Hello, everyone! Welcome! Welcome to the Barbara Wand Seminar in Professional Ethics, Standards, and Conduct.

I'm very pleased to greet you all today, and thank you for making the space in your busy schedules to join us.
For those of you that have not yet had the pleasure of meeting, my name is Jennifer Kitchen, Director of Professional Affairs.
This seminar was established to honor Dr. Barbara Wand, who served as Registrar of the college's precursor, the Ontario Board of Examiners in 51³Ô¹ÏºÚÁÏÍø from 1976 to 1991.
We recognize that our psychology registrants have greatly valued this offering from the college in the past.
And so today, for the first time, we're excited to expand the seminar to our new group of registered behavior analyst registrants.
We're thrilled to be able to carry on this tradition, and to honor Dr. Barbara Wand, and to engage with the 51³Ô¹ÏºÚÁÏÍø and ABA community in this forum.
Before I hand it over to Dr. Ian Nicholson, College President, and Dr. Tony DeBono, Registrar and Executive Director.
For opening remarks, I have a few logistical announcements to make. First, as you know from our confirmation email, if you're watching live.
You are welcome to email support@eventstream.ca if you require technical support.
As well, an archived version of the seminar will be made available on the college's website for on-demand viewing at your convenience.
This virtual forum allows us to reach a large number of people from across the province.
And includes those that are unable to attend live today. This year, we're also taking a different approach by canvassing your questions in advance of the session.
This was done to accommodate the large volume of participants, as well as those that were unable to attend live.
Our presenters will either integrate your questions throughout our presentations, or they will be addressed at the Q&A portion at the end of the seminar.
And finally, you are eligible to obtain CPD credits for attending either live or at a later date.
Details on the types of credits that can be claimed are… can be found on our Barber Wand page of our website.
Please save your registration confirmation email, or any other supporting documentation if you're watching the seminar in a large group.
Dr. Ian Nicholson, over to you. 



Thank you very much. And good morning, everyone.
During this next portion, our land acknowledgement.
We at the College of Psychologists and Behavior Analysts of Ontario We'd like to recognize that June is National Indigenous History Month in Canada.
An opportunity for us to pause and learn about the unique cultures, traditions, and experiences A First Nations, Inuit, and Metis.
It is a time to honor the stories, achievements, and resilience of Indigenous peoples who have lived on this land since time immemorial, and whose presence continues to impact our evolving nation.
The Barbara Wand Symposium is meant as an educational event for the full province of Ontario.
As such, we can't list the large number of Indigenous communities in this area of over 1 million square kilometers. It's covered by over 40 treaties and agreements.
We can recognize, however, that these peoples have long been the stewards of its land and water.
That includes from the Caldwell First Nation in our south to the Fort Severn First Nation in our north.
The Shoal Lake First Nation in our west and the Mohawk Nation of Aquasaucony in our east.
We recognize and deeply respect the enduring presence and stewardship of Indigenous peoples on these lands, both past and present. As we come together today from different places across our province.
Let us reflect on our response. And our ongoing commitment to reconciliation.
Respect, and partnership. With our Indigenous communities.
I also want to say a brief note of introduction for today's seminar.
For over 30 years, the Barbara Wand seminars have aimed to provide professional development.
For the registrants of this college in Ontario. Part of the work of the government regulator, that is, the college, is to support its registrants, both in behavior analysis and psychology.
To provide safe care to the people of Ontario. Today, we're focusing On the, uh… Newest standards for professional conduct and new learnings from the complaint process, and uh… discipline process.
We have this experience, particularly a year of experience with our new standards, that we want to share some of those learnings, so that the areas that might be a concern or a question to our members can be addressed.
By sharing that learning, it's hope we can reduce confusion in the minds of our registrants and enhance the safety of the care they provide.
I hope you find today's speakers will support that learning. Thank you.
Now I'll pass it over to Dr. DeBono. 

Thank you, Dr. Nicholson.
I'd like to take this opportunity to also thank the college team and their leadership in organizing this seminar, particularly Jennifer Kitchen, who you'll be hearing much more from today, Zimra Yetnikoff, who's our Deputy Registrar and Director of Investigations and Hearings.
And Odessa, Medallon, who's really behind the scenes, helping coordinate and helping lead behind the scenes, so thank you.
I'd also like to thank College Council President Dr. Ian Nicholson.
For his leadership during a historic time of change. 51³Ô¹ÏºÚÁÏÍø and ABA are professions that are grounded in a public trust.
A social contract, that… We, in the profession myself, self-regulate ourselves in the public interest.
Our fiduciary duty at the college is the protection of the public.
This is the hallmark of any profession, whether engineer, or lawyer or physician or other.
For us, as regulated health professionals. We're bound by the regulated Health Professions Act.
And its health profession's procedural code. Lots of technical jargon.
But really, our duty to the public is several-fold. A few of the things that we do is we register new, competent professionals.
We deliver quality assurance and continuing professional development programs, and this is an example of continuing professional development.
We investigate concerns from the public. We attempt to remediate concerns as a profession, alongside the members of the public.
And in specific circumstances.   when the impact and recurrence risk suggest a referral to the discipline committee.
The appropriate authority and party does that as well. In 2018, we've learned quite a bit from the province of British Columbia And an inquiry into a performance of one of their health regulatory colleges, and their health professions act itself.
Mr. Harry Cayton is well known for his Cayton report, and I'll have a quote of his.
The current model of professional regulation will not be adequate to protect patients.
And the public, or to represent the interests of citizens in the future.
He also wrote, there's a lack of relentless focus on the safety of patients in many, but not all, of the current colleges.
The governance is insufficiently independent. Lacking a competency framework.
A way of managing skill mix or clear accountability to the public they serve.
In fact, governance is a skill set in and of itself.
On the other hand, we notice the tension and acknowledge that receiving a complaint as a registrant may be one of the most stressful things that happens to you in your professional life and,creates a number of complications. And the process itself adds another layer of complexity and potential suffering.
We acknowledge that this can be difficult, and that's why we're also quite confident that you're going to enjoy Mr. Burke's talk, because Mr. Burke is an attorney who is part of Gowlings, who you'll come to learn. And, um.
His job is to represent registrants when he is their representative. So, you'll be hearing   two sides of the dialectic, and hopefully we can reconcile the tensions.
I end on a note of gratitude to you all. Psychologists, psychological associates, behaviour analysts.
Thank you for your dedication to professional development. It's a high-quality services for the people of Ontario.
Jennifer, over to you. 


Thanks, Tony.
I mentioned we have an exciting agenda for you today, which you may have seen on our website. Today's seminar, Standards Complaints, and Professional Practice Issues, will focus on three main areas.
So I'll first set the stage with a look back at the new standards of professional conduct.
Now that we've almost reached the one-year mark since they went live.
I'll provide insight into the goals and process of that review, identify key differences from our 2017 standards, and highlight trends we've seen from our practice advice service in the past year.
Next, we will hear from Zimra, Deputy Registrar and Director of Investigations and Hearings.
From Zimra, we will learn about the internal college complaints process and current trends from the inquiries, complaints, and Reports Committee, or ICRC.
After a break, we will hear from Mr. Todd Burke from Gowling WLG to learn about legal challenges and complaints and discipline from the Council on Registrant perspective.
And we'll finish off by me leading a curated Q&A portion from the questions we received in advance of this session.
The topic was… of today's session is intended to be equally applicable to both psychology and ABA professions.
It's also intended to be informative, but not directive. Of course, we encourage registrants to always use their professional knowledge, skill, and judgment.
And to see clinical or legal advice as appropriate when encountering tricky situations.
That said, we hope that the discussion is thought-provoking and prompts further reflection and discussion with your colleagues.
I mentioned, um… As you know, the standards of professional conduct were updated and came into effect in July 2024.
So I have the luxury of sharing all of the great work that went on behind the scenes to make them come to life.
And we'll see later on, the standards underpin many of the questions we receive through our practice advice service.
And serve as a basis for regulatory interventions that might be employed, such as the complaints and discipline process.
So, the purpose of today's,   of the introductory portion is to review the goals and process of the standards.
Understand how Right Touch regulation was applied to the standards review process.
Highlight key differences between the old and new standards, and finally, to identify trends from our practice advice service.
So I'm starting off with a graphic of the college's strategic plan, and the reason is because An organization's strategic plan is what dictates the long-term objectives of where an organization spends their time and resources for major improvements.
