Administrative Law - OCSWSSW

In a professional discipline proceeding, the member admitted allegations arising from inaccurate, conflicting, and falsified client records created while providing social work services to motor vehicle accident claimants.

The Panel found professional misconduct established on the agreed facts, including failures to maintain systematic and accurate records, creation of false or misleading documents, and conduct reasonably regarded as dishonourable and unprofessional.

Applying the public-interest standard for joint penalty submissions, the Panel accepted a revised joint submission providing for a reprimand, a three-month suspension with a partially remittable component, supervision, an ethics course, publication, and costs.

The Panel treated the member’s prior caution for similar record-keeping concerns as an aggravating factor and her admissions and cooperation as mitigating.

In a professional discipline proceeding subject to a publication ban protecting the client’s identity, the panel found that the member committed professional misconduct by engaging in repeated boundary crossings and a sexual relationship with a vulnerable counselling client during and after the therapeutic relationship.

The panel held that the admitted conduct contravened multiple provisions of the Professional Misconduct Regulation and the College’s Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice Handbook, including obligations concerning sexual misconduct, conflicts of interest, professional boundaries, and responsibility to clients.

The panel accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty, applying the principle that a joint submission should not be rejected unless following it would bring the tribunal’s integrity into disrepute.

The member’s certificate of registration was revoked, re-application was barred for five years, a reprimand was ordered, and costs of $5,000 were imposed.

Following prior findings of professional misconduct arising from boundary violations, inappropriate sexualized comments and disclosures, and deficient record-keeping in counselling sessions with a vulnerable client, the Discipline Committee determined penalty and costs.

The panel held that public protection, maintenance of confidence in the profession, general deterrence, specific deterrence, and remediation required a written reprimand, a five-month suspension, publication, and tailored remedial terms including coursework, reflective essays, employer notification, and practice supervision if the member returned to practice.

The panel treated the absence of mitigating factors flowing from non-participation as significant, while emphasizing the seriousness of the misconduct and the vulnerability of the client.

It also awarded the College $20,000 in costs, payable within 18 months, as fair and reasonable relative to the actual costs incurred.

A discipline panel found that the member committed professional misconduct by making sexualized comments to a vulnerable counselling client, pursuing sexual topics after the client expressed discomfort, and disclosing intimate details of his own sexual history.

The panel also found longstanding and serious failures to maintain required clinical documentation, including progress notes, psycho-social assessments, and treatment plans across multiple files.

Applying the balance of probabilities standard, the panel accepted the evidence of the client and corroborating witnesses as clear, cogent and convincing.

All allegations of professional misconduct were proven.

The Discipline Committee considered whether a member committed professional misconduct by failing for years to disclose a Florida health-care-fraud conviction, a foreign licence revocation, and an Ontario impaired driving conviction in annual registration renewals.

The panel held that the admitted misconduct breached multiple reporting, honesty, record-keeping, and professionalism provisions under the governing statute, regulations, and standards of practice.

Applying disciplinary penalty principles centred on public protection, public confidence, and general deterrence, the panel revoked the member’s certificate, imposed a three-year bar on reapplication, directed publication with identifying information, and ordered an oral reprimand.

The panel also ordered costs of $20,000 payable within three years.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted extensive misconduct involving forged client signatures, fabricated clinical records, backdated documentation, inaccurate service information, and emailing confidential client records to a personal email account.

The panel accepted the admissions and found professional misconduct proven under the governing statute and regulation, while holding that the conduct was dishonourable and unprofessional but not disgraceful given the acknowledged health context.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty aimed at public protection and remediation.

The order included a reprimand, a suspended eight-month suspension effective only upon any future reissuance of registration, conditions requiring ethics and clinical documentation courses, publication, and $5,000 in costs.

In this professional discipline penalty decision, the panel imposed a substantial sanction after prior findings that the member deliberately disclosed and promoted access to confidential child-protection-related information belonging to numerous families.

The panel held that penalty had to be grounded in public protection, specific and general deterrence, and remediation, and rejected submissions that no order should issue because the member viewed herself as a whistleblower or had been acquitted in related criminal and Provincial Offences Act proceedings.

