paid within three (3) months of the hearing date

• $104 paid by the 15th day of every month thereafter for 35 months.

With the full amount becoming due should the Registrant miss a payment as stipulated above.

4. The College and the Registrant agree that if the Discipline Committee accepts this Joint Submission on Penalty and Costs, the order will be effective immediately, and there will be no appeal or judicial review of the decision or order to any forum.

25During submissions at the hearing, the parties each confirmed that although the Joint Submission does not specify the format of delivery of the reprimand contemplated by paragraph 1 of the Joint Submission, they would agree to have the Panel deliver the reprimand in writing in light of the Registrant’s non-attendance at the hearing.

26Appended as a schedule to the Joint Submissions was an Undertaking and Acknowledgement signed by the Registrant (the “Undertaking”). The Undertaking includes, among other terms, the following:

I, GEORGE THEODORIS, undertake that:

1. I hereby resign from the College and permanently surrender my certificate of registration.

2. I shall refrain from engaging in the practice of social work or social service work, as defined in the College’s Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice and/or use the restricted titles set out in sections 46 and/or 47 of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 31 (the “Act”), and/or hold myself out to the public as a member of the College and/or as qualified to practise as a social worker or social service worker.

3. I shall permanently refrain from re-applying to the College to be registered and/or in any way seek the reinstatement of my certificate of registration.

4. I shall not engage in the practice of social work or social service work in any jurisdiction.

Penalty decision

27Having considered the findings of professional misconduct, the evidence, the submissions of the parties and the Registrant’s Undertaking, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission and made an order as follows. The Panel’s order was announced orally on the record at the hearing.

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

2. 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 posted to . 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.

3. The Registrant shall pay costs to the College in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), which amount shall be paid to the College in installments according to the following timetable:

• $418.67 – On or before the hearing date.

• $418.67 – Within one (1) month of the hearing date.

• $418.66 – Within two (2) months of the hearing date.

• $104 paid within three (3) months of the hearing date.

• $104 paid by the 15th day of every month thereafter for 35 months.

With the full amount becoming due should the Registrant miss a payment as stipulated above.

Reasons for penalty decision

28The Panel recognized that the penalty should maintain high professional standards, preserve public confidence in the ability of the College to regulate its Registrants, and, above all, protect the public. This is 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 also considered the principle that the Panel should accept a joint submission on penalty unless it is contrary to the public interest or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

29Both parties have entered the joint submission voluntarily and after careful consideration. The Panel accepted the joint submission provided by the parties as it aligns with objectives sought with the penalty order, specifically public protection, as well as general and specific deterrence. Misconduct of the nature found in this case would typically warrant an order of revocation of the registrant’s certificate of registration. The Registrant here has voluntarily and permanently surrendered his certificate of registration and has undertaken not to re-apply for registration or to engage in the practice of social work in any jurisdiction. This is a more robust and absolute consequence than the Discipline Committee could order under s 26(4) and (5) of the Act. Together with the reprimand and publication of the Panel’s finding and Order, as required by paragraph 2 of the Order, the Panel is satisfied that the objectives of penalty are met.

30In sum, the joint submission is appropriate, reasonable, and satisfies the duty to protect the public interest. There will be a reprimand recorded on the public register, allowing the panel to denounce the misconduct and convey disapproval directly to the registrant and profession at large, deterring others from engaging in similar misconduct and communicating a clear message to the public and profession that misconduct of this nature is not tolerated by the College.

31As to the issue of costs, the agreed-upon amount of $5,000 and payment schedule are fair and reasonable, and well within the range for typical costs orders of a one-day uncontested hearing. The Panel saw no reason to interfere with the parties’ agreement.

32A copy of the written reprimand administered by the Discipline Committee to the Registrant in accordance with paragraph 1 of the Panel’s order is attached to these Reasons for Decision as Appendix “A”.

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

Footnotes

1. 1Schedule “A” to By-law No. 66 of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers
2. 2Schedule “B” to By-law No. 66 of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers