ORPDT 2026

In a professional discipline proceeding, the tribunal found professional misconduct where the registrant administered a potent psychedelic substance by inhalation to clients at a retreat, despite lacking authority to perform that controlled act.

The tribunal held that the conduct contravened the registrant’s statutory scope of practice, failed to maintain the standard of practice, and amounted to disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct.

Applying the Anthony-Cook framework, the tribunal accepted the joint submission on penalty because it met the objectives of public protection, deterrence, remediation, and maintaining public confidence in the regulator.

The tribunal imposed a seven-month suspension, a reprimand, practice restrictions, mandatory education on psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, and costs.

The registrant admitted to professional misconduct for falsifying an employment letter and forging her employer's signature to support a licensing application in the United Arab Emirates.

The College and the registrant presented a joint submission on penalty, proposing a one-month suspension, a reprimand, and remedial education.

The Tribunal accepted the joint submission, finding it protected the public and did not bring the administration of the professional discipline system into disrepute.

A discipline panel found professional misconduct where a registrant delayed until the next day making a mandatory report to a children’s aid society after receiving disclosures giving reasonable grounds to suspect child sexual abuse and a caregiver’s failure to protect.

The panel held that the immediate reporting duty under s. 125(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 was engaged and that the delay breached both the profession’s standard of practice and the misconduct regulation.

Applying the public-interest test governing joint submissions, the panel accepted an agreed penalty of a two-month suspension with a possible one-month remission tied to remediation, together with a reprimand and training terms.

The panel also accepted the joint costs submission of $4,700.

The College alleged that the registrant engaged in inappropriate and sexual behaviour with a client.

At a case management conference, the registrant requested that hearing dates not be scheduled until the discovery process in a parallel civil action brought by the client was complete.

The Tribunal denied the request, applying the Marusic factors.

While there was complete overlap between the proceedings, the Tribunal emphasized the seriousness of the allegations, the passage of time, and the strong public interest in expeditiously resolving sexual abuse proceedings.

The Tribunal directed the registrant to use the Tribunal's third-party records process rather than waiting for civil discovery.

The College alleged that the registrant engaged in professional misconduct by submitting improper claims under the Interim Federal Health Program and failing to maintain adequate clinical records.

The registrant admitted to the misconduct, acknowledging that she billed for services provided by interns and double-booked patients.

The Tribunal found that the registrant's actions constituted professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Tribunal ordered a reprimand, a four-month suspension (with a possible two-month remission), and specified terms, conditions, and limitations on her certificate of registration, along with $4,700 in costs.

The registrant admitted to professional misconduct for blurring professional boundaries by providing personal emotional support to a friend, falsifying a record by writing a letter claiming to be the friend's treating psychotherapist, and threatening the friend and his spouse after learning they had complained to the College.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a four-month suspension, a reprimand, individualized ethics instruction, counselling, supervision, and costs of $4,700, finding the penalty protected the public and did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The registrant, a new psychotherapist, practised without the required clinical supervision.

Upon realizing her error, she attempted to conceal it by having a friend impersonate her supervisor in a conversation with a client and by providing false information to her employer.

The registrant admitted to professional misconduct.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a four-month suspension, individualized ethics instruction, a reprimand, and costs of $4,700.

The College referred allegations of professional misconduct against the registrant to the Tribunal.

The parties reached an agreement wherein the registrant resigned their membership and undertook not to re-apply for registration in any jurisdiction.

The parties jointly requested an indefinite adjournment of the proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the public is protected as the registrant will no longer practice as a psychotherapist.

The College alleged the registrant committed professional misconduct by engaging in dual relationships, inappropriate communications, and failing to maintain social media boundaries with three clients.

The registrant pleaded no contest.

The Discipline Tribunal found the registrant committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Tribunal ordered an 8-month suspension, a reprimand, completion of an ethics course, and $4,700 in costs, finding the penalty met the goals of public protection and deterrence.