Board confirms oral caution and remediation program following complaint review
Ontario’s Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) upheld a regulatory committee’s decision requiring a registered psychotherapist to receive an oral caution and complete continuing education and clinical supervision after concerns arose from court-ordered family reunification therapy.
The HPARB confirmed the decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the College of Registered Psychotherapists and Registered Mental Health Therapists of Ontario. The committee had ordered a specified continuing education and remediation program addressing professionalism, therapeutic alliance, consent, professional objectivity, safety planning, billing, record keeping, Children’s Aid Society (CAS) reporting, discontinuing services and report writing.
The psychotherapist provided reunification therapy to a family in 2020 to facilitate reunification between two children, then aged 13 and 10, and their father. The complainant raised several concerns about the psychotherapist’s conduct, including allegations of unprofessional communications, inadequate consent practices, failure to address domestic violence concerns, unfair billing, deficient clinical documentation and biased reporting.
The committee investigated the complaint and found concerns arising from nearly all the issues raised. It took no action on an allegation that the psychotherapist improperly referred to other clients during sessions because there was no evidence that he disclosed identifying information.
Among other findings, the committee concluded that the psychotherapist failed to maintain neutrality while providing reunification therapy and demonstrated actual or perceived bias favouring one parent. It also found gaps in consent practices concerning access to personal health information by interns or associates. It concluded that he did not adequately consider concerns about domestic violence or conduct safety planning following a disclosure.
The committee also identified concerns with billing practices and record keeping. It found that the psychotherapist did not consistently include both parents in correspondence and expressed concerns about his communications with CAS. While it found discontinuing therapy was appropriate because the therapeutic relationship was beyond repair, it remained concerned about his communications and the absence of referrals or resources to support the family’s needs.
The complainant sought an HPARB review because the committee stated that the psychotherapist had no history of complaints, discipline or related concerns. She argued that proceedings involving the psychotherapist before another Ontario regulatory college should have been considered.
The HPARB rejected that argument. It found the committee’s statement referred to the psychotherapist’s history with the psychotherapy college and was accurate in that context. The committee was also aware that the psychotherapist practised as a registered social worker and that the complainant had filed a complaint with the other regulator.
The board found the investigation adequate, noting that the committee obtained extensive documentation and the essential information needed to assess the complaint.
It also found the committee’s decision reasonable, concluding that its analysis demonstrated a coherent and rational connection between the evidence, its reasoning and the outcome.
Ultimately, the HPARB confirmed the oral caution and remediation program, which includes a record-keeping course and monthly clinical supervision for 24 months.
