ONTARIO REGISTERED PSYCHOTHERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: 25-004-RP
BETWEEN:
College of Registered Psychotherapists and Registered Mental Health Therapists of Ontario
College
- and -
Christopher Saxton
Registrant
FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS
Heard: August 5, 2025, by videoconference
Panel:
Sophie Martel (panel chair)
Shelley Briscoe-Dimock (registered psychotherapist)
David Keast (public)
Kenneth Lomp (registered psychotherapist)
Henry Pateman (public)
Appearances:
Natasha Danson, for the College
Christopher Saxton, 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
1Mr. Saxton, the registrant, agrees that he practised while suspended and failed to respond to the College within 15 days in violation of an order of the Discipline Committee (now the Tribunal).
2On the joint submission of the parties, we reprimanded the registrant, suspended his certificate of registration for a minimum of four months and imposed various terms, conditions and limitations on his certificate of registration, including the completion of an individualized course and a reflective essay. We also ordered costs of $4,700.
Misconduct
3This is not the registrant’s first appearance before the Tribunal.
4On June 27, 2023, the then Discipline Committee made findings of professional misconduct against the registrant. It concluded that the registrant failed to complete a Specified Continuing Education and Remediation Program (SCERP) as required by an order of a panel of the College’s Inquiries, Complaints and Report Committee (ICRC). It also concluded that the registrant failed to reply appropriately and within 30 days to a written inquiry from the College about his registration in the SCERP: College of Registered Psychotherapists v. Saxton, 2023 ONCRPO 4.
5As part of its penalty order of June 27, 2023, the Discipline Committee suspended the registrant’s certificate of registration for two months, to continue until the registrant completed an ethics and boundaries course. The order also directed the Registrar to impose a term, condition and limitation on the registrant’s certificate of registration requiring that he respond to all College communications within 15 days of receipt.
6As a result of the order, the registrant’s certificate of registration was suspended from June 27, 2023 to December 20, 2023.
7The registrant did not comply with the order. During the suspension, he treated two clients on eight different dates and failed to respond to the College within 15 days.
8He treated one client with psychotherapy and received payment for the treatment sessions on June 29, 2023, July 6, 2023, and August 31, 2023. He treated another client and received payment for the treatment sessions on June 30, 2023, July 7, 2023, July 14, 2023, July 21, 2023, and July 28, 2023.
9On July 24, 2023, the College requested a response from the registrant regarding an undertaking. The registrant was required to respond by August 8, 2023. The College sent a follow-up email to the registrant on August 2, 2023, in which it reminded him to provide a response to the undertaking by August 8, 2023. Despite the order that he respond to all College communications within 15 days of receipt, the registrant failed to respond to the College by August 8, 2023.
10The College, the profession, and the public expect that registrants will comply with discipline orders. A failure to do so brings into question a registrant’s willingness to fulfill the responsibilities associated with the privilege of practising as a registered member of the psychotherapy profession. The registrant contravened an order of the Discipline Committee by practising while suspended and by not responding to the College as required. He also benefited from the practice of the profession by earning income for treatment sessions while suspended. The totality of the registrant’s conduct is conduct that other members of the profession would consider disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
11Accordingly, we conclude that the registrant committed the following acts of professional misconduct pursuant to subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 18, and as set out in the following paragraphs of s. 1 of O. Reg. 317/12 made under the Psychotherapy Act, 2007, SO 2007, c.10, Sched. R:
a. Paragraph 45: Practising the profession while the registrant’s certificate of registration was suspended.
b. Paragraph 46: Directly or indirectly benefitting from the practice of the profession while the registrant’s certificate of registration is suspended, unless full disclosure is made by the registrant to the College of the nature of the benefit to be obtained and prior approval is obtained from the Executive Committee. No such disclosure or approval was obtained in this case.
c. Paragraph 47: Failing to comply with an order of a panel of the College.
d. Paragraph 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 registrants as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
Penalty and Costs
12The parties jointly proposed that the registrant receive a reprimand and serve a suspension of at least four months. They also proposed terms, conditions and limitations aimed at the registrant’s remediation. He is to complete an individualized course about the issues that arose in this case and a reflective essay after completing the course. The suspension is to continue beyond four months until the registrant has completed the course and essay. Furthermore, if the Registrar is not satisfied with the essay, the registrant will be required to meet with a College-approved practice mentor to discuss professional obligations every four months for one year following his return to practice after his suspension. All aspects of the terms, conditions and limitations are to be completed at the registrant’s expense. The parties also jointly proposed that the registrant pay costs of $4,700.
13Our role is limited when the parties agree on penalty. We should only depart from a joint submission if the proposed penalty would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is not otherwise contrary to the public interest: R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43. A disciplinary body that rejects a joint submission on penalty must explain why the proposed penalty is so unhinged from the circumstances of the case that it must be rejected: Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303 (Div Ct.). Our role is thus to consider whether the proposed penalty is so unhinged that it would cause a reasonably informed person to believe that the proper functioning of the psychotherapy professional discipline system had broken down.
14We are satisfied that the proposed penalty would not cause a reasonably informed person to believe that the proper functioning of the psychotherapy professional discipline system had broken down. We are also satisfied that the proposed penalty appropriately balances the penalty goals of the protection of the public, maintaining public confidence in the College’s ability to govern the profession in the public interest, specific and general deterrence, and rehabilitation.
15The registrant has previously been cautioned by the ICRC and appeared before the Discipline Committee.