Of course, the college's role is to serve and protect the public interest through responsible regulation of both psychological and behavioral care.
So if we think about how this relates to updating the standards.
From 2017, a core requirement was that the new standards needed to address an entirely new regulated profession.
An ABA. As well, the review process needed to align with the college's overall strategy shown here, which is an ecological model of four interrelated priorities.
Starting off with excellence and care, this is a baseline fundamental principle that the standards needed to promote safe and quality care.
The consultation process, of course, needed to include a wide representation of both professions.
An effort to hear from practicing professionals. In a variety of fields.
Ensuring that we're not missing the mark. And creating an opportunity for meaningful engagement with our registrants.
The third priority, innovation and regulation, can be thought of in terms of how we apply principles of right touch regulation to manage and mitigate risk.
Such that the colleges only intervening when necessary, and we are constantly asking ourselves.
What is the problem we're trying to solve before applying a regulatory intervention?
It strives for a more flexible and less rigid approach to specific standards, understanding that considering context is key when setting guidelines   and rules for practice issues.
Finally, because the college is committed to embracing a culture of continuous quality improvement.
It's necessary to review the standards at least every 5 years, or even being more open… even being open to reviewing them more often, if necessary.
So, of course, there have been notable shifts in the professions, including the proclamation of the psychology and Applied Behavior Analysis Act in 2024.
Applying a CI mindset translates to agility, as practice standards, technology, and the professions continue to change and evolve.
And ensures that the standards remain applicable and relevant to both professions.
While Council sets the overall direction of the college. In order to conduct the standards update, a working group was established.
And they started off with establishing key goals that aligned with our strategic plan.
Importantly, the working group felt that the standards should be broad enough such that they equally apply to both ABA and psychology professions.
That is, they felt that it was not required to have two distinct sets of standards.
Well, psychology and ABA may be different professions with varying scopes of practice.
The fundamental ethical issues and values are consistent. And the overall requirements or issues, such as informed consent, cross-jurisdictional practice, supervision, to name a few.
Are agnostic to the profession. Also, healthcare today is heading towards more interprofessional and team-based care.
So it was seen as important to align the standards governing each profession.
I mentioned earlier that the standards needed to adhere to principles of right touch regulation.
This means that the intent was for the standards to act as parameters and enable clinicians to exercise their professional judgment where appropriate.
This is also… this also had to be balanced, however, with practical factors, such as clarity, ease of enforceability.
And avoiding ambiguity. I will elaborate on the Right Touch approach that was applied in the next slide.
As well, there was a desire to incorporate plain language into the standards, with strong consideration given to language such as must versus should or may.
The standards, of course, needed to act in accordance with other regulatory requirements.
Including the professional misconduct Regulations and code of ethics for both professions.
An important goal was for the standards to foster client-focused care.
You'll see we've threw out the standards is this idea that all actions need to take into consideration the best interests of the client.
Finally, as with all standards, they needed to promote risk management and client safety principles.
Including both proactive and reactive measures to manage risk and protect the safety of both clients and providers.
So, I talked a little bit about the Right Touch approach.
As you know, standards are a mechanism for regulatory colleges to convey expectations to the public and their registrants.
To elaborate further. Of how the Right Touch approach was applied when developing the standards. It's helpful to think about the following questions.
First, what is the problem the standardists will solve? This makes us think whether or not a standard is needed at all.
If there's no problem, perhaps the standard is not needed. What is the simplest requirement that's necessary and proportionate to the risk level posed by the public?
This question comes from the premise that the level of regulation by a college should be proportionate to the level of risk to the public.
And that intervention should only be applied when necessary. Standards need to be easy to interpret, as well as apply.
For this, we can consulted with our Investigations and Hearings area to ensure that the complaint's perspective was captured in the standard.
As well as considered prior trends from the ICRC. Can requirements be implemented by registrants without undue burden?
So, is it reasonable for the college to require something of a registrant and ensure that it does not go beyond our mandate to serve and protect the public interest?
Is the standard applicable and fair to all groups of registrants?
And of benefit to all clients. To address this question, input was sought from the college's EDI working group to ensure that the standards served the rights of service users, such as rights to privacy, dignity, and respect.
Consent and confidentiality, as well as personal safety and security. The last question, will there be any unintended consequences?
This is a helpful question to consider, particularly whether a higher level, broad, principle-based standard is helpful versus a very strict and prescriptive one, which might lead to,   sorry, a broad standard might lead to more confusion or questions. So this is helpful in determining what level of detail might be required within a standard.
The International Society for Quality in Healthcare, this organization, also known as ISQA, is an organization dedicated to supporting organizations that develop healthcare standards.
Esqua sets out key guidelines and principles regarding the development, measurement, structure, and content of standards internationally.
In alignment with ISQA's international accreditation Program, the standards review entailed a rigorous process.
Which included environmental scanning and incorporated feedback from stakeholders. To describe the process, I mentioned that a working group was formed and appointed by the Executive Committee of the college.
The working group consisted of council members, registrants from both professions, and the public from diverse backgrounds.
As you can imagine, revising standards such that they needed to apply to an entire new profession was certainly a large undertaking.
After the initial goal setting by the working group. They conducted an environmental scan across all Canadian jurisdictions.
An initial survey targeted key stakeholders, including registrants and professional associations.
The college received 98 responses from that initial survey, the majority of those from college registrants.
The working group then created a draft of the standards and continued to meet regularly to review and opine on subsequent drafts Giving special consideration to things like trends from the practice advice service.
And complaints data to understand the common issues that we see.
  as well as emerging trends, such as AI and psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy.
Which we'll discuss more later in our Q&A. This working group also sought an independent legal review from a disciplinary lens. Of course, the standards needed to withstand scrutiny and provide sufficient clarity in the course of a disciplinary matter.
The final draft of the standards were then released in February of 2024.
Allowing 4 weeks for stakeholders to provide feedback. This was posted on the college's public consultations webpage to ensure transparency and engagement with a broad audience.
The final standards were released.   and distributed to almost 6,000 recipients.
Sorry, the final draft. And we received 107 responses to that final draft. The majority of respondents from our psychology registrants.
So, what are… how do we compare the standards from 2017 to the final standards that were released in 2024?
A point where stressing is that the majority of content remains fairly consistent.
So we don't… we haven't added too many new expectations for registrants.
For example, the new standards retain the general format, such as the introductory definitions and the practical application sections, as these were seen to be quite helpful.
There were some changes in formatting, so there was one section that was combined.
As well, recognizing their importance, some new standalone sections were added.
Including respect and dignity and professional practice. As well as new headings on opinions and cross-jurisdictional practice.
Given our practice advice trends. In terms of specific changes, most of them relate to supervision requirements.
Specifically, retention of supervision records. Standard 4.52. This standard requires that supervision records be retained for a minimum of 10 years after the service recipient reaches the age of 18, or after the last professional contact, whichever date comes later.
This is intended to match retention requirements for individual client service records, given supervisors are ultimately responsible for the care provided to their supervisee's clients.
This extended retention period was identified to serve the public interest.
Because we receive a fair number of complaints where there are concerns regarding adequacy of supervision.
Given that complaints may be received more than 2 years after the end of supervision.
Extended access to supervision records was seen as important. The second major change from the old standards relates to billing of supervised services in Standard 4.5.5.
In the 2017 standards, registrants were always responsible for their own billing practice.
In the new standards, however, it is the supervisor that is responsible for billing, even if the supervisee is an autonomous member.
This responsibility flows from the fundamental premise that the clients receiving supervised services are ultimately the supervisor's clients Finally, the new standards include more flexibility around billing, leaving it up to registrants to determine what information is contained in the billing record.
Having deep knowledge… sorry, the old standards listed out all of the requirements, or the components that needed to be in the billing record.
And that level of detail has since been removed. So, well, those are some key highlights, the college encourages registrants to become deeply familiar and have expert knowledge of the standards, and really know them inside and out.
Having deep knowledge of the standards is the first step towards mitigating the potential impact of a complaint.
By reviewing the standard and analyzing it from a variety of perspectives.
And when that might be challenging, when it's not so clear how the standard might apply to your specific context or situation.
Many of you will be familiar with our Practice Advice Service.
Our practice advice service is available for anyone to contact about advice or matters relating to psychology or applied behavior analysis.
We provide information and resources relating to legislation, regulation, standards, codes of ethics.
And other practical considerations. Consistent with the standards themselves.
The service is intended to support registrants in exercising their professional judgment.
