ONTARIO REGISTERED PSYCHOTHERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: 25-002-RP
BETWEEN:
College of Registered Psychotherapists and Registered Mental Health Therapists of Ontario
College
- and -
Noah Mugenyi
Registrant
FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS
Heard: June 23, 2025, by videoconference
Panel:
Sherry Liang (panel chair)
Heidi Ahonen (registered psychotherapist)
David Keast (public)
Michael Machan (registered psychotherapist)
Jeff Vincent (public)
Appearances:
Emily Graham, for the College
Noah Mugenyi, self-represented
RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Rule 2.2.2 of the HPDT Rules of Procedure and ss. 45-47 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, no one shall publish or broadcast the names of clients or any information that could identify clients or disclose clients’ personal health information or health records referred to at a hearing or in any documents filed with the Tribunal. There may be significant fines for breaching this restriction.
The Ontario Registered Psychotherapists Discipline Tribunal is the Discipline Committee established under the Health Professions Procedural Code.
INTRODUCTION
1In May 2023, the College of Registered Psychotherapists of Ontario (College) suspended the registrant’s certificate of registration because of non-payment of fees. Despite the suspension, the registrant provided psychotherapy to a patient and provided her with invoices containing false information. During his suspension, the registrant advertised his services as a psychotherapist online, referring to himself as a “psychotherapist,” “Registered Psychotherapist,” and/or as an “RP”.
2The College and the registrant provided the Tribunal with an Agreed Statement of Facts and Admission of Professional Misconduct. At the hearing, the panel found that the registrant engaged in professional misconduct in connection with the above activities. We accepted the parties’ joint submission on penalty and costs and ordered the suspension of the registrant’s certificate of registration for two months. We ordered a reprimand, which we delivered at the hearing, and directed the registrant to engage in specified remedial activities. Finally, we ordered the registrant to pay the College $4,700 in costs over a 24-month schedule.
PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
Practising while suspended
3In 2023, the registrant did not pay the required fees to renew his registration before the annual deadline. The College reminded him twice of his overdue fees. Each time, it advised him that failure to renew his registration would result in a suspension and that suspended registrants are not permitted to use any restricted title, practise psychotherapy, supervise the provision of psychotherapy for the purposes of registration with the College, perform the controlled act of psychotherapy, or hold themselves out as qualified to practise as a psychotherapist in Ontario.
4The registrant did not make the required payment and, as a result, his certificate of registration was suspended as of May 1, 2023. The College advised the registrant in writing of the suspension and that, due to the suspension, he could not practise the profession, use the title “psychotherapist”, “Registered Psychotherapist” or any abbreviation thereof, hold himself out as qualified to practise as a psychotherapist, or perform the controlled act of psychotherapy. It expressly directed him to remove the title “RP” from his email signature and any webpages where this title may be present.
5The College received a report from an insurance company in June 2023 raising a concern that the registrant may have practised the profession while suspended. The insurance company provided the College with two invoices issued by the registrant that had been submitted to it for reimbursement.
6As shown on the invoices, the registrant provided psychotherapy to one client on two occasions in May 2023, while his certificate of registration was suspended. While the registrant perceived the client to be in distress, she did not require treatment on an urgent basis. The registrant did not tell the client that his certificate of registration was suspended nor take steps to refer her to another psychotherapist for those treatments.
7The client paid the registrant for the psychotherapy sessions and the registrant issued her invoices. On the invoices, he included his College registration number and identified himself as a “Registered Psychotherapist” and “RP.” The invoices also indicated that the services had been provided under the supervision of a named professional, which was not true. The registrant did not obtain prior approval from the College’s Executive Committee to obtain a benefit from the practice of psychotherapy while under suspension.
Findings
8Under para. 1 of s. 1 of O. Reg. 317/12 made under the Psychotherapy Act, 2007, SO 2007, c. 10, Sched. R (“misconduct regulation” and “Act”), contravening a standard of practice of the profession is professional misconduct.
9The registrant’s conduct contravened the College’s Professional Practice Standard 1.1 (Accepting the Regulatory Authority of the College) which states, among other things, that members under suspension must refrain from practising psychotherapy, and must not receive any benefit or income, either directly or indirectly, from their professional status while suspended (unless the Executive Committee has granted an exemption). The registrant contravened this standard by practising psychotherapy while suspended and receiving payment for those services.
10Under s. 8 of the Act, no person other than a member shall use the title “psychotherapist”, “registered psychotherapist” or “registered mental health therapist or hold himself or herself out as a person qualified to practise in Ontario as a psychotherapist, registered psychotherapist or registered mental health therapist. The Health Professions Procedural Code, Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 18 (Code) states, in s. 13(2), that a person whose certificate of registration is suspended is not a member.
11Professional Practice Standard 1.2 (Use of Terms, Titles and Designations) prohibits the use of false or misleading titles or designations, including their use in advertising, and refers to the restrictions in the Act. The registrant contravened this standard when he identified himself as a registered psychotherapist and RP in invoices while under suspension (in addition, see our findings below about online advertising).
12Professional Practice Standard 5.3 (Issuing Accurate Documents) requires registrants to provide clients with accurate records and other documents, including invoices, bills and receipts. The registrant contravened this standard when he issued invoices improperly identifying himself as a registered psychotherapist when he was not, due to his suspension, permitted to use that title or its abbreviation. He also contravened this standard when he falsely indicated that services were provided under the supervision of another individual.
