2026 ONSC 4768
COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-00743147-0000
DATE: 20260818
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: The College of Psychologists and Behaviour Analysts of Ontario, Applicants
AND:
Debra Ann Tate, Respondent
BEFORE: Justice C. Boswell
COUNSEL: Andrew M. Porter and Lauren Paparousis for the Applicant
No one appearing for the Respondent
HEARD: In Writing
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The applicant seeks a declaration that the respondent has contravened s. 8 of the Psychology and Applied Behaviour Analysis Act, 2021 (the “PABA Act”) and ss. 27(1), 30(1), and 33 of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991 c. 18 (the “RHP Act”), together with an order requiring her to comply with both statutes.
[2] The application came before me by way of a case conference on July 7, 2026. The respondent failed to attend the conference. She has not, in fact, engaged with the application in any way. She has not filed a notice of appearance, nor any other materials in response to the application. I signaled at the case conference that I was prepared to address the application in writing. I provided directions for the service of responding and reply materials and indicated that I would address the application after August 10, 2026. Both parties were provided with a copy of the endorsement.
[3] Apart from an updated factum filed by the applicant, no additional materials have been submitted following the case conference.
[4] The following brief reasons explain why the application is granted.
The Relevant Statutory Provisions
[5] Section 8 of the PABA Act provides as follows:
8 (1) No person other than a member[1] shall use the title “psychologist” or “psychological associate”, a variation or abbreviation or an equivalent in another language.
(2) No person other than a member shall hold himself or herself out as a person who is qualified to practise in Ontario as a psychologist or psychological associate or in a specialty of psychology.
(3) A person who is not a member contravenes subsection (2) if he or she uses the word “psychology” or “psychological”, an abbreviation or an equivalent in another language in any title or designation or in any description of services offered or provided.
(4) Subsections (1) and (3) do not apply to a person in the course of his or her employment by a university.
[6] The relevant sections of the RHP Act provide:
27 (1) No person shall perform a controlled act set out in subsection (2) in the course of providing health care services to an individual unless,
(a) the person is a member authorized by a health profession Act to perform the controlled act; or
(b) the performance of the controlled act has been delegated to the person by a member described in clause (a).
(2) A “controlled act” is any one of the following done with respect to an individual:
Communicating to the individual or his or her personal representative a diagnosis identifying a disease or disorder as the cause of symptoms of the individual in circumstances in which it is reasonably foreseeable that the individual or his or her personal representative will rely on the diagnosis.
Treating, by means of psychotherapy technique, delivered through a therapeutic relationship, an individual’s serious disorder of thought, cognition, mood, emotional regulation, perception or memory that may seriously impair the individual’s judgement, insight, behaviour, communication or social functioning.
30 (1) No person, other than a member treating or advising within the scope of practice of his or her profession, shall treat or advise a person with respect to his or her health in circumstances in which it is reasonably foreseeable that serious bodily harm may result from the treatment or advice or from an omission from them.
33 (1) Except as allowed in the regulations under this Act, no person shall use the title “doctor”, a variation or abbreviation or an equivalent in another language in the course of providing or offering to provide, in Ontario, health care to individuals
[7] To be clear, pursuant to s. 35(1), the RHP Act does not apply to “aboriginal healers providing traditional healing services to aboriginal persons or members of an aboriginal community.”
The Facts
[8] The evidence of the applicant comes from the affidavits of Daniel Smith, Polina Phokeev, and Lyndsey Suchiu, all dated October 16, 2025. Ms. Smith is a case manager with the Investigations and Resolutions Department of the applicant. Ms. Phokeev is a private investigator who conducted an undercover investigation of the respondent and her practice. Ms. Suchiu was a former client of the respondent.
[9] The applicant’s evidence is uncontested.
[10] The evidentiary record establishes the following:
(a) The respondent has never been a member of the College of Psychologists and Behaviour Analysts of Ontario;
(b) The respondent nevertheless carries on a practice that provides counselling and other services to the public. The practice is known as “One With Nature Shamanism and Metaphysical Centre”;
(c) The respondent held out to Ms. Suchiu that she was a psychologist and indeed had a doctorate in psychology;
(d) The respondent held out to Ms. Phokeev, amongst other things that:
She is a transpersonal psychologist;
Her practice is based 80% in Indigenous practices and 20% in western psychology practices;
She holds a doctorate degree in western psychology; and,
She integrates western psychological practices, cognitive behavioural therapy, hypnotherapy, and trauma work with Indigenous and spiritual teachings;
(e) The respondent has advertised on her Facebook page, in posts dated February 7 and March 28, 2025, describing herself as offering psychotherapy and counseling services;
(f) The One With Nature Shamanism Metaphysical Centre webpage included the following representations, as at June 6, 2025:
Descriptions of the respondent as “Dr. Debra Tate” and “Dr. Deb”;
A claim that the respondent received her doctorate in Metaphysics specializing in Transpersonal Psychology (TP), which she says combines the teachings of modern westernized psychology with the teachings and understanding of spiritual psychology; and
A claim that she completed her doctorate in December 2018;
(g) The respondent has performed the controlled act of giving a diagnosis.
[11] I am satisfied that the respondent has contravened s. 8 of the PABA Act, and ss. 27, 30, and 33 of the RHP Act, as alleged. While some of her advertised services arguably fall within the exemption contained in s. 35 of the RHP Act, the respondent has broadly held herself to be a psychologist, has referred to herself as a doctor, and has performed controlled acts. She has gone well beyond the provision of traditional healing services to Indigenous peoples.
[12] Section 87 of the Health Professions Procedure Code, which is Schedule 2 to the RHP Act, provides that the applicant may apply to this court for an order that a person comply with the provisions of the RHP Act, as well as the provisions of its own profession-specific Act. In effect, the applicant is authorized to seek a statutory injunction.
[13] Swinton J. articulated the following test for a statutory injunction in College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Ravikovich, 2010 ONSC 5714at para. 10:
An order directing a person to comply with the Code, pursuant to s. 87, is in effect a statutory injunction. When such an order is sought, in a case such as this, the Court must ask whether there has been a continued breach of the statute by the person against whom the injunction is sought and whether the statute permits the Court to make an order against that person. The College is not required to prove irreparable harm if the order is not made. A Court has discretion to refuse such an order - for example, where the order would be of questionable utility or inequitable (see, for example, Ontario (Minister of Agriculture and Food) v. Georgian Bay Milk Co., [2008] O.J. No. 485 (S.C.) at para. 34).
[14] Proof of damages or proof of harm to the public need not be established by the applicant. Where a clear breach of legislation is established, a statutory injunction to restrain the continued breach will only be refused in exceptional circumstances. The onus is on the respondent to establish those circumstances. See College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2018 ONSC 4815, at paras. 42-43.
[15] The test is easily satisfied on the facts here.
[16] The purpose of the legislation in issue is the protection of the public. The public interest will be served by the issuance of the orders sought.
[17] The application is granted. An order shall go in the form provided by the applicant by way of a draft order.
[18] Costs are fixed in favour of the applicant in the amount of $30,000. It is to be noted that the applicant attempted on several occasions to engage with the respondent, to no avail. The applicant was put to significant effort and expense to investigate and prosecute this matter.
C. Boswell J.
Date: August 18, 2026
1“Member” is defined in s. 1 of the PABA Act as a member of the College of Psychologists and Behaviour Analysts of Ontario. The respondent is not a member.