It is not an appropriate substitute From advice from a qualified clinician or legal professional.
On this slide, you'll see some trends from our Practice Advice Service. Since July 2024, when the standards went live.
until May 31st. And this can serve as a good indicator for what types of questions are coming up for registrants.
So since they went live, we've received 1,738 queries. Last year's total was approximately 1,800, so this number tends to be fairly consistent year over year.
Of those queries, the majority were psychology-related, at 83%, while 17% were regarding applied behavior analysis.
Most of the queries tend to come from our registrants versus 22% were received from non-registrants.
The 5 most common topics from July until May,   and these also tend to be fairly consistent quarter after quarter, and you see that we report out trends in our quarterly headlines articles.
In the past 11 months, from most common to least common.
Those topics were supervision, mobility, and cross-jurisdictional practice. Record keeping, fees and billing.
And finally, release and access to information. So if you do have questions about interpretation of the standards, or a tricky situation that you've encountered.
Please reach out to us, and we will endeavor to respond to you within 2 business days.
This now concludes the introductory portion. I'm pleased to turn it over to my colleague, Zimra Yetnikoff.

Zimra is Deputy Registrar and Director of Investigations and Hearings at CPBAO.
She is involved in policy development and supporting the college's strategic direction.
And oversees complaint discipline and fitness to Practice Matters. Previously, she was a case manager at CPBAO, responsible for investigating allegations of professional conduct.
Before joining the college in 2009, Zimra worked as legal counsel with the Special Investigations Unit at the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario.
Zimra, over to you. 


Thank you, Jennifer. Hello, everybody.
Thank you for inviting me to speak, and I am going to speak today about the process for the increased Complaints and Reports Committee, and some trends That we are seeing in complaints and decisions.  the purpose of this kind of presentation is to kind of pull back the curtain on what the process is for investigations and hearings, and
To take some of the fear away from what can be as Tony mentioned at the beginning a very overwhelming process. Nobody likes to receive a complaint and understand that it can be quite an overwhelming experience.
So… A little bit of information about what does the ICRC investigate.
So there are a few things, and the parameters are set.
By the Health Professions Procedural Code, which is Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, and so there's… there are a few things, but they are primarily complaints. The college receives complaints from members of the public who could be clients, they could also be third parties, including family members, clients, insurance companies.
And others and they must be received in a recorded media so that would mean, they would be received by through our online form that we have on our website, they could be received by letter, not so common any longer.
Email, voicemail.  We also receive what are mandatory reports, and these are also set out in the code.These include reports about sexual abuse, which are,  any regulated health professional has an obligation to make these reports. Institutions have mandatory reporting obligations.
Employers, partners, and associations do. And then there are also mandatory self-reports that are required.
For example, if there are any charges or findings.  under the Criminal Code, for example We also investigate reports to the registrar, which are not necessarily mandatory reports, but can be reports from other areas, for example, concerns that arise from the investigation of another complaint. There can be concerns arising from media.
Sometimes we get anonymous reports, individuals who do not wish to proceed with complaints, but want to bring information to the college's attention.
We also look at health inquiries, so this has to do with,  registrants' capacity to safely practice. There are distinct investigative procedures regarding these kinds of inquiries and they normally come through by way of reports to the college, although sometimes   in… by way of investigating complaints.
There are sometimes… they give rise to some capacity concerns, which then are investigated under that different   but under those different parameters.
So who can complain? Anyone can complain, and that it does include third-party complaints, such as family members or other interested parties.
The college does not process anonymous complaints as complaints.  they are brought to the registrar's attention as reports but there also is no time limitation for filing a complaint, although They do get more difficult to complain if they are submitted very long after the last service.
The sum of the steps in investigating a complaint.  so the college will receive a complaint, we take steps to acknowledge that complaint, and then notify the member.
We receive and process that response, and then Obtain any additional relevant information, which can include Clinical records or other records, witness statements.
We provide the member with all of the additional information obtained, including the complaint summary that staff prepare us, and provide all that file information to the ICRC.
The ICRC will then consider the complaint and make a disposition which can mean  which can result in the final disposition. They can decide that they would like some additional investigation.
We can enter into negotiations on remediation. They can decide to refer the matter to the discipline committee, or for a health inquiry.
The steps for investigating a report are very similar, but in a little bit of a different order.
So, in the case of a report, the college will receive the report, whether mandatory or otherwise, and normally engage in preliminary inquiries, which will include Obtaining additional information and documents. It may also include notifying the member of the report at an early stage.
Then the registrar will consider whether to appoint an investigator. Which means there will be a formal power to summons information.
If the registrar decides not to pursue a formal investigation, the college can then close the file, but it may also include a message to the member.
And maybe some remediation. If there's a request for an appointment to formalize the investigation, that will go to the ICRC.
And if it's approved, the registrar will assign an appointment, and the college will proceed with that formal investigation.
Once that informal investigation is completed, the registrar will prepare a report, which includes all of the information, and then the member will have 30 days To respond to all of that thereafter. Finally, that report and the response will go to the ICRC.
Which will also lead to the same…  possible outcomes, final disposition, additional investigation.
Remediation or a referral to the discipline committee, or for a health inquiry.
There are options to withdraw a complaint. A complainant can request to withdraw a complaint at any point in the process.
However, once a complaint is made, it belongs to the college.
If a complainant does request a withdrawal complaint, the question will be whether the public interest issues raised by the complainant necessitate continuing the investigation.
Or whether it's okay to allow that withdrawal.
There is a possibility of an EDR process as well. Most ADR that we engage in at the college is at the intake stage before receiving a complaint. So, for example, if there's a telephone inquiry from a complainant.
Who has certain concerns, this is the most promising area that we've identified for proceeding  without a complaint.
But once a complaint is received, ADR is still possible, and there are parameters for ADR set by the code.
Some of these parameters include the registrant and the complainant agreeing to the process.
The complaint may not include any allegations of sexual abuse. And the decision reached through the ADR process must be approved by the registrar or a panel of the ICRC.
There are also situations where an investigation is not required. So, under Section 26.4 of the Code, there is a process for dismissing complaints that are frivolous, fixatious, made in bad faith, moot, or otherwise an abusive process without actually investigating that complaint.
In dismissing a complaint as frivolous and vexatious, or FNB,  there is still a two-step process, so the panel will notify both parties that it's intending on dismissing a complaint, and give additional opportunity for both parties to respond.
Before making that final determination. In making that determination, there are some considerations that the ICRC will need to make.
And these are if the allegations on their face indicate that there's conduct that fall below the standards or are contrary to the regulations.
And if so, is there some investigation required, even if minimal, to address those allegations?
There is a high threshold not to investigate. The courts and the health professions appeal and Review Board,  who has the power to review college decisions upon request by either a complainant or a member.
Has indicated that,  there is a high bar and will return matters to the college to investigate if not satisfied that the reasons for dismissing the complaint are sufficient and if deciding not to investigate, there are still reasons required, and these reasons are reviewable.
Investigations can be lengthy. The code indicates that the length of an investigation is expected to be 150 days, but also anticipates that there may go longer than that, because the code includes extensions, first of 60 days, and then 30 days thereafter.
The process does take easily 150 days and sometimes more,  so I've prepared a bit of,  a chart to indicate where that happens.
So, you know, in the best-case scenario, so that's kind of the middle column there.
Where everything goes smoothly. We're looking at probably about 133 days in the best-case scenario.  14 days to receive The complaint, process it, identify issues, notify the parties.
The code requires 30 days to make submissions.  the… Registrant will get time to respond to any additional information that's been obtained.
So 14 days there, 45 days to…  scan the file, put it together, send it to the ICRC panel that's going to consider the matter.
45 days, and then after the meeting, 30 additional days to prepare the decision reasons.
Circulate it to all the panel members, make sure everybody's in agreement and signs, and distribute it to the parties.
There are many things that can add to these timelines.  we can get requests for extension to respond to information.
If there is an issue in obtaining information, and there's a request for an appointment of investigator in order to summons information.
Another 30 days obtaining additional witness statements or information. Any additional requests for extensions after receiving additional information.
If the ICRC panel identifies concerns and wishes to engage in undertakings, there's negotiation, sometimes back and forth between the panel and the registrant.
All these things add time,  and then, you know, just those things, and there may be more can quickly add up. So, um… some explanation of why, and we hear this often, investigations take quite some time.
