ONTARIO REGISTERED PSYCHOTHERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: 25-009-RP
BETWEEN:
College of Registered Psychotherapists and Registered Mental Health Therapists of Ontario
College
- and -
Ayesha Masud
Registrant
FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS
Heard: December 17, 2025
Panel:
David A. Wright (Tribunal Chair)
Heidi Ahonen (registered psychotherapist)
Steven Boychyn (public)
Miranda Monastero (registered psychotherapist)
Kevin Sack (public)
Appearances:
Emily Graham, for the College
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.
Nabiel Dawood, for the registrant
The Ontario Registered Psychotherapists Discipline Tribunal is the Discipline Committee established under the Health Professions Procedural Code.
Introduction
1Ayesha Masud, as a new registrant, was required to practise under clinical supervision. She had two different positions and mistakenly believed that the person supervising her in one position was also supervising her in the other. When she realized she had been practising without a supervisor, she tried to cover it up, going so far as to have a friend impersonate her “supervisor” in a conversation with a client. She admits that she committed professional misconduct by practising without a clinical supervisor and by deceiving the client and her employer.
2The College and the registrant agree that the penalty should be a four-month suspension, individualized ethics instruction and a reprimand. Our role when there is a joint submission is limited; we must make the requested order unless it would bring the administration of the professional discipline system into disrepute. This proposal does not do so, and we made the requested order at the hearing. These are our reasons.
3Tribunal Chair David Wright conducted case management conferences in this matter and sits on the panel with the consent of both parties.
The Misconduct
4Ms. Masud obtained her Qualifying certificate of registration in April 2023. Under s. 11(a) of Ontario Regulation 67/15, made under the Psychotherapy Act, 2015, SO 2007, c. 10, Sched. R, “it is an additional term, condition and limitation of every Qualifying certificate of registration that the member must at all times… practise psychotherapy with clinical supervision.”
5Beginning on August 8, 2023, the registrant was employed practising psychotherapy as a mental health clinician at Youth Without Shelter (YWS), a charity offering shelter and support for youth facing homelessness in the Greater Toronto Area. Also on August 8, 2023, the registrant was offered an Independent Contractor Agreement with Tina Lackner, a registered psychotherapist and the owner and clinical director of Lunar Psychotherapy & Wellness (LPW).
6Ms. Masud entered into the agreement with Ms. Lackner on September 11, 2023. She mistakenly believed that Ms. Lackner was her clinical supervisor for her practice at YWS. However, Ms. Lackner was only to be the registrant’s clinical supervisor for her practice at LPW. Ultimately, Ms. Masud did not practice at LPW, and their agreement was terminated on November 5, 2023.
7A YWS client was dissatisfied with the registrant’s interactions with them and her decision about their eligibility for services. The client asked for contact information for the registrant’s clinical supervisor. Ms. Masud then realized that she didn’t have a clinical supervisor for her practice at YWS.
8The registrant emailed YWS management a phone number belonging to a friend, saying that it could be used by the client to reach her clinical supervisor, whom she identified as Ms. Lackner. She did so to try to avoid further complaints by the client, whom she felt was targeting her. The registrant was fearful she had made a mistake and felt that her explanation of having been mistaken about whether Ms. Lackner was her clinical supervisor at YWS would not be believed.
9The client called the number provided and spoke to the registrant’s friend about their concerns. The friend, at Ms. Masud’s request, pretended to be Ms. Lackner and the client thought they were speaking to her clinical supervisor. The friend told the client she would follow up with the registrant and would be back in touch. The client attempted to follow up by text message, but received no response.
10The client contacted YWS to express their dissatisfaction with the lack of follow up from the clinical supervisor. Upon learning from Ms. Lackner that she had not spoken to the client, YWS undertook a workplace investigation. During the investigation, the registrant made false and misleading statements to YWS about how she had come to know Ms. Lackner, how she got false contact information for Ms. Lackner, her suspicions that Ms. Lackner’s email had been hacked, and discussions she purported to have had with Ms. Lackner about speaking with the client. Ms. Masud made these statements out of fear that her explanation that she had been mistaken about whether Ms. Lackner was her clinical supervisor at YWS would not be believed.
11As a registered psychotherapist, Ms. Masud had to be diligent and ensure that she was complying with the terms of her certificate of registration by arranging for clinical supervision. Although she believed she had a supervisor, she was careless and failed to pay sufficient attention to the details of her arrangement with Ms. Lackner. As professionals, registered psychotherapists must be sure they comply with all the College’s requirements. The rules are there to make sure that the public is protected and can have confidence in all members of the profession.
