ONTARIO REGISTERED PSYCHOTHERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: 25-012-RP
BETWEEN:
College of Registered Psychotherapists and Registered Mental Health Therapists of Ontario College
- and -
Aziza Mohssen Sobh Registrant
FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS
Heard: February 27, 2026
Panel:
Jennifer Scott (panel chair) Andrew Benedetto (registered psychotherapist) Anabel Helen (registered psychotherapist) Kevin Sack (public) Jeffrey Vincent (public)
Appearances:
Emily Graham, for the College Aziza Mohssen Sobh, 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 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
1The registrant, Aziza Sobh, began the process of completing the requirements for a licence to practise in the United Arab Emirates in February 2025. During that process, she wrote a letter confirming her current employment and affixed her employer’s signature to the letter, without the employer’s knowledge, approval or consent.
2The registrant admits that in doing this, she contravened a standard of practice, falsified a document and engaged in conduct that members of the profession would regard as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
3The College and the registrant agree that the penalty should be a one-month suspension, terms, conditions and limitations on her certificate of registration relating to further education and reflection, and a reprimand.
4Our role on a joint submission is limited. We must make the requested order unless it would bring the administration of the professional discipline system into disrepute. The parties’ proposal does not do so, and we made the requested order at the hearing. These are our reasons.
The misconduct
5The registrant obtained her certificate of registration in February 2023 in the qualifying class and transitioned to the registered psychotherapist class in August 2024. From May 2023 to March 2025, she worked as a psychotherapist at Valley Connections Counselling.
6The registrant advised the Executive Director of Valley Connections in February 2025 that she was in the process of completing her licence to practise in the United Arab Emirates. The Executive Director responded almost immediately and told the registrant to let her know if she needed anything from her. One week later, the registrant wrote a letter to the regulator in the United Arab Emirates confirming her employment with Valley Connections, the period of time during which she had been employed, and the nature of her practice. The registrant affixed the Executive Director’s signature to the letter without the Executive Director’s knowledge, consent or approval.
7The Executive Director was contacted by a primary source and background verification company to confirm the letter was genuine. It was not.
8Valley Connections terminated the registrant’s employment.
9The registrant admits that in falsifying the letter to the regulator in the United Arab Emirates, she engaged in professional misconduct under s. 1 of Ontario Regulation 317/12 made under the Psychotherapy Act, 2007, SO 2007, c. 10 (Professional Misconduct Regulation). More specifically, she failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession (para. 1), notably Standard 1.5: General Conduct, falsified a record (para. 27), and engaged in conduct that was disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional (para. 52).
Penalty
10Our role is limited when the parties agree on penalty. We should only depart from a joint submission if the proposed penalty is not in the public interest because it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, or is contrary to the public interest in some other way: R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 at para. 32.
11A joint submission is not in the public interest when it is so unhinged from the circumstances of the case that reasonable and informed persons aware of those circumstances believe the proper functioning of the professional discipline system has broken down: Anthony-Cook at para. 34. This is a very high bar.
12The most important goal of a penalty order is the protection of the public. The public must have confidence in the registrant, the profession and the College’s ability to govern the profession in the public interest. Other penalty goals that support protection of the public include discouraging the registrant and other members of the profession from committing misconduct (specific and general deterrence), rehabilitating the registrant, ensuring a safe return to practice, and expressing the Tribunal and the profession’s disapproval of the misconduct.
13We are satisfied the joint submission on penalty achieves the above purposes and is not contrary to the public interest. The suspension and reprimand send a strong message to the registrant and to other members of the profession that serious consequences will result if they forge documents in their professional lives. Creating a false document is deeply concerning; it is especially so when the forgery is sent to another professional regulator.
14The joint submission on penalty is also consistent with the caselaw. The College relies on College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Foote, 2016 ONCPSD 17, a case remarkably similar to the case here. In Foote, a physician created letters of support for an elective at another hospital in another province by modifying letters of recommendations previously written by his program director and program chair and signing the letters. Neither person had reviewed, approved or signed the letters prior to their submission to the other hospital. Dr. Foote also wrote a letter that the elective had been approved and affixed the signature of his program director without his knowledge, consent or approval. For this misconduct, Dr. Foote received a reprimand, a one-month suspension and a requirement to complete individualized instruction in medical ethics—a similar penalty to the one here.
15Finally, the requirement for the registrant to engage in a comprehensive review of materials on professional ethics in psychotherapy and to reflect upon them through the creation of a written summary will go a long way to ensuring that the misconduct does not happen again. The penalty protects the public and demonstrates the College’s professional discipline system is working. It is accepted for these reasons. The parties’ agreement on costs is also reasonable and is based on the tariff.
Order
16We 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 one (1) month commencing the date of the Tribunal’s Order.
b. place the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Registrant’s certificate of registration:
i. within six (6) months of the date of this Order, the Registrant shall review and reflect on all of the following resources, and shall prepare a written summary of them (“Reflection Paper”), acceptable to the College and in accordance with the College’s Reflection Paper Instructions:
i. The following CRPO Standards of Practice (https://crpo.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Professional-Practice-Standards-Jan124.pdf):
a. Standard 1.5: General Conduct;
b. Standard 5.3: Issuing Accurate Documents;
ii. Sections of the Professional Practice and Jurisprudence for Registered Psychotherapists (“Jurisprudence e-Learning Manual”) (https://crpo.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Professional-Practice-and-Jurisprudence-JRP-Manual-Apr2525.pdf):
a. Section re: Standard 1.5 General Conduct;
iii. The CRPO Code of Ethics (https://crpo.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Code-of-Ethics-Aug1517.pdf);
iv. The Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association Code of Ethics (https://www.ccpa-accp.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/CCPA-2020-Code-of-Ethics-E-Book-EN.pdf);
v. Practice Matters: Do I need to / Can I include my supervisor’s name on receipts? (https://crpo.ca/resource-articles/do-i-need-to-can-i-include-my-supervisors-name-on-receipts/);
vi. N. Vivekananda, Dr. R. Meenaksh, Honesty and Its Role in Maintaining Social Cohesion and Trust, Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 2024, 30(2), 612-615 (https://kuey.net/index.php/kuey/article/view/1644/811);
vii. A Framework for Ethical Decision Making, Markkula Center for Applied Ethics (https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/a-framework-for-ethical-decision-making/);
viii. The Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (Third Edition, 2000): Summary of 10 Steps for Ethical Decision Making (https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/supplemental/Essential-Ethics-Psychologists/Canadian.pdf); and
ix. Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers Ethical Decision-making Tool (https://www.ocswssw.org/ocswssw-resources/ethics-a-ethical-decision-making-tool/).
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 [the] date of the Tribunal’s Order.