ONTARIO REGISTERED PSYCHOTHERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: 25-003-RP
BETWEEN:
College of Registered Psychotherapists and Registered Mental Health Therapists of Ontario
College
- and -
Jacqueline LeBeau
Registrant
FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS
Heard: October 6, 2025, by videoconference
Panel:
Jay Sengupta (panel chair)
Steven Boychyn (public)
Shelley Briscoe-Dimock (registered psychotherapist)
Kenneth Gunnar-Lomp (registered psychotherapist)
Henry Pateman (public)
Appearances:
Emily Graham, for the College
Rebecca Young, 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 College alleged that the registrant, Jacqueline LeBeau, committed misconduct by providing professional therapeutic services to two clients while in a dual relationship with them, placing her in a conflict of interest. The registrant is also alleged to have provided therapeutic treatment to these two clients without obtaining the necessary consent.
2The registrant entered a plea of no contest to the allegations of misconduct, and the parties provided the panel with a Statement of Uncontested Facts (SUF) which set out the facts the panel could rely upon and College standards that had been contravened: those governing general conduct, conflict of interest, dual and multiple relationships and consent.
3A joint submission was made in respect of penalty and costs. The parties sought a suspension of the registrant’s certificate of registration for five months to commence immediately, a reprimand, completion of an individualized ethics and boundaries course within six months of the order at her own expense and costs to be paid to the College in installments.
4There is a high threshold for rejecting a submission jointly made by the parties in circumstances such as these. To do so would require a finding that the proposed penalty would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or be otherwise not in the public interest. The proposed joint submission is not contrary to the public interest and achieves the relevant penalty goals. Accordingly, we made the order requested.
5The reasons for our decision are set out below.
Finding of Misconduct
6For the reasons that follow, we find that the College has established that the registrant engaged in professional misconduct under s. 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code (Code), Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 18.
7Specifically, in respect of s. 51(1)(c), we find that the registrant has breached the following paragraphs of s. 1 of Ontario Regulation 317/12 made under the Psychotherapy Act, 2007, SO 2007, c. 10, Sched. R:
- paragraph 1 - contravening, by act or omission, a standard of practice of the profession or failing to maintain the standard of practice of the profession including but not limited to the following:
i. 1.5 – general conduct;
ii. 1.6 – conflict of interest;
iii. 1.7 – dual and multiple relationships; and
iv. 3.2 – consent;
paragraph 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; and
paragraph 52 – engaging in conduct or performing an act relevant to the practice of the profession that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
8Client A, her husband Mr. X and their child, Client B were neighbours and friends of the registrant. By early 2023, the registrant had commenced a romantic relationship with Mr. X after Client A and Mr. X separated in November 2022.
9In October 2020, while Client A was in the midst of a mental health crisis related to grief surrounding her mother’s declining health, the registrant provided her with two in-person therapeutic sessions. The registrant also provided six in-person therapeutic sessions in 2020 to Client B because Client B was experiencing significant anxiety. She delivered a further session to Client B in June 2022.
10The registrant had Client A and her husband, Mr. X, sign a statement acknowledging that her involvement would not constitute “active therapy” and that she would not be acting as their therapist. The SUF notes that the registrant invoiced and was paid for the services provided to both Clients A and B.
11In the SUF, the registrant does not contest that she provided therapeutic services to Client A and Client B, while in a dual relationship with them and that the dual relationship placed her in a conflict of interest.
12She also does not contest that entering into a romantic relationship with Mr. X in early 2023, after he separated from Client A in November 2022, was inappropriate given her prior therapeutic relationships with Clients A and B in 2020 and 2022.
13Finally, she does not contest that the consents to treatment that purported that she was not acting as a therapist to Clients A and B and that she would not be providing “active therapy” were invalid.
14In light of the uncontested facts and having reviewed the relevant standards, we find that the registrant engaged in the professional misconduct alleged; specifically, that she was in dual and multiple relationships with Clients A and B, resulting in a conflict of interest, and that she failed to obtain valid prior, informed, written consents to treatment from them. We find that her actions amount to disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.
Penalty and Costs
15The parties jointly sought the following:
a suspension of the registrant’s certificate of registration for five months to commence immediately;
a reprimand;
terms, conditions and limitations on the registrant’s certificate of registration that require that she successfully complete an individualized ethics and boundary course within six months of the date of the order; and
costs in the amount of $4,700 (payable in installments).