We are taking some steps that,  to address some of these timelines, so we are looking to add staff to our investigations and hearings team.
We are looking at reassigning tasks in amongst the team. We are adding remediation options. We do have this new,  remediation agreement that has been added to the arsenal.
Of outcomes that the ICRC considers. I'll get into that a little bit more later.
We are looking at process issues where we can, um.
What's required by the code and what's not required, and what we can do to introduce efficiencies.
And attempting more resolutions at the intake stage and more attempts at ADR post-receipt of complaint.
So, in terms of the substance of what the ICRC is looking at,  really what we're looking at is what governs professional conduct.
So these are in different categories, but they all interrelate with each other.
So there is the regulated Health Professions Act, the RHPA, And the Health Professions Procedural Code is Schedule 2 to the RHPA.  there are some standalone provisions, even in the RHPA itself, specifically with respect to incompetence and sexual abuse.
But then the RHP also sets out that there should be standards of professional conduct, and it is an object of a college to develop standards.
The Health Professions Procedural Code also sets out the logistics of how the committees operate and what their obligations are, what their options are.
The other main,  statute is the 51³Ô¹ÏºÚÁÏÍø and Applied Behavior Analysis Act 2021.
The Professional Misconduct regulations applicable to the professions are made under this Act.
And then the standards of professional conduct. Also come under this Act, so a standard professionalized contract regulation 1.2 indicates that it is professional misconduct to fail to maintain the standards.
In looking at whether there are concerns and whether a registrant met the standards or failed to meet the standards. The ICRC is looking at a risk assessment framework.
It's looking at a framework like this in order to determine What are the potential risks to the public in the allegations that have been raised, and what is the risk of doing something or not doing something? So, the ICRC is a screening committee. It's not going to be finding fact, it's not going to be finding credibility, it's not going to be determining whether or not there was misconduct.
What it is deciding is whether or not to refer something to the discipline committee.
Or whether to take some other action, or no other action.
And so, in determining whether to refer something to discipline or to do anything else, it's looking at different elements of risk. It's looking at impact risks, and it's looking at recurrence risks.
And you can see in the chart the different levels of risk and how they relate to the different categories.
And at the very bottom of the chart, you can see the different outcomes in relation to those risks.
And the arrows are overlapping. For a reason,  because it is a flexible framework.
And identifying, you know, all low-risk doesn't necessarily mean that there will be advice. It might be no action, or it might be an undertaking.
It really depends. There's flexibility there in the different combination of risks that the ICRC may identify.
Some examples, just to,  put some meat on the bone in terms of what we're… thinking about when thinking about impact risks and recurrent risks.  breaking down those indicators and what the risks might be with respect to the different risks that I…
Different risk categories. So, for potential risks to coins,  some impact risks, for example.
Might be if there are… is an improper or an inappropriate diagnosis or a recommendation. That can have implications for treatment. So that's the impact that there may be on the client and risk thereof.
Lack of clarity in communications, for example, can have, um. Impact on informed consent or understanding of the diagnosis.
There could also be… lack of adequate services to which the client would otherwise be entitled if there is either a lack of clarity in communications or an improper diagnosis. Breach of confidentiality is another example, can have implications on client privacy and client trust.
Some examples of potential risk to others can include If there are inappropriate recommendations regarding custody and access can have implications on family members.
Breach of confidentiality can have an effect on family members or others.
Solid communication can have impacts on others in the workplace, for example.
Impact risks relating to public trust in the profession. It really relates to the college's mandate to protect… to regulate the profession in the public interest.
And whether the response to concerns reflect that mandate. So, some questions the ICRC might ask itself in considering these risks are if the conduct is known, what would the general public's view of the profession be?
How would other members of the profession view the conduct, and how it reflects on the profession in themselves as professionals?
Would these conduct issues affect clients' trust in the profession?
With respect to recurrence risk, the questions are different. So for conduct history, and I'll speak a little bit more of that soon, because part of the ICRC's obligations are to look at the registrants' conduct history.
But the question is asking itself in looking at the conduct history is,  with respect to risk, is whether the registrant has previously had a complaint before the ICRC on the very… that very same issue.
Has the registrant already received advice or pursued remediation, but the concerns remain?
With respect to practices, processes, and systems.  some questions asked there are, is there any indication of the registrant running into the same issue again, barring any remediation? Is there an issue with a certain practice that the member has, for example, with how they've set up their record-keeping system, or their informed
Consent process, and would remediation assist in addressing these issues With respect to awareness of identified concerns, the ICRC is looking at whether the registrant has demonstrated appropriate awareness of the concern.
Or address the concerns to the degree that the panel doesn't believe that these issues are likely to arise again.
And if not, would remediation assist in recognizing these concerns and taking steps to address them?
With respect to the consideration of conduct history that I just mentioned, in the code, Section 26 sub 2, It's required that a panel consider all available prior decisions considering a member, unless the decision was not to investigate, and that would be an FNB decision or a decision not to investigate a complaint, so something that was dismissed.
So, the panel is required to consider this previous history.  and panels may also be provided with relevant information regarding prior decisions, such as remedial outcomes or letters, reminders from the registrar.
The member has the opportunity to indicate why or why not this information is relevant or not relevant to the issue at hand.
The dispositions available to the ICRC are… set out in the code.
  specifically Section 26 Sub 1 of the Code. The ICRC can refer allegations to the discipline committee.
It can refer to a panel of the ICRC for incapacity proceedings.
It can require the member to appear before a panel of the OICRC to be cautioned.
And it can pursue other action that is not inconsistent with the Act but… and this is the section where actually most of the ICRC dispositions will fall, and these include Taking no further action.
Providing the registrant with advice. Engaging in a remediation agreement proceeding with an undertaking and agreement, or a specified continuing education or remediation program, or SCRP.
So, why discipline? As I mentioned earlier, there… the function of the ICRC is a screening committee is really to make a binary decision discipline or not, and the knot is where most of the results will be. But why discipline is a pretty significant decision and so, when looking at that risk assessment framework, this will normally happen where the ICRC has identified risks on the higher side of the spectr   so in the moderate to high category.
And in those situations, the ICRC will be asking  what is the most appropriate way to address these moderate to high risks?
Most of the time, it will decide that remediation is the most appropriate outcome, but there will be times where it will decide that it needs… the matter needs to be referred to the discipline committee.
And in these situations, it's looking at these questions and considering whether discipline is really the appropriate route.
These include questions about the importance of making a finding of fact, or a finding of credibility.
So as I mentioned, since the ICRC is the screening committee, and it doesn't have the ability to make findings of fact, or credibility, it may decide that in this situation.
That determination is appropriate and has to be made, and we'll refer to the discipline committee to do that.
The nature and severity of the allegations will have an impact. So, for example, if it's a matter of sexual abuse or criminal fraud, it's more likely to be referred to the discipline committee.
Sometimes it's a matter of the importance of establishing a precedent.  so making sure that there is a position that the college can set and rely upon for future cases.
Specific deterrence, deterrence to the specific registrant who's before the ICRC, and general deterrence for the membership as well.
Um. Sometimes it's… not so much a matter of, um… the degree, but the volume. So, for example, if They have been previous remediation attempts before, advice, undertaking, SCRPS which were unsuccessful.
And remediation is just not a viable avenue. Discipline may be the way to go.
And finally, public protection requires a change to the member's practice that the ICRC is simply unable to achieve.
So the ICRC is a screening committee, has a lot of leeway to ask the member to do certain things or make certain changes through remediation.
But there are other things that the ICRC is simply unable to do. The ICRC cannot impose a suspension.
The ICRSD cannot,  order that the registrant stop practicing in a certain area. These are only things that the discipline committee can do, and if the census that these are things that are necessary outcomes.
The ICRC may refer to the discipline committee in order to achieve those outcomes.
A little bit more about the remedial dispositions that are available.
So in looking at what remediation might be appropriate, the ICRC will be asking what aspects of the member's practice need to be addressed.
What would it take for the panel to feel confident that the member will uphold the minimum standards in the future.
Some of these are public, and some of these are not public, and some of them are public for only a certain period of time.
So, a remedial disposition of advice is not public. This is meant to be a helpful message. The idea behind advice is that The member does not appear to have reached any standards, but the ICRC has identified room for improvement.
The standards are meant to address minimum standards,  but sometimes taking an extra step or doing something else may be helpful. So this is kind of the nature of advice. The ICRC doesn't necessarily believe that standards have not been met, but…
Doing something or not doing something in the future may avoid the situation going forward, and that's kind of the idea behind advice.