16As noted in the above misconduct findings, on June 27, 2023, the Discipline Committee found that the registrant had engaged in professional misconduct by not completing a SCERP ordered by the ICRC and by not replying appropriately and within 30 days to a written inquiry from the College. The panel ordered a suspension of two months, completion of the outstanding SCERP, completion of the College’s e-learning module and the requirement that the registrant respond to all College communications within 15 days. This prior discipline history is an aggravating factor. The ordered suspension commenced on June 27, 2023, and yet, just two days later, the registrant provided psychotherapy treatment to a client. The registrant then continued providing psychotherapy treatments for two clients on various dates in July and one date in August 2023.
17More recently, on April 17, 2024, the registrant was found to have engaged in professional misconduct because he had not reported his professional development activities to the College as required and had not responded when the College inquired about the outstanding reporting: College of Registered Psychotherapists v. Saxton, 2024 ONCRPO 6. The registrant had failed to respond to the College’s communications from November 15, 2021 to October 28, 2022. The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty. It ordered a reprimand, a term that between the date of the order and December 31, 2024, the registrant respond within 15 days to all College communications requiring a response, a four-month suspension with the first two months to commence one month from the date of the order and the latter two months to be remitted on December 31, 2024, if the registrant complied with the communication response requirement, failing which the remaining two-month suspension would start on January 1, 2025. The registrant ultimately served the entire four-month suspension.
18Because the above findings were made on April 17, 2024, after the 2023 misconduct in the current case, this prior history does not constitute an aggravating factor when considering whether the registrant has a prior discipline history. The principle of progressive discipline only applies when the registrant’s conduct happened after the previous decision was made. Misconduct after previous discipline is a sign that the registrant did not receive the message from the penalty. If the events in a later case happened before the previous discipline finding, that is not the case: College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Parajian, 2025 ONPSDT 15.
19Nevertheless, a registrant’s entire discipline history may be relevant in considering his governability. A penalty order must demonstrate to the public that the profession can and will address misconduct appropriately and that it can regulate its registrants effectively. The registrant’s repeated failures to comply with orders (made by the ICRC and by the Discipline Committee) and his repeated failures to respond to College communications as required are troubling from a governability perspective.
20On the other hand, the registrant has participated in the current disciplinary process and entered into an agreed statement of facts. He attended the hearing and admitted the professional misconduct. He is jointly proposing a penalty that includes the completion of remediation activities. These actions show insight and a current willingness to rehabilitate.
21The proposed penalty is proportionate to the penalty ordered in College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario v. Aarons, 2019 ONCDHO 7, 2019 ONCDHO 07. In that case, the dental hygienist practised at three different locations on various dates over a period of approximately four months while she was suspended. She also completed an application for reinstatement where she wrongly certified that she had not practised during her suspension. Like the registrant, the dental hygienist had a previous discipline history. The panel in Aarons accepted the jointly submitted penalty, which included a suspension of four months, the completion of an essay and the monitoring of the registrant’s practice. The panel also stated that but for the joint submission, it would have imposed a harsher penalty and was concerned that the penalty was not a sufficient deterrent given the prior history of similar conduct.
22We have the same concerns and the same view that had this not been a joint submission, we would have likely imposed a harsher penalty.
23Nevertheless, we recognize the registrant’s current willingness to remediate as evidenced by his participation in the disciplinary process and entering into an agreed statement of facts. The personalized education and the completion of a reflective essay will not only achieve the goal of remediation, it will also protect the public, given that the registrant’s suspension will continue until he has completed both the course and the essay. Furthermore, if the Registrar is not satisfied with the essay, the registrant will have to meet with a practice mentor on a regular basis. Lastly, our reprimand, which we delivered after the hearing, sets out our message that given the registrant’s history, future findings of professional misconduct will likely lead to more serious consequences, which may include the revocation of his certificate of registration.
24Ultimately, we are of the view that the proposed penalty does not bring the administration of justice into disrepute while still denouncing the conduct and putting measures in place for the protection of the public.
25Similarly, we see no reason to reject the parties’ agreement that the registrant pay costs of $4,700, which reflects the half-day hearing tariff rate. Our order provides that he pay these costs within 30 days from the date of our order.
Order
26Our order provides:
Penalty
The Tribunal requires the registrant to appear before the panel to be reprimanded immediately following the hearing in this matter;
The Tribunal directs the Registrar to:
a. suspend the registrant’s certificate of registration for at least four months, commencing immediately and to continue until the registrant satisfies both of the terms, conditions and limitations in subparagraphs 2(b)(i) and 2(b)(ii) below;
b. impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the registrant’s certificate of registration effective immediately, all to be completed at the Registrant’s expense and to the satisfaction of the Registrar:
i. requiring the registrant to complete an individualized course with a College-approved instructor about the issues that arose in this case, including practising while suspended, the scope of practice of psychotherapy, and the requirement to respond to the College,
ii. requiring the registrant to complete a reflective essay following the completion of the requirement in subparagraph 2(b)(i) to review what was learned in the individualized course, and
iii. in the event that the Registrar is not satisfied with the essay described in subparagraph 2(b)(ii) above, as determined in the Registrar’s sole discretion, requiring the registrant to meet with a College-approved practice mentor to discuss professional obligations every four months for one year following his return to practice after the suspension in subparagraph 2(a) above.
Costs
- The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $4,700 within 30 days of the date of the Tribunal’s order in this matter.