ORPDT 2024

The College prosecuted a discipline case arising from the registrant's criminal guilty plea for recording images and videos of an individual without knowledge or consent.

The registrant admitted professional misconduct based on a finding of guilt for an offence relevant to suitability to practise and conduct unbecoming a psychotherapist.

Applying the stringent joint-submission standard, the tribunal held the proposed penalty was not so unhinged from the circumstances as to bring the discipline system into disrepute.

The tribunal imposed a two-month suspension, ethics-related educational terms, a reprimand, and costs.

The College moved for an indefinite adjournment of a professional discipline proceeding on the basis that the registrant was medically unable to participate and there was no indication of future capacity.

The tribunal granted the motion, finding adjournment appropriate in light of the serious health condition and noting that public protection remained intact because the registrant no longer held a certificate of registration and could not practise.

The tribunal also ordered the registrar to post on the public register the fact of the notice of hearing, the misconduct allegation described in the order, and the fact of the indefinite adjournment.

The reasons preserved transparency while leaving open the College’s right to restart the proceeding if reinstatement were ever sought.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the Tribunal found that the registrant used false identities to make repeated false accusations against a College employee, including allegations of anti-2SLGBTQIA+ bias and improper disclosure of confidential information.

The Tribunal admitted forensic IP-address expert evidence under the Mohan and White Burgess frameworks and relied on that evidence, together with the documentary record and the registrant’s non-participation, to conclude on a balance of probabilities that the accusations were fabricated by or at the direction of the registrant.

The conduct was found to contravene College standards, constitute disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct, and amount to conduct unbecoming a member of the profession.

Given the ongoing misconduct, failure to comply with prior regulatory requirements, and failure to participate in the discipline process, the Tribunal found the registrant ungovernable, revoked his certificate of registration, and ordered costs.

A discipline panel found professional misconduct where the registrant, while holding a qualifying certificate, publicly used the title of registered psychotherapist without the required qualifier and posted social media content spreading COVID-19 misinformation and making discriminatory comments about gender, sexuality, and ethnicity.

The panel held that the impugned communications were disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, and in part conduct unbecoming, and that the title misuse also breached registration terms and published standards.

Applying the Doré/Loyola proportionality framework, the panel concluded that the findings appropriately balanced freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter with the regulator’s public-interest mandate to prevent harmful misinformation and maintain trust in the profession.

The registrant’s complete failure to participate in the investigation and hearing process supported a finding of ungovernability.

Revocation and costs of $6,055 were ordered.