Remediation agreement, this is a new outcome that the ICRC has been using for the last year.
This, again, is not public. The idea behind a remediation agreement is that,  the ICRC wants to take it one step above advice so it hopes… it is asking for the registrant to agree to do certain things or not do certain things in line with advice, but it's not necessary for,  there to be reports back to the college on what that remediation has been.
It's not going to be on the public register. Undertaking an agreement is a little step beyond that.  so an undertaking an agreement, an undertaking is posted on the public register while it's in effect, so if it's, for example, an undertaking of 6 months.
And then thereafter, it's finished, then the undertaking notation on the public register will be removed and undertaking is a little bit more involved than a remediation agreement. It could be, for example, 6 months, as I mentioned. It could be 3 months, it could be a year, it could be… depending on what's included in the undertaking. It can involve coaching, it can involve, um. Audits, it can involve,  courses.
So there's lots of things that can be included in there.
and there are reports to the registrar with respect to undertaking. So,  there is kind of,  closing that loop with respect to whether it was completed to the satisfaction of the registrar.
A caution,  and you'll see when I get to the trends,  is really not something the ICRC orders,  but it is a statutory possibility. It is available pursuant to the code.
The ICRC, in ordering a caution, there's a requirement for the registrant to attend.
And listen to a caution. It's an oral caution that's delivered by a panel of the ICRC.
and finally, SCARP, a Specified Continuing Education or Remediation Program is… Basically, what it says is an education or remediation program, often a coaching program, or a course to take.
That is ordered by the ICRC, rather than agreed to, and this SCARP would stay on the public register indefinitely. And same with a caution.
Reasons are always provided, so when there is a decision of the ICRC,  the reasons… the decision and reasons will be provided both to the complainant and to the registrant to,  is the subject of the complaint or the report.
With the caveat that reasons are not provided if there's a referral to the discipline or fitness to practice committees.
A referral to another committee is not actually considered to be a final disposition. The decision of that other committee will be considered the final disposition. They will provide their reasons.
The reason for reasons is that parties are entitled to know why the facts led to one outcome as opposed to another.
The decision to take some action, or even to take no action, needs to be supported by an analysis of the information and a rationale for the outcome.
And if remediation is part of the outcome, the decision and reasons will specify why the panel decided that this was the outcome that was appropriate and in the public interest.
With reference to the identified risks, both impact and recurrence risks.
After the ICRC has released this decision, it's not necessarily the end, because then there is the role of the health professions appeal and Review Board, or HPARB.
Either party, either the complainant or the member, can request a review of the ICRC's decision.
Important, though, that only complaints are reviewable, not reports. So, if it's a report, that decision is not reviewable by HPARB, although you can seek judicial review of that decision.
What the board is looking at when it… looking at a review request is whether the ICRC investigation was adequate.
And whether the ICRC's decision was reasonable.
Some trends,  that we're seeing in complaints, um. And I broke it down by profession because we have… we're pretty new in terms of ABA and the complaints process there. It's been less than a year so it's early days for ABA complaints.  we don't really have a lot of indication to date about patterns… patterns of conduct or risks… risk areas that are emerging so, unfortunately, not a lot to share there, or fortunately, depending on how you look at it.  but most of the work on the investigation side in relation to ABA is actually due to unregulated practitioners.
Rather than investigations with respect to complaints or reports about registrant conduct. So,  and you'll see when I get into the numbers a little bit later,  a lot of the work that staff on the investigations and hearings team does. It is not actually related to formal complaints or reports. We get informal reports, title violation reports,  so this is also work that's done in the background. And most of the work with respect to ABA so far has been  in that background. So,  investigations related to reports about unregulated practitioners.
just also, I thought it was important to share that the ICRC is one committee.
But it does have profession-specific panels when it considers the complaints and reports with respect to the different professions.
So, for ICRC panels considering ABA complaints, there will be two RBAs and one public member on the panel.
Some trends with respect to psychology.  so the highest number of complaints in psychology relates to psychotherapy, counseling, and interventions.
Followed by insurance and benefits assessments.  and not followed closely. So the vast majority of complaints are related to the first category.
we are seeing an increased rate of complaints, and you can see… I've looked at the last 5 years in terms of numbers, and this is all in our  annual reports, if you want to take a deep dive, and I could probably spend
An additional 45 minutes just talking about trends and statistics and not her… our complaints process, but,  here's just a little bit.
so we see that there is an increased amount of complaints in 2024-2025.
they have been at an increased higher rates since about 2020,  with 127 and 129, a combination of complaints and formal registrar's investigations.
in that first year, and then an additional 2 health inquiries in the next year, coming up to 129. 2022-23, there was a bit of a drop.
which turned out to be anomalous, because the following year, we were back up to 129, And in the last year, um.
Higher, even, to 158.  lots of potential reasons for that. One, that would, you know, we have a new profession, and there are complaints, although not to that degree. We don't have as many complaints as that discrepancy would indicate.
But still, that's one factor.  we are seeing that,  more people are aware of the process. We are getting more complaints.
from people who might not have been aware that the college exists.
and the complexity of complaints has also increased. That's something that we've seen.
In terms of decisions that are released,   we're trying to keep up.  we had a little bit more complaints released than we received in,  2020-2021.
and that number drops, and then rose again in 2024-2025.
in the next slide, you'll see a little bit of what might explain that,  because to give it away a little bit, in 2020, 21, and in the last year, we had a higher rate of FNV decisions than normal.
And so we are able to,  release those decisions quicker because they don't require full investigations.
and this is where we have some outcome trends. So, you can see that,  the very bottom, so the kind of the dark blue is the take no further action.  and just around… hovering around,  40% now, and a little,   over 30% back in 2021.
kind of goes up and down, but consistently hovering at around 40% is the Take No Further action. So that's…   the bulk of where complaints go, um.
Then there are the,  advice. So there's less advice now than there has been,  but,  still a significant proportion of matters are going to be dealt with by way of advice.
A smaller proportion undertakings,  and a smaller even proportion than that are referred to discipline, although you will note that from 2020, To date, there is an increased rate of matters that are being referred to the discipline committee.
the… decision not to investigate complaints, so the F&B considerations, you can see,   as I mentioned, in 2020-2021, there was a significant proportion That matters where the ICRC decided not to investigate, that kind of narrowed,  in 2023-24, but has now taken up a larger proportion again.
And also going back to our ability to,  release those decisions, um.
Quicker because they don't involve of full investigations.
there are also withdrawals that are included there. There are not an insignificant number of withdrawals every year, but they remain fairly consistent.
scripts are also consistent. I think they're even reduced, I think in 2020, 2021, there were 3.
In the last few years, there has been one per year, so not very often.
Remediation agreements, we've just started them in the last year. That's kind of the light blue at the top that you're seeing expanding.
 We've had 5 in the last year since we started using them, so a little bit of an increase right there.
And oral cautions have all but disappeared. We haven't had any oral cautions in the last few years, and before then, they were even minimal.
So that's some of the… the psychology trends that I mentioned. Unfortunately.
Or fortunately, we don't have those numbers to indicate ABA trends,  but that's where the ICRC has, um.
Indicated its outcomes.  in the last 5 years.
So, these are… and going back to what are the issues that result in remediation and or referral.  so looking back to  what are… the matters that are being referred, what are the matters where we are seeking undertakings or skirts or,  providing advice, so that's kind of the remediation
And or referral.   where is the ICRC identifying concerns, and where is it taking some kind of action, whether it's advice or a referral to the discipline committee?
And you'll see there's fair consistency over time as to the main issues that are Resulting in those identification of concerns and the need for remediation of some kind or another.
There is some switching around, but the top 5 are pretty consistent.  the number 1 for 3 years, dropping to number 2 for the past 2 years, is adequate information to support conclusions.
That's where the ICRC has identified some gaps in the,   whether it's a report or a recommendation,  and the information is just not there to support that.
the second and the first and the last two years is general professional conduct.
and this… there is some overlap. You'll see also coming up quite often is objectivity and bias, boundaries and dual relationships. There is some overlap there, but general professional conduct is more of a catch-all, where there isn't really a specific other.
indication of misconduct that's… Specifically in the standards or the regs.
supervision was number two in 2020-2021, but has disappeared from the top 5 in other years.  I think there's been a lot of work to educate the membership about supervision.
and I think that we're seeing that,  in the outcomes in terms of what the ICRC is seeing.