The order included a reprimand, a six-month suspension with one month conditionally remittable, educational and regulatory conditions, employer-notification or supervision requirements, publication, and costs.

The panel also held that the governing statute required it to make a penalty order once professional misconduct had been found.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found that a social work member committed professional misconduct by allowing a therapeutic relationship with a vulnerable client to become personal and sexual, exchanging intimate messages and photographs, concealing the relationship, and abruptly ending contact.

The panel held that the admitted conduct breached multiple standards in the Handbook, constituted sexual abuse within subsection 43(4) of the governing statute, and was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty as within the acceptable range and consistent with public protection, deterrence, and maintenance of professional standards.

The member was reprimanded, her certificate of registration was revoked, she was barred from reapplying for five years, publication was ordered, and costs of $1,000 were imposed.

Following earlier findings of professional misconduct, the discipline panel conducted a penalty and costs hearing by videoconference.

The parties presented a joint submission seeking a reprimand, revocation of registration, a five-year bar on re-application or reinstatement, publication, and fixed costs.

The panel accepted the joint submission, holding that the proposed order served public protection, maintained confidence in professional regulation, and advanced specific and general deterrence.

The panel considered revocation appropriate for sexual abuse or sexual misconduct findings and approved agreed costs of $15,000 inclusive of HST.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted misconduct arising from counselling a client with an acquired brain injury while lacking relevant competence, using abusive and demeaning communications, breaching confidentiality, and engaging in boundary violations and conflicts of interest through overlapping family representation and personal self-disclosure.

The Panel found the admitted facts established multiple breaches of the governing regulation, the Code of Ethics, and the Standards of Practice Handbook, and further found the conduct disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

Applying the public-interest approach to joint submissions, the Panel accepted the jointly proposed order.

The member was reprimanded, suspended for four months with one month remittable on compliance, made subject to remedial terms and education requirements, and ordered to pay $5,000 in costs.

Discipline proceeding arising from admitted therapist-client boundary violations, including disclosures of romantic feelings, personal and romantic email and telephone communications, conflict of interest, and failure to clearly and promptly terminate the therapeutic relationship.

The panel held that the member's conduct constituted professional misconduct under the governing statute, regulation, and standards of practice, notwithstanding the absence of physical intimacy and the client's view that no harm occurred.

Applying the public-interest approach to joint submissions, the panel accepted the agreed penalty.

The order included a reprimand, a four-month suspension with one month remittable on compliance, practice supervision, ethics and boundaries education, publication, and $5,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline hearing, the tribunal found the member guilty of professional misconduct for repeatedly accessing sealed adoption records without authorization, copying or noting their contents, and disclosing the information to an adoptee with whom she was in a personal relationship.

The tribunal held that pre-registration conduct could ground discipline where it bore on current suitability to practise and found the member's confidentiality breach, dishonesty during the employer investigation, and resulting harm to affected persons demonstrated disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty despite expressing concern that revocation might otherwise have been warranted.

It imposed an oral reprimand, a 16-month suspension with partial remission conditional on compliance, remediation terms, publication, and $13,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel dismissed the member's motion to close the hearing, holding that the evidence did not establish a compelling basis under the governing statute or the SPPA to overcome the presumption of public access.

The member admitted allegations arising from inappropriate personal disclosures, boundary violations, repeated contact with a vulnerable client outside sessions and after termination, and disclosure of client information to the client's sister.

The panel found professional misconduct proven and accepted a partial joint penalty submission imposing a reprimand, a five-month suspension with one month conditionally remittable, mandatory boundaries and ethics training, and costs.

On publication, the panel ordered publication with the member's name but directed limited redactions of specific details of the misconduct as a narrower measure addressing the asserted risk of harm.

In this professional discipline decision, the panel found a social worker committed multiple acts of professional misconduct arising from family mediation, parenting coordination, and custody-access assessment work.

The admitted misconduct included acting beyond scope by using DSM-based diagnostic language, making unsubstantiated recommendations about clients and children, verbally abusing clients, prioritizing personal interests, using professional authority to harass or improperly influence clients, and failing to report child protection concerns forthwith under s. 72 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The panel held that the conduct contravened multiple provisions of the Professional Misconduct Regulation, the Act, and the College’s standards framework.

