ONTARIO REGISTERED PSYCHOTHERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: 25-008-RP
BETWEEN:
College of Registered Psychotherapists and Registered Mental Health Therapists of Ontario College
- and -
Randhir Vinepal Registrant
CASE MANAGEMENT REASONS
Heard: March 10, 2026
Panel:
David A. Wright (Tribunal Chair)
Appearances:
Karen Heath, for the College
Lorne Honickman, 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.
Introduction
1On August 29, 2025, the College filed its notice of hearing in this matter. It alleges that the registrant engaged in behaviour or made remarks to a client that were inappropriate, unprofessional and/or sexual. The registrant asked, at a case management conference in March of 2026, that hearing dates not be scheduled now. The client has brought a civil action against the registrant, and he argues that dates should not be set until the discovery process in that matter is over. I denied the request at the CMC and advised the parties I would provide written reasons. These are my reasons.
Background
2The registrant registered with the College on June 8, 2022. The misconduct is alleged to have occurred between June and November 2022, with a female client who had been an inpatient at a mental health centre where he worked. Before his registration with the College, he worked with the client as a counsellor.
3On November 13, 2024, the client began a legal action in Superior Court against the registrant and others, seeking damages generally based on the same allegations as in this proceeding.
4On July 10, 2025, the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee referred these allegations to the Tribunal. The College filed the notice of hearing with the Tribunal on August 29, 2025. On September 4, 2025, the Tribunal scheduled the first case management conference (CMC) to take place on October 10, 2025. Due to registrant counsel’s availability, it was rescheduled to September 29, 2025.
5On September 24, 2025, counsel for the registrant advised that an issue had arisen about the registrant’s insurance coverage and legal representation. As this issue required time to address, and counsel was unavailable until mid-November, he asked for an adjournment of the CMC. In the case management direction granting the adjournment, I noted that “[i]f there is new counsel, they must be available for a timely hearing and act expeditiously to familiarize themself with the file.”
6In the end, there was no change in counsel. At the CMC of November 28, 2025, the registrant asked that hearing dates not be scheduled until after examinations for discovery in the civil action then scheduled for February 19 and 20, 2026. Part of the registrant’s defence, in both this process and the civil process, relates to the authenticity of electronic materials the client provided that purport to show electronic communications between her and the registrant. The registrant is exploring these issues in the examinations for discovery, and this may include forensic analysis of the client’s phone and laptop.
7I granted the November request on the basis that a clearer picture of pre-hearing steps in this matter was likely to emerge after the discoveries, which were less than two months away. The next CMC was scheduled to take place just under three weeks after the discoveries.
8The discoveries didn’t finish on the dates scheduled, due to the need to accommodate the time zone where the client is living. They are now scheduled to continue on April 15 and 16, 2026. However, there are likely to be motions about undertakings and/or refusals in Superior Court, and it is impossible to predict when they will be heard and decided.
9The registrant acknowledges that even when the discoveries and undertakings are complete, there may be further delays before any disclosure obtained could be used in this proceeding. Under Rule 31.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194, evidence and information obtained through the discovery process in civil proceedings cannot be used for any purposes other than the proceeding, although there are exceptions including for impeachment of a witness in a different proceeding, and with leave of the court.
10There is no process of oral discoveries before this Tribunal. If there are documents or things the registrant seeks that the College does not have, he can bring a third-party records motion under Rule 11.3 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure and s. 42.2 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 18 (Code).
Analysis
11Both parties rely on Law Society of Upper Canada v. Marusic, 2018 ONLSTH 118 for the applicable principles. As set out in Marusic, at para. 37, “the analysis involves balancing the public interest and the licensee’s interests to determine whether waiting or proceeding best ensures fairness, proportionate proceedings and the protection of the public interest.”
12Marusic identified the following non-exhaustive factors relevant to striking the appropriate balance when a delay is sought based on parallel proceedings:
- the degree of overlap between the proceedings, and in particular whether the results of the other matter are likely to decide the issues in the application;
- the seriousness and nature of the allegations;
- whether the licensee is actively practising law or providing legal services;
- how soon the other proceedings and the Tribunal application are likely to be heard and decided;
- the nature of the other proceedings: the Tribunal is more likely to await criminal proceedings than civil proceedings because of the accused’s constitutional rights, and because criminal trials often happen more quickly as a result of the right to a trial within a reasonable time guaranteed by s. 11(b) of the Charter; and
- the effects on the complainants, the licensee and the public of waiting or proceeding.
13Applying these factors, I note the cases essentially completely overlap. The registrant is not practising psychotherapy. Not delaying would mean requiring the registrant to seek the requested information in the Tribunal process and the court process at the same time, which could lead to complication and costs. These factors militate in favour of the registrant’s request to wait.
14However, the factors that suggest moving forward are weightier. These allegations are extremely serious. It has been over eight months since the referral and almost four years since the events. The registrant has already been granted two delays. There are key issues of credibility and reliability, and memories fade with the passage of time. The other proceeding is civil, not criminal. This Tribunal could hear and decide a third-party records motion within weeks. The various motions in court would undoubtedly take considerably longer, given the notorious delays due to resource challenges. And there is no certainty that the decisions on the discovery issues will eliminate the need for a third-party records motion here, both because of the deemed undertaking issues and because the analysis may be different in the two proceedings.
15There is a particularly strong public interest in favour of moving ahead with a sexual abuse proceeding. The Legislature, in s. 1.1 of the Code, states that:
The purpose of the provisions of this Code with respect to sexual abuse of patients by members is to encourage the reporting of such abuse, to provide funding for therapy and counselling in connection with allegations of sexual abuse by members and, ultimately, to eradicate the sexual abuse of patients by members.
16Delays frustrate those goals by making the process more difficult for the complainant. As noted in College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. McInnis, 2022 ONPSDT 28 at para. 13:
There are, however, many other reasons why expeditious resolution of discipline proceedings is important. As the Supreme Court of Canada explained in relation to criminal proceedings in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, delay “aggravates victims’ suffering, preventing them from moving on with their lives” (para. 23). Delays add to worry, frustration and the disruption of complainants’ lives, potentially creating a disincentive to their participation (para. 24). What is more, delays harm public confidence in the administration of justice (paras. 25-26) and, in our context, in the regulation of the profession in the public interest. In the civil context, too, the Supreme Court has emphasized that “[p]rompt judicial resolution of disputes allows individuals to get on with their lives”: Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 at para. 25. These factors, in my view, take on added importance here given the importance of public confidence in the regulation of the medical profession in the public interest and the particular challenges and stress for patients and other complainants who allege sexual misconduct by a person they trusted with care of their most private needs.
Conclusion
17This matter should move forward. To obtain third party records, the registrant must follow this Tribunal’s process to obtain them, rather than waiting for the civil discovery issues to be resolved. It is appropriate to give the registrant some time to consider his position following this decision, and so scheduling of the next steps will take place at the case management conference on April 20, 2026.