ONTARIO REGISTERED PSYCHOTHERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: 25-010-RP
BETWEEN:
College of Registered Psychotherapists and Registered Mental Health Therapists of Ontario
College
- and -
Fadak Raza
Registrant
FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS
Heard: February 24, 2026
Panel:
Sherry Liang (panel chair)
Anabel Helen (registered psychotherapist)
Henry Pateman (public)
Kevin Sack (public)
Appearances:
Justine Wong, for the College
Charles Painter, 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
1During an appointment, a client, a seven-year-old girl, disclosed information to the registrant that gave the registrant reasonable grounds to suspect that the client was being sexually abused and/or sexually exploited by her seventeen-year-old brother. The registrant was aware that she had a mandatory duty to immediately report this information to a children’s aid society (CAS) but, despite knowing that the client was returning home where her brother also lived, the registrant waited until the following day to make her report.
2The College alleges and the registrant admits that the delay in making the mandatory report is professional misconduct.
3The College and the registrant agree that the penalty should be a two-month suspension with a one-month remission contingent on fulfilling certain requirements, completion of specified training 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 so we made the requested order at the hearing.
Professional misconduct
4The registrant practises in a clinic in Southern Ontario. In June 2024, the client came, with her mother, to a regularly scheduled appointment with the registrant. Before the appointment, the registrant spoke with the mother, who conveyed concerns that the client’s teenage brother may have been engaging in inappropriate and/or sexual behaviour with the client. The mother told the registrant, among other things, that the brother and client shared a “secret” and that the brother rebuffed her when she asked him about it. The mother also said that the client told her the brother changed in front of her and took his pants off. The mother had the client sleep in bed with her after these disclosures, which took place three days before the appointment.
5During the appointment with the client, the client told the registrant that her brother lifts her shirt and scratches her when he is trying to put her to sleep, takes off his clothes and shows her his “pee pee” and she moves her hands up and down his “pee pee.” The client showed the registrant a movement which was akin to masturbatory movements and said, “that’s what I do to him” and told the registrant these activities happen every day.
6The registrant promptly told the mother about the client’s disclosures and that she had a mandatory duty to report to the CAS. The client’s mother asked the registrant to refrain from reporting due to the impact it would have on the client’s brother. Among other things, she told the registrant that she did not give permission to the registrant to disclose the brother’s sexual abuse and/or sexual exploitation of the client, she did not think the brother’s conduct was affecting the client that much, that she would not have the brother stay somewhere else and that the father was out of the country. She asked the registrant to give the family a month to allow the brother to finish his exams and told her that if the registrant made the report, the brother would be shamed and his life ruined.
7The registrant was aware that following the appointment, the client returned to the home where her brother was also residing. The registrant reported her reasonable grounds of suspicion of sexual abuse and/or sexual exploitation to the CAS the next day. The registrant acknowledges that she ought to have reported immediately and not waited until the next day.
8Under para. 1 of Ontario Regulation 317/12 made under the Psychotherapy Act, 2007, SO 2007, c. 10, Sched. R (the Misconduct Regulation), it is an act of misconduct to fail to maintain a standard of practice of the profession. The College’s Professional Practice Standard 1.3: Mandatory Reporting requires registrants to comply with their mandatory reporting obligations to the College and other organizations.
9Section 125(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 imposes on everyone, including registrants who perform professional duties with respect to children, a duty to “immediately” make a report to the CAS when they have reasonable grounds to suspect, among other things, that a child has been sexually abused or sexually exploited and the person having charge of the child knows of the possibility of sexual abuse or sexual exploitation and fails to protect them. The registrant contravened this provision when she did not immediately make a report to the CAS after she received the information described above which provided her with reasonable grounds to suspect sexual abuse of the client by her brother and that her mother was not protecting her.
10The registrant’s conduct amounts to professional misconduct under para. 1 of the Misconduct Regulation in that she failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession requiring her to comply with mandatory reporting obligations. It also amounts to professional misconduct within the meaning of para. 43 of the Misconduct Regulation, under which it is an act of misconduct to contravene a law in Canada that is relevant to the registrant’s suitability to practise.
