ONTARIO REGISTERED PSYCHOTHERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL

Date: July 14, 2025

Tribunal File No.: 25-001-RP

BETWEEN:

College of Registered Psychotherapists and Registered Mental Health Therapists of Ontario

College

• and -

Bruce Small

Registrant

FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS

Heard: June 19, 2025, by videoconference

Panel:

Raj Anand (panel chair)

Kathleen (Kali) Hewitt-Blackie (registered psychotherapist)

David Keast (public)

Henry Pateman (public)

Kafui Sawyer (registered psychotherapist)

Appearances:

Emily Graham, for the College

Kirsty Niglas-Collins, for the registrant

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

1The registrant Bruce Small treated Client A, a vulnerable client, for 50 appointments over a two-year period. During that time, Mr. Small and his client developed a sexual attraction to one another.

2The registrant failed to maintain appropriate therapeutic boundaries. Instead, he engaged in multiple forms of misconduct within the therapist-client relationship. Mr. Small discussed his sexual fantasies with Client A, told the client he was getting an erection while emailing him, and asked him to pose nude for photographs. The registrant also engaged in sexual abuse in the form of oral to genital contact and ultimately sexual intercourse with this client.

3The registrant failed to navigate the intricacies of this therapeutic situation in a way that honoured and respected his client. His engagement in a sexual relationship harmed Client A emotionally and left the client feeling manipulated, taken advantage of and filled with guilt and shame.

4At an uncontested hearing, we accepted the College’s position that the registrant contravened the standards of practice of the profession and engaged in sexual, physical and psychological abuse, conflict of interest, conduct unbecoming a member of the profession and disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct. On the joint submission of the parties, we revoked Mr. Small’s certificate of registration and delivered a reprimand at the hearing.

5These are our reasons.

Professional misconduct

The evidence

6Client A sought treatment from Mr. Small for post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety. He informed the registrant that he had experienced mania, hypervigilance and suicidal ideation. Client A received provincial social assistance for disability support.

7The client also advised the registrant that he was gay and was exclusively attracted to older men. Mr. Small met that description.

8While appointments were occurring between October 7, 2020 and December 5, 2022, within the therapist-client relationship, the registrant and Client A exchanged numerous emails and text messages in which Mr. Small:

a. frequently disclosed personal matters to Client A, including information about the registrant’s own recreational activities, household errands, family, family commitments, and medical appointments;

b. offered to hug Client A, and told the client he was attracted to him, in fact “eager as hell to get together” with him, and he missed his smiling face;

c. told the client he was a “beautiful human being”, he was gorgeous, and he looked fabulous naked;

d. discussed his sexual fantasies with Client A, including his sexual fantasies about the client himself;

e. told Client A he had or was getting an erection while emailing him;

f. sent Client A a poem he had written about Client A;

g. sent photographs and/or images of frogs, intending them to represent penises;

h. asked Client A to establish a secure form of electronic communication so that he could send Client A naked photographs of himself; and

i. signed off with words that included “hugs”, “big hugs”, “big, long hugs”, “biggest possible virtual hugs”, “more hugs”, “kisses”, “big hugs and much love”, and “love”.

9When the client did not respond to Mr. Small’s messages, the registrant repeatedly sent emails or text messages asking for a response.

10From October 27, 2021 onward, the registrant hugged Client A during or at the end of appointments, many times.

11At many appointments beginning on March 16, 2022, both of them were aroused during the hugging. The registrant was aware of the client’s arousal, and with his erect penis, Mr. Small made contact with Client A.

12In the spring of 2022, Client A disclosed to Mr. Small that he began to feel sexual attraction towards him, and the registrant responded that he was also attracted to Client A. Despite this awareness, the registrant did not terminate the therapist-client relationship.

13When Client A told the registrant that he sometimes fantasized about him, Mr. Small responded that he also fantasized about Client A. The registrant proposed that they share their fantasies, under the guise of helping Client A learn to discuss his sexuality openly. In one session, the registrant used a stack of flashcards that detailed kinks and other sexual fantasies, such as fetishes, urine play, and the desire to perform oral sex and have anal sex. The registrant shared his fantasies from the cards with Client A, and asked Client A to do the same.

14In April 2022, Client A told Mr. Small that he was uncomfortable with their physical contact and wanted it to stop. The registrant persisted in hugging Client A.

15At an appointment between June 2022 and the last appointment on December 5, 2022, Mr. Small rubbed Client A's feet while they were in the registrant's lap. Client A was simultaneously touching his genitals under his clothing, and the registrant told Client A that was acceptable.

16The registrant started kissing the client, beginning at an appointment on June 24, 2022, and continuing at multiple appointments after that.

17At an appointment on August 8, 2022, the registrant and the client both engaged in oral to genital contact with each other.

18At another appointment, on October 5, 2022, they engaged in sexual intercourse. The registrant had Client A pose in the nude and took photographs, which the registrant kept on an external hard drive.

19At their final appointment on December 5, 2022, they again engaged in sexual intercourse.

20The therapist-client relationship, and their in-person contact, terminated with that appointment.

Analysis

21The registrant did not contest, and we found, that the evidence described above – including physical and sexual abuse, and a sexual relationship, and engaging in these acts with a vulnerable client while acting within a therapist-client relationship – justified findings of professional misconduct under several overlapping disciplinary provisions in the governing legislation.