12When she practised without a supervisor, Ms. Masud committed the following types of misconduct under s. 1 of Ontario Regulation 317/12 under the Psychotherapy Act (professional misconduct regulation). She failed to maintain the standards of practice of the profession (para. 1), notably the Professional Practice Standards on Accepting the Regulatory Authority of the College (Standard 1.1), General Conduct (Standard 1.5) and Practising With Clinical Supervision Standard 4.2). She contravened a term, condition or limitation on her certificate of registration. Her conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional (para. 52).
13Ms. Masud then made the situation much worse by being dishonest. Instead of admitting her mistake and minimizing the effects of her error, she compounded them. She gave her employer and the client information she knew was false. She planned for a friend to deceive the client. The client thought they were speaking to a registered psychotherapist who was supervising the registrant. While we do not know the details of what was said on the call, there was a significant risk that the client would convey personal information to the friend thinking she was a psychotherapist. Members of the public expect that when they engage with a member of this profession, they will not be deceived, and their personal information will be treated with the utmost care and sensitivity. One registrant’s failure to uphold these principles harms the public’s confidence in all psychotherapists.
14Ms. Masud failed to uphold the standards of practice of the profession. As noted in the Professional Practice Standards (Standard 1.5), a registrant must practice the profession with integrity and professionalism, consider the impact of their conduct on the profession as a whole, and consult with another registrant if they find themself in questionable circumstances.
15When Ms. Masud sent her employer an email with false information about her clinical supervisor, she issued a document that she knew contained false and misleading information, which is misconduct under para. 26 of s. 1 of the professional misconduct regulation. Her dishonesty and cover-up were disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.
Penalty
16When a registrant admits misconduct and the parties jointly propose a penalty, the panel’s role is limited. We are not determining the penalty that we would have ordered. Rather, we must implement the parties’ agreement unless to do so would bring the administration of the professional discipline system into disrepute. This is a very high bar; a joint submission must be accepted unless it is “unhinged” from the circumstances. See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43; Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303(Div. Ct.) at paras. 9-12.
17This stringent standard encourages settlement by ensuring “a high degree of certainty” that the agreed penalty will be accepted, avoiding “the need for lengthy, costly, and contentious” hearings: R. v. Nahanee, 2022 SCC 37at para. 2. Other benefits include more expeditious action to protect the public, avoiding an “all or nothing” situation for either party, sparing witnesses the stress of testifying, certainty of when the penalty will start, and the ability to reach “creative and meaningful terms, conditions and limitations that would be difficult to order and implement without buy-in from both parties.” College of Registered Psychotherapists and Registered Mental Health Therapists of Ontario v. Muscat, 2023 ONCRPO 5at para. 17.
18This was serious misconduct, involving both a failure to comply with the supervision requirements that apply to all new psychotherapists and misleading her employer and a client. Ms. Masud has, however, admitted the misconduct and showed remorse and insight. The mid-range suspension of four months appropriately reflects those factors. The ethics instruction is essential, as these events show that Ms. Masud was not attuned to the requirements of a regulated professional as she started her career.
19The parties relied on several cases where the suspensions were between one and six months: College of Registered Psychotherapists and Registered Mental Health Therapists of Ontario v. Al-Dabbagh, 2017 ONCRPO 2; College of Nurses of Ontario v. Basilio, 2016 CanLII 63929 (ON CNO); College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Yazdani Boroujeni, 2020 CanLII 38634 (ON PSDT). Each of them has significant factual differences from this case, and we rely on them to show that this penalty is within the general range for issues of failure to comply with terms, conditions or limitations and/or dishonesty.
Order
20We made the following order:
Penalty
The Tribunal requires the registrant to appear before the panel to be reprimanded.
The Tribunal directs the Registrar to suspend the registrant’s certificate of registration for four (4) months, commencing on the date of this Order.
The Tribunal directs the Registrar to place the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Registrant’s certificate of registration:
a. Within six (6) months of the date of this Order, the registrant shall, at her own expense, complete individualized instruction in professionalism and ethics, with an instructor approved by the College. The instructor shall provide a summative report to the College, including whether the registrant successfully completed the instruction.
Costs
- The Registrant is required to pay the College costs in the amount of $4,700.00, within sixty (60) days after [the] date of this Order.