Supervision has not disappeared, but we're not seeing it in the top 5, which is great.
oh, sorry, it was also in 2021-22, it was at number 3, but then, since then, has disappeared.
objectivity and bias,  is consistently there. It wasn't in the top 5 in 2023-24, but is otherwise there every time.
And the same with,  boundaries and dual relationships is there…  in every year, aside from 2021, 22, um.
But there is that consistency of, these are the kinds of things that give the ICRC the most concern.  objectivity and bias Boundaries and dual relationships, general professional conduct.
Accuracy of information, adequate and appropriate information to support conclusions.  and then some variations thereof that pop up every now and then, so false, misleading record and document.
We see in this last year. As well,  accuracy of information in the year before that,  appropriateness of services in 2020, 122.
And just a reminder, all that information is available in our annual reports and in our quarterly reports, so if you are interested in looking into this information further, that's all available.
thank you very much, um… Jennifer, over to you.


Thank you, Zimra, that was incredibly informative. I really appreciated hearing about some of the trends we're seeing in the last 5 years, as well as some of the constraints we see around ICRCs.
Process. We're gonna take a brief break right now, and we will resume at 10.30. Thank you.

[Break]

Hi everyone, I'm now very pleased to turn it over to our final speaker, Mr. Todd Burke.
Todd is a senior partner with Gowling WLG with over 30 years of experience.
His practice focuses on professional liability and complex commercial litigation. Todd leads a national team of professionals providing legal defense services to a variety of regulated health professionals, including psychologists. He regularly appears before the Discipline Committee of CPBAO, And has represented psychologists in civil matters before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
Todd is also a member of the International Board of Gowling WLG, and is a member of the Board of Directors of the Neta Shin Foundation, a foundation dedicated to promoting young and mid-career artists in Canada Todd, thank you for joining us. Over to you.

Thank you, Jennifer, and thank you for having me. As Jennifer has told you, my team and I regularly act for regulated health professionals, including psychologists.
In a variety of contexts, and that includes During the complaints process, during the discipline proceedings.
Civil suits and proceedings before other various administrative and judicial bodies.
In light of that experience, the focus of my presentation today will be on identifying and helping you navigate through some of those common legal issues that you would face.
And I'll also provide you with some high-level guidance and information on how to avoid those challenges, and at the end of the presentation, some resources that you might turn to if you have legal questions.
Now, it wouldn't be appropriate for a lawyer to come before you and not to have a disclaimer.
And I have one, and that is… What I'm providing you today is legal information and not legal advice.
But many of you will know that we do administer a pro bono hotline.
And we'll provide you with that number at the end of the presentation.
And if you have questions about the presentation that I'm making today.
Then you can feel free to call the pro bono hotline with those particular questions.
So let's look at the agenda For today?
So, first, I want to do an overview of the mandate and powers of the college.
And I intend to focus on the mandate of the college as it impacts on members and their conduct.
And the complaints process. After that, we're going to take some time and look at complaints and practice issues faced by members.
And we have some data that we've collected over the past 5 years that you might find instructive.
In terms of the problems or issues that commonly arise. We're also going to talk at the third part of our presentation.
Around the investigation experience. And we will highlight some of the pain points for members, things that members find to be difficult.
  in that section of the presentation. We'll also talk about civil litigation and other court proceedings, and the role of psychologists in those.
And,   we will then talk about some risk mitigation strategies, things that you should be thinking about things that you should be doing.
And finally,   you'll see some of the key resources that we will point you to.
So, as regulated psychologists in Ontario. You know that your professional regulator is the college.
It derives its powers from the regulated health Professions Act, as well as the schedules and the regulations that are made pursuant to that legislation.
And it's there that you're going to find the details of the complaint and disciplinary process.
Now, under the RHPA, the college is duty-bound. To serve and protect the public interest.
And often, when I am dealing with psychologists I have to explain that that is the mandate of the college.
The college is obligated. To investigate all written complaints that it receives from the public.
And the… This section and other sections of the RHPA give the college very broad powers to investigate   complaints.
And those complaints can come from a whole variety of sources.
They can come from current or former clients. They can come from… current or former employers or colleagues of a member.
They can come from supervisors or supervisees. Of the member. They can come from insurance companies.
They can come from members of the public. So you see that there is a large cohort of potential,    individuals who could be a complainant against a psychologist.
And even in circumstances where Complaints are… filed anonymously, our experience is that this college will make some preliminary inquiries of the member to determine whether or not a full investigation is required.
And the college also takes a very broad approach to the type of issues that they will investigate.
Now, the majority of the complaints arise from the interaction between You and your client.
But they can also arise from personal. And or professional activities.
And social media posts might be an example. A member's behavior in public, employment disputes, and we've seen complaints in that particular context, or complaints that might arise from,   someone's expert testimony.
So you see that there is a broad array of subject matter that can form a complaint.
And of course,  our system is structured in such a way that courts that might review the activities of the college.
Give it considerable deference. And all of that… to suggest to you that if you get a complaint.
And you may think, well, that complaint is really, really minor.
I think it… you would be well served to contact your insurer to receive some legal advice if you are facing a complaint And often, I've seen situations where individuals think, oh, this is not really serious or important.
And,   they respond themselves, and in retrospect. Probably, um… could have benefited from having some legal advice from the outset.
So here are the… is a chart of some of the types of complaints that we often see.
Poor or inappropriate communication with the client. Failure to obtain an informed consent.
Inaccurate or inappropriate invoicing or billing. Poor record keeping, and I'll have more to say about record keeping later on.
Privacy breaches, supervision is a significant area of concern for the college, and We see a number of complaints in that regard.
Boundary crossing, or conflicts of interest. Practicing outside of your scope.
And improper delegation of a controlled act. For example, the relaying of a diagnosis to a client, and that being delegated to someone else.
Here are some, just to bring this to life a little bit.
Here are some examples of some complaints that we have,   we have dealt with.
So, a member did not respond to email inquiries from a racialized individual of the public.
Seeking psychological services, but responded to email inquiries from non-racialized individuals. And as I say this, these are the allegations that were made in the context of the original complaint.
in the second one, the member,  made a report to the Children's Aid Society.
And,   the complainant, um. Made the allegation that this contributed to the alienation of that parent from the… from the child.
The third,   illustration  a member used humor and sarcasm almost as a therapeutic tool.
And,   then apologize to the… to the, um… to the client, saying.
Yeah, I'm, you know, I'm sorry for using so much humor, trying to be helpful that it wasn't the humor that was the problem, it was apologizing for using the humor.
The fourth example, member failed to respond to the client's emails in a timely fashion.
And improperly terminated the therapeutic relationship. And,   five, a member conducted a biased assessment and improperly relied on symptom validity testing.
So you see that there's a whole,   array of different types of complaints that the college   will,   will entertain.
Now, the best… preventative medicine.
Is to deal with practice challenges early. And as part of the program that is, uh.
Offer to you through BMS and QBE,  you have access to a pro bono,   hotline.
And the pro bono hotline is…   staffed by lawyers on my team.
And we run that pro bono hotline across Canada, so British Columbia, Alberta.
Quebec and Ontario, where we have offices, we are directly responding to pro bono requests.
And it allows you a half hour of free legal advice relating to professional liability issues.
So the persistent issue about who owns the fence. Between you and your neighbor is not something that we would be dealing with on that hotline. It is solely focused on,  the,   professional liability issues that you are facing.
So we've been doing that for a number of years. We've just put the last 5 years up on the screen.
To give you some sense of the volume of calls that we receive, and this is only in the province of Ontario, and I must admit, members in the province of Ontario probably use the hotline more than anywhere else.
So, in 2020, we had 468 calls. In 2021, 606, 2022, 585.
2023, 570… 5 cases, 2024, 653.
And as of today, we're roughly around 300,   300,   calls So, it's a… it's a great service. You would call you would leave your name, number, and a short pre se about what is the issue on our recording.
Our best practice is to be back to you within 24 hours and, you will talk to one of our lawyers.
Who does this work day in and day out, and has the benefit of the collective experience of our team.
To provide you with some guidance on some of these issues. So.
What are the… what are the issues that people are talking about?
This,  presentation gave us the opportunity to go back through our data to try to determine what trends we could identify,   in terms of the issues that people are facing.
So as you see, in 2020, um… we saw,   more variability about the types of issues that people were calling about. But COVID-19 was a key focus for members. and not surprisingly, were questions associated with telepsychology. But as the college came out with more guidance around those particular issues, we did see a falling off.
