Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found professional misconduct based on admitted boundary crossings with a vulnerable former client in an addiction treatment context, including an intimate and sexual relationship shortly after the counselling relationship, receipt of private aftercare fees, and misuse of a protected professional title before registration.

The panel held that the misconduct reflected on current suitability to practise and supported jurisdiction even though some conduct predated registration.

Applying the public-interest approach to joint penalty submissions, the panel accepted a jointly proposed order imposing a reprimand, revocation, a five-year prohibition on re-application, publication, and costs.

The panel emphasized public protection, deterrence, abuse of trust, and the seriousness of title misuse.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found that the registrant committed extensive professional misconduct against multiple vulnerable counselling clients, including sexual abuse, sexualized communications, dual relationships, boundary violations, self-disclosure, and attempts to prevent reporting.

The panel proceeded in the registrant’s absence after finding proper service, granted a publication ban protecting certain clients’ identities, and combined two notices of hearing into one proceeding.

Relying on agreed statements of fact and the balance of probabilities standard, the panel found breaches of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, the Professional Misconduct Regulation, and the College’s standards of practice.

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

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found professional misconduct arising from an instructor-registrant’s boundary violations with students and a supervisee who were also clients.

The admitted facts established repeated personal disclosures in class, requests for loans and rides, exploitation of information obtained through the professional relationship, and conflicts of interest contrary to the governing statute, regulation, and standards of practice.

The panel held the conduct was dishonourable and unprofessional, though not disgraceful in light of confidential health-related mitigating circumstances.

It accepted a joint submission on penalty as consistent with the public interest, ordering a reprimand, a conditional four-month suspension tied to any future reactivation, remedial training and supervision terms, publication, and $1,000 in costs.

Discipline proceeding arising from a registrant’s admitted sexual relationship with a former or active psychotherapy/counselling client, together with related boundary violations and nondisclosure of a prior complaint to another professional body.

The Panel held that the timing dispute over whether the client was still active when the sexual relationship commenced was immaterial because the professional standards prohibited sexual relations at any time following termination where psychotherapy or counselling had been provided.

The admitted misconduct was found to be disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, with significant aggravating factors including the client’s vulnerabilities, enduring psychological harm, and failure to disclose the earlier complaint on registration and renewals.

The Panel accepted a joint submission on penalty as consistent with the public interest and ordered a written reprimand, publication, and costs, in the context of the registrant’s irrevocable surrender and undertaking never to practise again.

A discipline panel found professional misconduct after the registrant admitted sexually exploitative boundary violations and record-keeping failures arising from a counselling relationship with a vulnerable student client.

The panel held that the admitted conduct breached the profession’s standards, constituted sexual abuse within the meaning of the governing statute, and was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

Applying the public-interest approach to a joint penalty submission, the panel accepted a proposed order imposing reprimand, revocation, a five-year prohibition on reapplying for registration, publication of the order, and costs.

A publication ban protected the client’s identity.

Following prior findings of professional misconduct, the Discipline Committee determined penalty in a proceeding involving sexual abuse, sexual boundary violations, and dishonest record keeping affecting vulnerable clients.

The panel proceeded in the registrant’s absence after finding that notice requirements had been met and that the registrant had full notice of the proceedings.

Emphasizing public protection, denunciation, specific and general deterrence, and maintenance of confidence in self-regulation, the panel ordered revocation, a reprimand, a five-year prohibition on re-application or reinstatement, publication subject to an existing ban protecting client identities, and substantial costs.

The panel accepted the College’s submission that partial recovery of prosecution costs was appropriate and ordered payment of $100,000.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found that the member committed repeated boundary violations and sexual misconduct against three vulnerable clients, including prolonged unwanted touching, sexualized comments, coercive conduct, and in one instance forced sexual contact.

The panel also found that the member failed to maintain proper clinical and financial records and issued false invoices in a child’s name to obtain insurance reimbursement for services actually provided to adult clients.

Relying in part on expert evidence on social work ethics, boundaries, documentation, and trauma-informed practice, the panel held that the conduct breached multiple provisions of the governing statute, the Professional Misconduct Regulation, and the Standards of Practice Handbook.

All allegations in both Notices of Hearing were proven on a balance of probabilities.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted allegations arising from prolonged misuse of the titles "Doctor", "Dr.", "psychotherapist", and "registered psychotherapist" while providing or advertising healthcare services.

The Panel found professional misconduct proved on a balance of probabilities under the governing statute, regulation, and standards of practice, including misrepresentation of qualifications, misleading advertising, improper record-keeping, contraventions of title restrictions, and unprofessional conduct.

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

The resulting order imposed a reprimand, a three-month suspension with one month remittable on compliance, remedial ethics and reflective conditions, publication, and $5,000 in costs.

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 hearing subject to a publication ban, the member admitted boundary violations and sexual conduct with a vulnerable client following the provision of counselling-related social work services.

The Panel found professional misconduct under the governing statute and regulation, including sexual misconduct, failure to maintain proper boundaries, failure to prioritize the client's interests, and recordkeeping failures.

The Panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, holding that departure was unwarranted absent a risk to public confidence in the discipline process.

The member was reprimanded, her certificate of registration was revoked, reinstatement was barred for five years, publication was ordered, and costs of $3,000.00 were imposed.

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.