16While the Tribunal has the discretion to accept or reject a joint submission made by the parties, we must exercise restraint and should not reject a joint submission unless it meets the “undeniably high threshold” that the proposed penalty “would be viewed by reasonable and informed persons as a breakdown in the proper functioning of the justice system” (see R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 at paras. 34 and 42; Ontario College of Teachers v. Merolle, 2023 ONSC 3453 (Div. Ct.) at paras. 27 and 28; Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303 (Div. Ct.) at paras. 8 to 12).
17The penalty should ensure that the goals of protection of the public, maintaining public confidence in the profession, specific and general deterrence and remediation of the individual registrant are met. It should also be proportionate to the misconduct found to have occurred, the particular circumstances of the case and be consistent with penalties in similar cases. We find that the proposed penalty is appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances.
18The misconduct is serious. The registrant was in dual and multiple relationships with both clients. She was their neighbour and friend and, following the separation of Client A from her spouse, Mr. X in November 2022, in early 2023, the registrant entered into a romantic relationship with Mr. X, who is also Client B’s father.
19By providing therapeutic treatment to Clients A and B in these circumstances, the registrant demonstrated a failure in the fundamental and core duty to establish and maintain professional boundaries with her clients.
20This failure was exacerbated when the registrant arranged for Client A and Mr. X to sign statements purporting to define her therapeutic role as one not including “active therapy” and indicating that she was not acting as a therapist to Clients A and B, in an attempt to address the dual relationship. These consents were not valid. A client cannot consent out of the therapeutic relationship where therapeutic treatment is being delivered.
21While it was framed as an attempt to mitigate the problem, by mischaracterizing the service being provided, delivering therapeutic treatment, and invoicing and being paid for the sessions, the registrant failed to obtain the necessary valid consent to the therapeutic treatment.
22The registrant does not have a prior discipline history. The panel views this as a neutral factor, rather than a mitigating one.
23By way of mitigation, the parties argued that the registrant acknowledged responsibility for her conduct, was responsive throughout the investigation and hearing process and worked collaboratively with the College to proceed by way of a joint submission.
24A registrant is expected to cooperate and respond to inquiries from the regulator. The registrant’s cooperation with the College, on its own, is not a mitigating factor. However, we acknowledge that the registrant’s plea of no contest and the completion of the SUF allowed for this matter to proceed by way of a joint submission and avoided the need for a contested hearing, with evidence needing to be called from vulnerable witnesses and the associated costs of a lengthier proceeding.
25The College referred us to two cases and submitted that the proposed penalty satisfies the principle of proportionality. The parties argued that findings of similar misconduct resulted in suspensions of similar length and were accompanied by individualized study to achieve the goals of public protection and remediation (see College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Kao, 2023 ONPSDT 23 and College of Registered Psychotherapists and Registered Mental Health Therapists of Ontario v. McLean, 2024 ONCRPO 3).
26In Kao, the College of Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal imposed a penalty that included a reprimand, a five-month suspension and coursework. In that case, the registrant’s care and treatment of family members resulted in compromised clinical objectivity.
27The panel in McLean ordered a reprimand, a six-month suspension and terms, limitations and conditions on the registrant’s certificate of registration that included a course of study and a period of clinical supervision. The registrant in that case provided therapy to both members of a couple and then continued the therapeutic relationship with one of them. She communicated on social media with the client, shared personal information about herself and entered into a friendship with the client from whom she also accepted assistance.
28We are satisfied that the length of the proposed suspension of five months is within the range of outcomes in similar circumstances and serves the goals of specific and general deterrence by sending a message to both the individual registrant and the profession that misconduct of this nature will result in serious sanctions.
29The terms, conditions and limitations proposed (that the registrant complete individualized instruction in ethics and professional boundaries) serve the goals of public protection and remediation by requiring that the registrant engage in reflection and study to ensure that she clearly understands and meets her ethical obligations upon her return to practice.
30Finally, we accept the joint submission on costs, to be paid in installments.
Order
31We made the following 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 five (5) months commencing October 7, 2025 at 12:01 a.m.
b. place the following terms, conditions and limitations on the registrant’s certificate of registration effective October 7, 2025 at 12:01 a.m.:
i. At her own expense, and within six (6) months of the date of this Order, the Registrant shall participate in and successfully complete individualized instruction in professional ethics and boundaries satisfactory to the College, with an instructor approved by the College. The instructor shall provide a summative report to the College, including their conclusion about whether the Registrant successfully completed the instruction.
Costs
- The Registrant is required to pay the College costs in the amount of $4,700.00, by paying the College quarterly installments (i.e. every three (3) months) of $1,175.00 beginning thirty (30) days after date of the Tribunal’s Order.