Of calls, and I suppose it's a combination of the advice that was given by the college,   along with people just becoming more familiar with using the virtual as a means of delivering service. Over the entirety of the 5 years that you see data before you.
We've consistently received a high number of calls relating to the issues of consent.
Privacy and confidentiality. And those questions would address the release of information and reports.
The disclosure of personal health information. The production of records and access,   requests.
And very often, these types of questions are very fact-specific. And,  our… anticipation is that we will continue to receive a high number of calls relating to these particular,   issues.
Another area of, um… consistency in terms of the number of calls.
Are calls relating to mandatory reporting obligations. And permissive,   reporting obligations. And again.
These are very fact-specific scenarios.   for example, whether a member should proceed to report to a relevant,   authority.
Children's Aid Society being an example, or… whether,   for example, in a case of a potential SUIS, case of a potential suicide.
That would also be,  some of the types of questions that we might   we might see.
   now… The last thing that I would highlight in terms of this,   data.
Would be that over the last 3 years, we're seeing an emerging focus on questions relating to court proceedings.
When you're asked to testify as an expert witness, as a fact witness, or responding to a witness's summons or a subpoena.
  those are very, very common questions, and it might be,  you know, as our courts were sort of… slowed down as a result of COVID, and now there's a lot of initiatives within the justice system to get rid of backlogs, etc.
Maybe that's why we're seeing that type of increased volume. But that is something that we are seeing.
Now, in terms of the complaint investigations.  these are some of the key and emerging areas, and the college will be in a better position to tell you the makeup of its complaint profile, but anecdotally.
These are some of the key and emerging issues that we are seeing.
So, supervision records, requirements, and practices. And these types of complaints are either initiated,   by the college,   and to the college by a supervisees,   or by insurance companies, and sometimes billing issues can be the precipitating factor in the initiation of these types of complaints.
Another,  key and emerging issue is in the area of the regulation of private conduct.
   and again,   we talk about social media. And those complaints tend to be brought by members of the public. Very often.
Those complaints are brought by individuals who the member has never met in their, in their life.
And then,   the scope of practice and what we call,  the creep.
  so the… The regulation of the member's scope of practice is a common area around complaints.
And sometimes it is not the initial focus of the complaint.
That has been brought to the college, and as a result of the investigation.
Sometimes you will see the college exploring this issue of the scope of practice.
And then you're not simply dealing with the initial complaint, but you're also dealing with scope of practice, um… scope of practice concerns.
And like telepsychology, I do think that, um… there would be benefit in the college of providing more direction   and guidance to members on some of these, on some of these issues.
Privacy is a very common complaint area. And related to privacy, and although we haven't seen any complaints around artificial intelligence as of yet.
I have to think that that is going to be an area   particularly as it relates to the use of personal health information.
And the impact on client confidentiality and privacy. And lastly,  diversity and inclusion, and we have seen a few complaints involving allegations that members were not respectful.
  or understanding of a complainant's equity-seeking identity or needs. So this is another area around key and emerging issues.
So, you… receive a complaint.
   what can you expect? And as I said before. The college has a statutory obligation to process all,   written complaints.
So if a complaint is filed, you will be notified of the complaint.
And you will be given an opportunity to respond. And I think it's important to just say it, and that is.
In these circumstances, this is an adversarial process, a complaint has been made against you.
And ultimately, if… The college believes there's some validity to that complaint. It is their job to prosecute that particular complaint.
So, it's not a situation where The college is your… is your friend, so to speak.
   there are… several pain points in the college investigation process.
That I thought I might take you through. So,  as I said, the college investigates all written complaints.
And some of those complaints In our view, our frivolous and vexatious.
But,  this college, um… I think has a very high threshold as to what constitutes frivolous and vexatious.
Whereas some other colleges are prepared to exercise their discretion at the outer at the outer limits of the process to identify either that a matter is frivolous or vexatious.
Or that alternative dispute resolution could be entered into. And my view is that,  more use should be made of alternative dispute resolution to deal with some complaints That may simply be a miscommunication, something that is relatively minor, that
That,  a simple meeting might clarify. Without the necessity of having to proceed through a rather extensive extensive,   process.
   now, as a result of the volume of complaints received by the college, and likely resourcing, but I can't speak to that.
The process is very long. And if you're going to get involved in the process.
   you can expect,   a lengthy process, and in some cases, it's been a couple of years before   we've had any,  determination,   or resolution of the,   of the complaint.
And of course, um… That is incredibly stressful.
  on the member. Now, the college has taken some steps to try to improve that situation, and I'll give it credit.
   one situation or step that they've taken is that in the past, you'd have The complaint, and then your reply.
And then your reply would go back to the… to the complainant.
And in cases under this pilot project, that's… I understand that not to be happening, and I think that's having a positive effect.
On the length of time that  complaints are taking to be… to be dealt with. So.
   there's a… there's obviously a backlog, and um… the process will be lengthy.
And that's incredibly stressful,   for anyone who's involved in the process.
   I think, you know, the other pain point, I think, is around mental health and the absence of supports, mental health supports for people who are facing serious,   complaints.
  through the,   college process. So, delay contributes to mental health,   issues.
I think the… before cases go to the ICRC, the Complaints Committee There's a summary that is,  prepared by the college, and very often, when members see that particular summary.
They think, well, this is sort of a bit biased. To the complainant, because it's outlining the elements of the complaint.
I think more neutrality in the preparation of those summaries would be of assistance.
And I also think that the profession should look at having mental health supports for individuals who are going through the complaint process.
Because it is incredibly taxing. You know, very often, we'll have people who have never received any form of complaint, and it may be of the most minor nature.
But this takes on a life of its own.
  and it's very difficult to compartmentalize, and that's difficult for people.
So, what do you do when you receive that complaint? Our recommendation is to call your insurer right away, and to get yourself placed into the hands of council who will assist you in the process.
And again, I repeat that we do have the Gowling WLG pro bono hotline.
And we can provide some interim assistance.
All right, so investigation… don'ts.
I've seen this many times, and that is, I call it the falling on your sword syndrome.
Because you, you sort of… have never received a complaint in your life, you're doing your best, you're a committed professional, you're Maintaining your education, and all of a sudden, this complaint comes along, and… It is devastating to… to someone.
And you… you really need to sort of step back and think about things objectively versus saying, oh my.
   I must have done something wrong. There is a complaint.
Well, most complaints are not upheld at the end of the day.
  it's just a matter of an explanation being required. So, step back and try to achieve some objectivity, almost probably things that you would say to your client. You have to say that to yourself, of course, but much more difficult,   in that particular circumstance.
The second thing is, don't ignore this. A complaint is not going to go away.
And,  the other,   thing I would say is   you have to cooperate. You have a statutory obligation to cooperate with the college.
And your cooperation is an important part of the process, so don't… sort of say, oh.
I'm not going to, uh… participate. This is cra… you know, this is… this is… there's no substance to this, this is,  just trivial.
   don't do any of those things. And then, on this particular slide, before consulting with legal counsel.
  don't talk to the investigator, don't talk to any of these,   individuals who are listed.
  you need to get some advice.   someone with perspective will be able to step back and say, here's what we're going to do, here's the steps you need to take to,   to successfully advance your position in relation to the complaint that has been made against you.
So, how do we,   respond to,   complaints? So, I think the first thing that's helpful is for you to prepare your own narrative to provide to legal counsel, and that is a solicitor-client privilege, but it's  really your own experience with respect to the complaint.
That is being… that is being made. Um.
Go back to your records, and this is the… where the record keeping is so important. Go back to your records. Some of these events may have happened some years ago.
And you have no immediate recollection of what took place, but if your records are comprehensive, then you're going to be able to go back And, oh yes, this is what happened in this particular,   circumstance.
   but,   obviously, as just a matter of The general legal advice, do not amend or alter or add to the… to the report… to the, uh.
To the clinical record, that that would be improper. So,   that's,   advice that you should follow. Do not amend, alter.
A record after the complaint is received. But you will have to discontinue treatment of the client once you receive a notice of complaint.
  because you will be in a conflict of interest,   position.
Things to,   keep in mind when you're preparing your response to the complaint.
As I've said, you're going to have to ensure that you cooperate with the college, and they will come back, and they may ask for specific records, or they may have specific questions.
That you might need to respond to. You might be interviewed by a college investigator.
