Other Tribunals - ORPDT

In a professional discipline proceeding, the tribunal found professional misconduct where the registrant administered a potent psychedelic substance by inhalation to clients at a retreat, despite lacking authority to perform that controlled act.

The tribunal held that the conduct contravened the registrant’s statutory scope of practice, failed to maintain the standard of practice, and amounted to disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct.

Applying the Anthony-Cook framework, the tribunal accepted the joint submission on penalty because it met the objectives of public protection, deterrence, remediation, and maintaining public confidence in the regulator.

The tribunal imposed a seven-month suspension, a reprimand, practice restrictions, mandatory education on psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, and costs.

The registrant admitted to professional misconduct for falsifying an employment letter and forging her employer's signature to support a licensing application in the United Arab Emirates.

The College and the registrant presented a joint submission on penalty, proposing a one-month suspension, a reprimand, and remedial education.

The Tribunal accepted the joint submission, finding it protected the public and did not bring the administration of the professional discipline system into disrepute.

A discipline panel found professional misconduct where a registrant delayed until the next day making a mandatory report to a children’s aid society after receiving disclosures giving reasonable grounds to suspect child sexual abuse and a caregiver’s failure to protect.

The panel held that the immediate reporting duty under s. 125(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 was engaged and that the delay breached both the profession’s standard of practice and the misconduct regulation.

Applying the public-interest test governing joint submissions, the panel accepted an agreed penalty of a two-month suspension with a possible one-month remission tied to remediation, together with a reprimand and training terms.

The panel also accepted the joint costs submission of $4,700.

The registrant, a new psychotherapist, practised without the required clinical supervision.

Upon realizing her error, she attempted to conceal it by having a friend impersonate her supervisor in a conversation with a client and by providing false information to her employer.

The registrant admitted to professional misconduct.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a four-month suspension, individualized ethics instruction, a reprimand, and costs of $4,700.

The College referred allegations of professional misconduct against the registrant to the Tribunal.

The parties reached an agreement wherein the registrant resigned their membership and undertook not to re-apply for registration in any jurisdiction.

The parties jointly requested an indefinite adjournment of the proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the public is protected as the registrant will no longer practice as a psychotherapist.

The College alleged the registrant committed professional misconduct by engaging in dual relationships, inappropriate communications, and failing to maintain social media boundaries with three clients.

The registrant pleaded no contest.

The Discipline Tribunal found the registrant committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Tribunal ordered an 8-month suspension, a reprimand, completion of an ethics course, and $4,700 in costs, finding the penalty met the goals of public protection and deterrence.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found misconduct where the registrant provided therapeutic services to two clients with whom she was in dual relationships, creating a conflict of interest, and failed to obtain valid prior informed written consents to treatment.

The misconduct was aggravated by the registrant's subsequent romantic relationship with one client's former spouse and by her use of documents purporting to characterize the services as not being active therapy despite invoicing for therapeutic treatment.

Applying the Anthony-Cook public-interest threshold for joint submissions, the panel accepted a jointly proposed penalty as proportionate and consistent with public protection, deterrence, and remediation.

The panel imposed a five-month suspension, a reprimand, an ethics and boundaries course, and costs.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the registrant admitted that he practised psychotherapy while his certificate of registration was suspended and failed to respond to the College within 15 days as required by a prior discipline order.

The Tribunal found professional misconduct under subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code and paragraphs 45, 46, 47, and 52 of s. 1 of O. Reg. 317/12.

Applying the Anthony-Cook standard for joint submissions, the Tribunal accepted a jointly proposed penalty, emphasizing public protection, deterrence, governability, and rehabilitation despite serious concerns arising from repeated non-compliance and prior discipline history.

The Tribunal imposed a reprimand, a suspension for a minimum of four months continuing until specified remediation is completed, additional terms and possible mentoring, and costs of $4,700.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the registrant admitted misconduct arising from failure to make a mandatory report of alleged sexual abuse by another regulated health professional, contrary to s. 85.1 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, and from repeated failure to respond to the client and the other regulator.