13In violating the above standards of the profession, the registrant engaged in professional misconduct under para. 1 of s. 1 of the misconduct regulation. The registrant’s conduct also amounts to professional misconduct under para. 42 of s. 1 (contravening a provision of the Act). As well, it is professional misconduct under para. 45 (practising while suspended) and para. 46 (benefiting from the practice of the profession while suspended) of that section.
Online advertising
14While his certificate of registration was suspended, the registrant advertised his services as a psychotherapist on two third-party websites as well as his own online social media. Approximately three-and-a-half months after his suspension came into effect, the registrant’s advertising on these websites referred to him as a “psychotherapist”, “Registered Psychotherapist”, and/or as an “RP”. The online advertising did not indicate that his certificate of registration with the College had been suspended.
Findings
15Consistent with our findings above, the registrant contravened Professional Practice Standard 1.2 and s. 8 of the Act when he identified himself as a psychotherapist, Registered Psychotherapist and/or an RP in his online advertising and on social media while suspended. This is professional misconduct within the meaning of paras. 1 and 42 of s. 1 of the misconduct regulation.
Disgraceful, Dishonourable or Unprofessional Conduct
16Having regard to the agreed facts and our findings above, the registrant’s conduct showed a serious disregard for his professional obligations. It is conduct that members of the profession would reasonably regard as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional within the meaning of para. 52 of the misconduct regulation.
PENALTY AND COSTS
17To depart from a joint submission would require a finding that the proposed penalty would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise not in the public interest, R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43. A disciplinary tribunal that rejects a joint submission on penalty must show why the proposed penalty is so unhinged from the circumstances of the case that it must be rejected. We are satisfied that the proposed penalty satisfies the penalty principles, including public protection, general and specific deterrence and remediation and is not contrary to the public interest.
18The reprimand and suspension serve as specific and general deterrence, sending a message to the profession that serious sanctions will follow this kind of misconduct. They support public confidence in the College’s ability to regulate the profession.
19The length of the suspension satisfies the principle of proportionality. The College provided us with decisions involving similar circumstances, in which physicians practised medicine despite suspensions of their certificates of registration. One of these cases also included a finding that the registrant had been dishonest in communicating with her governing body (College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Clowater, 2016 ONCPSD 19). Here, in addition to practising while under suspension, the registrant falsified information in invoices. While each case has its own unique facts, these decisions demonstrate that the two-month suspension to which the parties have agreed is within a reasonable range for similar misconduct.
20At the hearing, the parties amended the joint submission on penalty, agreeing that the suspension would begin on July 1, 2025. The panel accepted their amendment.
21The terms, conditions and limitations imposed on the registrant’s certificate of registration serve the purpose of remediation and ensure that the registrant has the tools to return to practice in keeping with the standards of practice of the profession.
22There are no aggravating factors favouring a more severe penalty. The registrant has no discipline history. By admitting to the misconduct, he has shown insight and regret and spared the parties and the Tribunal the time and expense of having a contested hearing.
23Having regard to the relevant penalty principles as well as the caselaw, we are satisfied that the joint submission is not contrary to the public interest.
24We also accept the parties’ joint costs submission of $4,700, which is the tariff rate to conduct a half-day hearing. The installment provisions of the costs order are reasonable.
Order
Penalty
The Tribunal requires the registrant to appear before the panel to be reprimanded.
The Tribunal directs the Registrar to:
a. suspend the registrant’s certificate of registration for two (2) months, commencing at 12:01 a.m. on July 1, 2025;
b. place the following terms, conditions and limitations on the registrant’s certificate of registration, effective immediately:
i. within six (6) months of the date of this Order, the registrant shall review and reflect on all of the following resources, and shall prepare a written summary of them (“Reflection Paper”), acceptable to the College and in accordance with the College’s Reflection Paper Instructions:
- CRPO Standards of Practice (https://crpo.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Professional-Practice-Standards-Jan124.pd) :
a. Standard 1.1 Responsibility Toward the College
b. Standard 1.2 Use of Terms, Titles, and Designations
c. Standard 1.4: Controlled Acts
d. Standard 4.2: Practising with Clinical Supervision
e. Standard 5.2: Requests for Reports
f. Standard 5.3: Issuing Accurate Reports
Practice Matters: Do I need to / Can I include my supervisor’s name on receipts? (https://crpo.ca/resource-articles/do-i-need-to-can-i-include-my-supervisors-name-on-receipts/)
Controlled Act of Psychotherapy: Understanding the Controlled Act of Psychotherapy (https://crpo.ca/apply-to-crpo/controlled-act-of-psychotherapy/)
Sections of the Professional Practice and Jurisprudence for Registered Psychotherapists (i.e. Jurisprudence e-Learning Manual) (https://crpo.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Professional-Practice-and-Jurisprudence-JRP-Manual-Apr2525.pdf):
a. Section re: Accountability (pp. 11-15);
b. Section re: Standard 1.4 Controlled Acts (pp. 36-38);
Rønnestad, M. H., Orlinsky, D. E., & Willutzki, U. (2024). Exploring influences of supervision on psychotherapists’ professional development: correlates across career-level cohorts. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 38(2), 297–319. (https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2024.2378879); and
Knapp, Samuel & Vandecreek, Leon. (2008). The ethics of advertising, billing, and finances in psychotherapy. Journal of clinical psychology. 64. 613-25. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5465340_The_ethics_of_advertising_billing_and_finances_in_psychotherapy).
Costs
- The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $4,700.00, by paying the College $195.83 every month for twenty-four (24) months, beginning thirty (30) days after the suspension of the registrant’s certificate of registration ends.