ONTARIO REGISTERED PSYCHOTHERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File Nos.: 24-010-RP & 25-006-RP
BETWEEN:
College of Registered Psychotherapists and Registered Mental Health Therapists of Ontario College
- and -
Roneldi Feaver Registrant
FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS
Heard: December 1, 2025, by videoconference
Panel:
Jay Sengupta (panel chair)
Steven Boychyn (public)
Carol Cowan-Levine (registered psychotherapist)
Henry Pateman (public)
Kafui Sawyer (registered psychotherapist)
Appearances:
Emily Graham, for the College
Rebecca Young, 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 patients 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, Roneldi Feaver, committed misconduct by providing professional therapeutic services to three clients while in dual or multiple relationships with them, subjected some of them to inappropriate influence or abuse and communicated with all three in a manner that would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
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, as well as the College standards that had been contravened: specifically, those governing general conduct, dual and multiple relationships and undue influence and abuse.
3The parties also provided the panel with an agreed statement of facts (ASF) in respect of penalty and made a joint submission in respect of penalty and costs. The parties jointly sought a suspension of the registrant’s certificate of registration for eight months to commence immediately, a reprimand, completion of an individualized ethics and boundaries course within six months of the order by the registrant 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 otherwise not be 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, Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 18 (Code).
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. 1.7 – dual and multiple relationships; and
iii. 1.8 – undue influence and abuse; 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.
Text and Direct Messages to Clients
8The registrant sent text messages to all three clients in which she signed off with “xo” and “xoxo.” She engaged in discussions with Client A and Client B about matters related to therapeutic topics that were informal and overly casual and using text and direct messages. The registrant used terms of endearment when addressing Client B and accidentally sent Client B a “mirror selfie” of herself in a low-cut top.
9In March 2023, the registrant told Client A and his wife that she had been assured by her supervisor that the messages she had exchanged with Client A were not inappropriate. This was not true. The registrant misled Client A and his wife, as the registrant’s conversation with her supervisor about this issue did not take place until the following month.
10All three clients were able to follow and view the registrant’s publicly accessible content on Instagram, which included pictures of her dressed in revealing clothing that depicted her cleavage and/or her buttocks.
11The registrant’s Instagram profile did not contain her full name, identify her professional designation or require her approval to follow her on the platform. However, it is unlikely that clients would have readily discovered the profile without being directed to it by her. In fact, the registrant sent Client A information about a gym membership promotion and nutrition package by direct message from the Instagram account.
12Client A told the College that his exposure to the registrant’s Instagram photographs made him feel uncomfortable given they were the types of images he was trying to avoid, thereby interfering with his progress in therapy. Client C told the College that seeing the registrant’s Instagram images made him feel uncomfortable and conflicted because he had seen personal photographs of someone from whom he was seeking and receiving professional therapeutic service.
13Upon discovering that her clients had followed her Instagram account, the registrant blocked them and she has since deleted the account entirely.
Involvement in Client B’s Professional Training and Development
14While Client B was still a client, the registrant offered to supervise her studies The offer did not lead to the registrant acting in that role because Client B’s educational institution deemed the registrant unsuitable for the role as she did not have sufficient post-graduate work experience. The registrant also made a client referral to Client B and facilitated the connection between the two of them, while Client B was in an ongoing therapeutic relationship with the registrant.
Findings
15In the SUF, the registrant does not contest that she provided therapeutic services to Clients A, B and C while in dual relationships with them, that her communications with them were overly informal and casual and that she used terms of endearment and inadvertently sent a photograph displaying her cleavage to Client B. She also does not contest that she failed to take steps to prevent her clients from following her on Instagram or viewing the contents of her Instagram profile. Finally, the registrant does not contest that she offered to play a role in Client B’s professional development while the latter was still her client.
16In 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 engaged in communications with three clients that were overly familiar and casual, and failed to take steps to ensure they would not be exposed to personal content on her Instagram profile, thereby placing her in dual and multiple relationships with them and exposing them to undue influence and abuse. We find that the registrant’s actions would be viewed by the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.
17The registrant displayed a disregard for identifying boundaries and maintaining them by engaging in inappropriately informal and casual communications with her clients. Failure to maintain standards of professionalism in communications with clients can lead, as it did in these circumstances, to confusion for clients and an impairment of judgment in the registrant. The College argued, and we accept, that registrants must be mindful of these obligations and take a client-first approach, and that the registrant in this case failed to do so.
Penalty and Costs
18The parties jointly sought the following:
a suspension of the registrant’s certificate of registration for eight 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).
19While 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).
20The 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 consistent with penalties in similar cases. We find that the proposed penalty is appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances.
21The registrant was in dual and multiple relationships with all three clients when she communicated in overly familiar ways while providing therapeutic treatment to them. In doing so, and by failing to take steps to ensure they would not be exposed to inappropriately personal content on her Instagram account, by misleading Client A about her communications with her supervisor and by involving herself in Client B’s professional training and development, the registrant demonstrated a failure in the fundamental and core duty to establish and maintain professional boundaries with her clients.
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 was responsive throughout the investigation and hearing process and worked collaboratively with the College to proceed by way of a joint submission. The parties argued that the registrant has demonstrated insight and a willingness to remediate her conduct by immediately removing the clients’ access to her Instagram account when she became aware that they had seen it and by deleting the account altogether shortly after that. She has also taken the PROBE course pursuant to a previous ICRC direction.
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 Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Sharone, 2021 ONCMTO 35 and College of Registered Psychotherapists and Registered Mental Health Therapists of Ontario v. McLean, 2024 ONCRPO 3).
26In Sharone, the Tribunal imposed a penalty that included a reprimand, a ten-month suspension, coursework and mentorship following return to practice. In that case, the last year of a massage therapist’s treatment of a long-standing client was marred by a concurrent personal and treatment relationship. That case involved a high volume of messages sent to the client by the registrant - 79 intimate and sexual messages with 21 of them involving nudity.
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 following the registrant’s return to practice. 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 business assistance.
28We are satisfied that the length of the proposed suspension of eight months is within the range of outcomes in similar circumstances. There is no allegation that the registrant’s communications with her clients were romantic in nature and, other than the mirror-selfie sent in error, the topics covered were related to the therapy. The suspension 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, as reasonable. The amount sought is in line with the tariff for a half-day uncontested proceeding.
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 eight (8) months commencing December 2, 2025 at 12:01 a.m.
b. place the following terms, conditions and limitations on the registrant’s certificate of registration effective December 2, 2025 at 12:01 a.m.:
i. The Registrant will participate in individualized instruction in professional ethics and boundaries satisfactory to the College, with an instructor selected by the College, within six (6) months of the date of the Tribunal’s Order. The instructor shall provide a summative report to the College including their conclusion about whether the Registrant successfully completed the instruction.
Costs
- The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $4,700.00 within twelve (12) months of the Tribunal’s Order 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.