11The registrant admits and we find that her conduct would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as unprofessional, within the meaning of para. 52 of the Misconduct Regulation. Although she made a report the following day, the failure to immediately report suspected child sexual abuse is a serious matter with potentially devastating consequences and, as a professional, the registrant should have known better. The public is entitled to expect that regulated health professionals will act promptly and decisively when legal reporting thresholds are met.
Penalty and costs
12The parties’ agreement on penalty must be implemented unless it is so “unhinged from the circumstances” that implementing it would bring the administration of the College’s professional discipline system into disrepute: see R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303 (Div. Ct.). We are satisfied that the proposed penalty is not contrary to the public interest in this manner.
13The parties provided us with several decisions that demonstrate that this penalty is proportionate to the misconduct. In two of these cases, health profession discipline committees imposed two-month suspensions for professional misconduct that included a failure to make reports about children in need of protection. In another case, a discipline committee imposed a two-month suspension on a nurse who failed to report sexual abuse of a patient by a colleague. The penalties in all cases also included requirements to undergo additional training. While each case was based on its own set of unique facts, we conclude that the two-month suspension proposed, with a possibility of a one-month remission, is reasonably within the range of penalties for similar misconduct.
14The suspension and reprimand serve the goals of specific and general deterrence. The terms, conditions and limitations imposed on the registrant’s certificate of registration serve the purpose of remediation and ensure that the registrant has the tools to return to practice in keeping with the standards of practice of the profession. The penalty shows the public that the College takes seriously contraventions of mandatory reporting obligations and enhances public confidence in the College’s ability to protect the public.
15We considered the mitigating factors addressed in the agreed facts. Among other things, by admitting to the misconduct and participating in the proceedings, the registrant has shown insight and remorse and spared the parties and the Tribunal the time and expense of having a contested hearing.
16Having regard to the relevant penalty principles as well as the caselaw, we are satisfied that the joint submission is not contrary to the public interest.
17We also accept the parties’ joint costs submission of $4,700, which is the amount set by the Tariff for a half-day hearing. The installment provisions of the costs submission are reasonable.
Order
18We made the following order:
Penalty
The Tribunal requires the Registrant to appear before the panel to receive a reprimand immediately following the conclusion of the hearing.
The Tribunal directs the Registrar to:
a. suspend the Registrant’s certificate of registration for two months uninterrupted, to commence one month after the date of the order, one month of which shall be remitted if the Registrant complies with and fully completes the provisions in subparagraphs 2(b)(ii) and 2(b)(iii) below, no later than two months from the date of the order, within the timeframes indicated herein:
i. The Registrant shall serve the first month of the suspension; and
ii. If the remitted portion of the suspension is required to be served by the Registrant because she fails to complete the remedial requirements specified in subparagraphs 2(b)(ii) and 2(b)(iii), then that portion of the suspension shall be served consecutively and shall commence on the day immediately after the timeframe for completing the requirements in subparagraphs 2(b)(ii) and 2(b)(iii) has expired; and
b. impose the following specified terms, conditions and limitations (“TCLs”) on the Registrant’s certificate of registration, effective immediately, all to be completed at the Registrant’s expense and to the satisfaction of the Registrar:
i. Requiring the Registrant to successfully complete, within six months of the order, an individualized professional ethics and professional responsibility course, about the issues that arose in this case, including mandatory reporting, with a College-approved instructor, who will provide written confirmation of same to the Registrar;
ii. Requiring the Registrant to review, and provide written confirmation of completion of same to the Registrar by the date one day prior to her return to practice following the suspension in subparagraph 2(a), of the following:
Reporting requirements under s. 125 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1;
The College’s Professional Practice Standard 1.3: Mandatory Reporting;
The College’s Jurisprudence e-Learning Manual; and
The College’s Practice Matters article on Mandatory Reporting;
iii. Requiring the Registrant to successfully complete, by the date one day prior Page 2 of 3 to her return to practice following the suspension in subparagraph 2(a), the College’s Jurisprudence e-Learning Module; and
iv. Requiring the Registrant to write, and provide to the Registrar, a 500-word reflection paper about her learnings from the TCLs in subparagraphs 2(b)(ii) to 2(b)(iii) within thirty days of completing all the same TCLs.
Costs
- The Tribunal requires the Registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $4,700, by paying the College quarterly installments (i.e., every three months) of $1,175.00 beginning thirty days after the date of the Tribunal’s Order.