It accepted a joint penalty submission imposing a reprimand, a three-month suspension with one month remittable on compliance, remedial terms and conditions, publication, and $5,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel considered whether a registered social service worker committed professional misconduct by deliberately accessing confidential child-protection-related records on an agency website, posting a URL to one such document on Facebook, and posting a surreptitiously recorded video containing confidential material.

The panel held that posting the URL expanded public access to information that had the effect of identifying children or families involved in child protection proceedings, contrary to s. 45(8) of the Child and Family Services Act.

It further held that this statutory breach was relevant to suitability to practise, breached professional confidentiality standards under the governing regulation and handbook, and constituted conduct reasonably regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

The allegations of professional misconduct were proven on a balance of probabilities.

A discipline panel found a registered social worker guilty of professional misconduct after she admitted issuing two letters for use in family-court custody and access proceedings without proper authorization, adequate evidentiary foundation, or balanced disclosure to all clients.

The panel held that the member failed to reset counselling goals after the parents' separation, breached confidentiality, made false, misleading, inaccurate or improper statements, and provided custody-related recommendations without conducting the type of comprehensive assessment required for such opinions.

Applying the public-interest approach to joint submissions, the panel accepted a joint submission on penalty.

The order imposed a reprimand, a six-month suspension with one month remittable on compliance, practice conditions including an ethics course, therapy, supervision-related terms, publication, and $5,000 in costs.

The member moved to stay disciplinary proceedings arising from alleged unauthorized access to child protection records and online disclosure of confidential information until the completion of related criminal and Provincial Offences Act proceedings.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald framework and the principle that stays of parallel civil or disciplinary proceedings are exceptional, the panel found the asserted prejudice to fair trial rights was speculative and unsupported by clear evidence.

The panel held that overlap in underlying facts did not eliminate the distinct public protection purpose, issues, and standard of proof in the discipline matter.

The balance of convenience favoured the College and the public interest in timely professional regulation, particularly given the seriousness of the allegations, prior delay, and the indefinite nature of the requested stay.

The motion was dismissed and the parties were directed to schedule the discipline hearing.

In a professional discipline motion, the member sought to quash a notice of hearing on the basis that the alleged misconduct occurred before registration.

The Panel held that the Discipline Committee has jurisdiction over pre-membership conduct where a broad and purposive reading of the governing statute, informed by the College's public protection mandate, supports that result.

The Panel rejected the submission that the registration regime exhaustively addresses pre-registration misconduct and held that the presumption against retrospectivity does not bar jurisdiction in this public protection context.

It adopted a suitability-based threshold, holding that jurisdiction extends to pre-membership conduct that calls into question the member's current suitability to practise.

The College prosecuted a discipline case arising from a social worker’s prolonged boundary violations with a client receiving counselling and psychotherapy, including frequent after-hours electronic communications, inappropriate self-disclosure, inadequate charting, and termination of services without a proper termination session.

The Panel accepted an agreed statement of facts and found professional misconduct under the governing statute and regulation, including failures to maintain boundaries, document care, obtain timely consultation, and provide professionally grounded services.

The Panel held that the conduct would reasonably be regarded as dishonourable or unprofessional.

It accepted a joint submission on penalty and imposed a reprimand, a three-month suspension, remedial terms including training, psychotherapy and supervision, publication, and $1,000 in costs.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found that the member engaged in sexualized and coercive communications with a vulnerable client while providing social service work services, including repeated vulgar comments, requests for photographs, and misuse of his position in relation to medication assistance.

The member did not attend or participate in the hearing, and the panel proceeded in his absence after finding proper notice.

The panel held that the conduct breached the governing statute, the Professional Misconduct Regulation, and the Standards of Practice, and amounted to sexual, verbal, psychological, or emotional abuse, exploitation, and disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

A partial hearing closure and publication ban were ordered to protect the client's identity.

The panel imposed a written reprimand, revocation of registration, a five-year prohibition on reapplying, publication of the decision, and costs of $25,603.35.