The tribunal held that the conduct breached the standard of practice, contravened the Code, was psychologically or emotionally abusive to a vulnerable client, and constituted disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional conduct and conduct unbecoming.

Applying the joint-submission framework from Anthony Cook, the panel accepted a jointly proposed penalty.

The tribunal imposed a reprimand, a one-month suspension, extensive remedial and monitoring terms, and costs of $6,055.

In an uncontested discipline hearing, the Tribunal found that a psychotherapist committed professional misconduct by engaging in sexual abuse and multiple boundary violations with a vulnerable client during an ongoing therapist-client relationship.

The misconduct included sexualized communications, physical contact, sexual touching, oral-genital contact, and sexual intercourse, alongside conflict of interest and conduct unbecoming the profession.

Applying the Anthony-Cook framework in the professional discipline context, the Tribunal accepted the parties’ joint submission on penalty.

The registrant’s certificate of registration was revoked, a reprimand was delivered, costs were ordered, and reimbursement plus security for therapy and counselling funding were required.

A discipline panel found professional misconduct where the registrant practised psychotherapy while his certificate of registration was suspended for non-payment of fees, used restricted titles during suspension, issued invoices containing false information, and continued online advertising that held him out as a psychotherapist.

The panel held that this conduct contravened the profession’s standards of practice, the title restrictions in the governing statute, and specific misconduct provisions addressing practising and benefiting while suspended.

Applying the Anthony-Cook framework to the parties’ joint submission, the panel concluded that the proposed sanction was not contrary to the public interest.

The panel imposed a two-month suspension, a reprimand, specified remedial study requirements, and costs of $4,700 payable over 24 months.

The College prosecuted a discipline case arising from the registrant's criminal guilty plea for recording images and videos of an individual without knowledge or consent.

The registrant admitted professional misconduct based on a finding of guilt for an offence relevant to suitability to practise and conduct unbecoming a psychotherapist.

Applying the stringent joint-submission standard, the tribunal held the proposed penalty was not so unhinged from the circumstances as to bring the discipline system into disrepute.

The tribunal imposed a two-month suspension, ethics-related educational terms, a reprimand, and costs.

The College moved for an indefinite adjournment of a professional discipline proceeding on the basis that the registrant was medically unable to participate and there was no indication of future capacity.

The tribunal granted the motion, finding adjournment appropriate in light of the serious health condition and noting that public protection remained intact because the registrant no longer held a certificate of registration and could not practise.

The tribunal also ordered the registrar to post on the public register the fact of the notice of hearing, the misconduct allegation described in the order, and the fact of the indefinite adjournment.

The reasons preserved transparency while leaving open the College’s right to restart the proceeding if reinstatement were ever sought.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the Tribunal found that the registrant used false identities to make repeated false accusations against a College employee, including allegations of anti-2SLGBTQIA+ bias and improper disclosure of confidential information.

The Tribunal admitted forensic IP-address expert evidence under the Mohan and White Burgess frameworks and relied on that evidence, together with the documentary record and the registrant’s non-participation, to conclude on a balance of probabilities that the accusations were fabricated by or at the direction of the registrant.

The conduct was found to contravene College standards, constitute disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct, and amount to conduct unbecoming a member of the profession.

Given the ongoing misconduct, failure to comply with prior regulatory requirements, and failure to participate in the discipline process, the Tribunal found the registrant ungovernable, revoked his certificate of registration, and ordered costs.

A discipline panel found professional misconduct where the registrant, while holding a qualifying certificate, publicly used the title of registered psychotherapist without the required qualifier and posted social media content spreading COVID-19 misinformation and making discriminatory comments about gender, sexuality, and ethnicity.

The panel held that the impugned communications were disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, and in part conduct unbecoming, and that the title misuse also breached registration terms and published standards.

Applying the Doré/Loyola proportionality framework, the panel concluded that the findings appropriately balanced freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter with the regulator’s public-interest mandate to prevent harmful misinformation and maintain trust in the profession.

The registrant’s complete failure to participate in the investigation and hearing process supported a finding of ungovernability.

Revocation and costs of $6,055 were ordered.