22First, Mr. Small engaged in sexual abuse of Client A, which is an act of professional misconduct under s. 51(1)(b.1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code (Code), Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 18. The registrant’s conduct included engaging in a sexual relationship with the client, which included sexual intercourse and other forms of physical sexual relations; touching, of a sexual nature, of Client A; and behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by the registrant towards Client A. His actions therefore fall within all three subsections of the definition of sexual abuse in s. 1(3) of the Code.

23Second, under s. 51(1)(c) of the Code, the registrant engaged in professional misconduct by committing acts defined in O. Reg. 317/12 made under the Psychotherapy Act, 2007, SO 2007, c. 10. Under s. 1, para. 1 of the Regulation, he contravened a standard of practice of the profession by sexually abusing a client. In addition, Mr. Small contravened the following Professional Practice Standards published by the College:

a. Standard 1.5 - General conduct (requiring “respect for clients, and a commitment to practising with integrity and professionalism”);

b. Standard 1.6 - Conflict of Interest (designed to prevent “any arrangement or relationship where a reasonable person could conclude that the exercise of the member’s professional expertise or judgment may be compromised by, or be influenced inappropriately by, the arrangement or relationship”);

c. Standard 1.7 - Dual or Multiple Relationships (requiring registrants to “avoid dual…relationships with clients in addition to their professional one,” and stating that “romantic relationships with current clients are totally unacceptable” and “any sexual relationship with a client is considered sexual abuse…”); and

d. Standard 1.8 - Undue Influence and Abuse (requiring registrants to be “cognizant of the individual vulnerabilities of clients”, to be “respectful of the best interest of clients” and “refraining from any form of verbal, physical, emotional psychological or sexual abuse”).

24Third, Mr. Small contravened several other paragraphs of s. 1 of the Regulation, which overlap with the College’s published Practice Standards:

a. Para. 2: Abusing a client verbally, physically, psychologically or emotionally;

b. Para. 16: Acting in a professional capacity while in a conflict of interest or being in a conflict of interest when acting in a professional capacity;

c. Para. 52: Engaging in conduct or performing an act relevant to the practice of the profession that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional; and

d. Para. 53: Engaging in conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members as conduct unbecoming a member of the profession.

Penalty and costs

25The parties jointly proposed that the registrant be reprimanded, that his certificate of registration be revoked, that he reimburse the College for funding provided to the client for therapy or counselling under s. 85.7 of the Code in the maximum allowable amount of $17,940, and that he post security with the College in this amount.

26We found that the parties’ joint submission met the low threshold that requires acceptance by the Tribunal. The proposed penalty does not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, is not contrary to the public interest, and is not “so unhinged from the circumstances of the case that it must be rejected”: R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, applied in the professional regulatory context by the Divisional Court in Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303, and by this Tribunal in College of Registered Psychotherapists and Registered Mental Health Therapists of Ontario v. Greco, 2023 ONCRPO 9 at para. 23.

27To the contrary, the substantive elements of the jointly proposed penalty are mandatory. Under s. 51 of the Code, revocation and the delivery of a reprimand are obligatory since the registrant’s sexual abuse of Client A included sexual intercourse, oral to genital contact and touching of a sexual nature of the client’s genitals. The sexual abuse also consisted of behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by Mr. Small toward Client A. The registrant’s acts violated numerous other provisions of the governing legislation, including breaching the professional standards of practice of his profession, and engaging in a blatant conflict of interest, contrary to the interests of his client; conduct unbecoming a member of his profession; and disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct.

28The registrant’s egregious, disrespectful and selfish breach of trust persisted over a lengthy time period. The uncontested evidence on penalty confirmed that Mr. Small’s behaviour caused a vulnerable client, operating within a power imbalance with his therapist, to feel manipulated, taken advantage of and powerless to stop what was happening. Client A felt guilt, shame, isolation, and discomfort, and this impact compromised his ability to continue his treatment with another therapist for several months after the termination of his therapist-client relationship with the registrant.

29The mandatory penalty of revocation expresses the repugnance of the profession and reflects the gravity of the misconduct, the need to maintain confidence in the regulation of the profession, and the importance of specific and general deterrence and protection of the public.

30We therefore issued a penalty order in the terms jointly proposed by the parties and described above.

31We also accepted the parties’ joint submission that the registrant pay the tariff rate of $6,055 in costs to the College.

Order

32We therefore ordered:

Penalty

1. The Tribunal requires the registrant to appear before the panel to be reprimanded.

2. The Tribunal directs the Registrar to revoke the registrant’s certificate of registration effective immediately.

Costs

3. The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $6,055.00, as follows:

a. $3,027.50 on or before the date of this Order;

b. $1,513.75 within three (3) months of the date of this Order; and

c. $1,513.75 within six (6) months of the date of this Order.

Reimbursement for Therapy and Counselling

4. The Tribunal requires the registrant to reimburse the College $17,940.00 for funding provided for therapy and counselling under s. 85.7 of the Health Professions Procedural Code and to post security acceptable to the College to guarantee the payment of these amounts, as follows:

a. $8,970.00 on or before the date of this Order;

b. $4,485.00 within three (3) months of the date of this Order; and

c. $4,485.00 within six (6) months of the date of this Order.