And that will be,   recorded,  and transcribed and form part of the investigation,   record.
Despite the pilot project, your response may be provided to a complainant in a particular circumstance.
So, writing the response with that in mind.   is an important,   thing to remember.
Um. I… I also think that there will be instances where You think, well, maybe I could have done something a little better.
You know, in retrospect, maybe I shouldn't have said that to that to that client. Self-insight is an important element of responding to a college complaint.
Because, obviously, the college is looking at this from the lens of the public.
And to ensure that there is minimal risk of your continuing to practice going into the future.
And the exhibiting of self-insight is an important,   is an important thing.
And the other important thing is that if you can take steps to demonstrate yourself insight by… by remedial measures.
That's something else that our experience has been, is looked positively upon,   by the college when complaints are evaluated.
   civil litigation really isn't the subject matter of today, but there will and could be occasion where a psychologist is the subject matter of a civil suit.
I can tell you it is very rare that we see civil suits, um… For psychologists, um… But when you are the subject of a civil suit, it's,   serious, obviously. It may not directly impact your license to practice.
But it may have other,   implications. Decisions are public, so it may impact   reputation, and in some smaller markets.
   cases about psychologists… Those attract press interest.
   and then, of course, monetary damages might be awarded. We see most civil litigation,  involving a psychologist to be  in the area where there may be,   sexual impropriety, and then an accompanying, um.
Breach of fiduciary duty type allegation. But I have seen cases that we've been able to dispense with.
  of,   members who have, um. Made reports to Children's Aid, for example, or…   where complaints are being made in the civil litigation context.
For experts and their conduct in acrimonious,   family litigation. So.
All of the things in terms of the risk mitigation strategies that apply to complaints, they will also apply in the context of civil litigation.
In terms of,  other,   court proceedings, I've alluded to this in my remarks already today.
   production of records. Is a… is a common one.
   ensure that you have the signed, informed consent of your client to release records.
Even if that request comes from their lawyer.  and then we have, um… summons subpoenas to appear in court, and I just wanted to sort of relate those two.
   well, you know, you get a subpoena, and while going down to the courthouse at 9 a.m. On Monday morning is not convenient.
You've got appointments, etc. But you don't have a consent.   written. All you've got is this subpoena, and you say, well, maybe I'll just give it to the lawyer, you know, I've got the subpoena, must be all right.
No, unless you have the consent, you're gonna have to go,   on that morning and bring them with you, and then they'll be released in the context of the court proceeding.
Absent having that type of consent. And that's a common… That's a common misconception.
51³Ô¹ÏºÚÁÏÍø the import of a subpoena, so…  compliance with those orders are important, they're necessary.
   but,  you can't,   preempt them by disclosing information without having an appropriate consent in place.
Right. Risk mitigation, um… So, you are expected,  to… and I would think you would want to minimize the likelihood of a complaint or civil suit.
It's part of the integrity of the profession. Your regulator is quite interested in that.
And,  I think we're in a different environment.  you know, sort of the… professional,   being raised up within the community, you know, on a… On a pedestal, I don't think we're living in those days now.
And the public is very quick and prone to, uh. Make complaints,  and… My experience is that members of the public are less forgiving.
Less understanding, and you're seeing more complaints as a result,   as a result of that.
So,  document…  keeping.
Is a… is a key element of the risk mitigation,   strategy.
And with respect to, um risk mitigation strategies as it relates to record keeping?
Document, document, document,  you know, it's a contemporaneous documentation that is really the tools with which I work.
Without the contemporaneous documentation, it is difficult to be credible when you are trying to,  look to the past.
When the professional has an obligation to keep those types of,   clinical notes and records.
Sometimes,  we do hear professionals saying, well, I… I don't really want to write everything down that would be unethical. It's too personal.
Or whatever the case may be.  we have heard that. That's not our advice. Our advice is to be as detailed as you potentially can be.
And also to ensure that you are administering your record keeping in a consistent manner.
And,  for some, using an EMR is a good way of organizing   your,   your, your record keeping.
So the basic principle, if it's not recorded, it didn't happen, because otherwise.
You're going to be into a situation of, well, they said versus they said.
And,   that,  is more difficult in terms of,   marshalling a defense Then, if you are able to look back and say, well, on January the 2nd of 2024, The client attended, the client spoke to me about A, B, and C. This is inconsistent with the allegation that is now being made.
That gives you an air of credibility.  it rings true if there's a contemporaneous note made.
When there was not even the prospect of any sort of legal implication.
It's really, really helpful.  the balancing act, this notion of confidentiality and documenting critical things.
I've given you my advice on that. Accuracy, ensuring that your records are consistent and commensurate with your billing records.
They should be,   contemporaneous. And,  you want to ensure,  consistency, so…  sometimes we do have to rely upon, particularly in the civil context.
The general practice or standard practice of an individual. But if your notes sort of reflect a variation in your standard practice, then it makes those kind of arguments more difficult to make.
So,  what should be…   documented.
  we've set out some of the things that should be documented in this particular, um.
Slide. These are things that are, um… recommended by your college.
And we've,   just added in the next slide   some of the other things that are not specifically delineated by the college, but things that We believe,   you should turn your mind to in terms of,   in terms of record keeping.
One of the things that should not be found in your chart, because from time to time, you may have to seek independent legal advice around issues.
That's advice to you in the context of being a professional and solicitor-client privileged.
And,  you should keep a separate personal or legal or ILA file. That should not find itself.
  in the context of the,   of the client record.
As I indicated, um. Previously, supervision is a key issue.
And,  what we've tried to do in this particular slide is to set out  some of the types of records that should be kept in that, in that context.
The date, frequency, length, and content of supervision meetings.  really, um… I think one of the concerns is that this is not being done in a superficial way, that there is meaning to the supervision relationship.
And as I said previously, sometimes this arises in the context of billing, but You really want to be able to defend your supervision.
  with having an adequate,   an adequate record.
In terms of record keeping and retention, you also have the responsibility for security, accessibility, maintenance, and retention of records.
There is a prescribed retention period.   that we've set out. You're also to ensure that hard copy copies are securely,   discarded.
And the last point is that if you're… this is more on the consent side.
Is that if you're using an EMR, then you want to have a consent from your client that,  the information is going to be stored.
Through an EMR provider.
You also want to make sure that you have what I call, sort of, a documentary hygiene, or professionalism in your documentation.
In that your documentation should be fair and unbiased, accurate, transparent, current, contemporaneous, organized.
And respectful of the dignity of the client.   because,   that client can have access to their records when they choose.
And,  you wouldn't want some remark that might have been flippant on the occasion.
To impact your therapeutic relationship, nor would you want it to precipitate a,   a complaint of some… of some sort.
   the use of text and email All of that, if it is with respect to a client, it has to find itself in the… in the… in the file.
   we don't recommend it other than for pure administrative purposes,  because it tends to, um.
Deformalize the nature of the therapeutic,   the therapeutic relationship.
I see that I have come to the time that I had allocated to me.

   Jennifer, do I have a couple of extra minutes, or should we… concludes. Yes, please continue, Todd. Okay, thank you.
I suppose if she had said no, I would be somewhat concerned about the quality of my presentation, but nonetheless, we will… we will marshal on.

  consent and limits of,   confidentiality, and we wanted just to talk  a little bit… about, um… the issue of consent.
So, an informed consent needs to be obtained at the onset of the provision of services, and then if those services change in the nature then you should get, as best practice.
To get another,  another informed consent to reflect that particular,   change.
And in obtaining the informed consent, there are certain things that you might wish to discuss with the client.
For example, that if a piece of legislation requires you to disclose the information, then you're required to disclose the information. That's one of the restrictions on the confidentiality.
But you do have mandatory or permissive reporting obligations. Then the third item is sometimes Clients are not necessarily sensitized to,   what might happen if they release their information. Oh, well, we'll give it to my lawyer, he's my lawyer, that'll be fine.
Well, what's the lawyer going to do with that particular information? Will that information find itself in a public courtroom? Will it become public?
These are kinds of issues that you may wish to have a discussion about And then, obviously, if you're the subject of a court order or a subpoena.
  then,   you,    must,   disclose that information.
According to the process that I've I've previously,   I've previously,   articulated   you do have certain… circumstances where… where,   parents and minors must understand their psychological record may be disclosed to a parent with access to information rights, but not necessarily
  custody,   custody rights. That's another potential scenario, so you might want… we would recommend you see the parenting order, so you have a good understanding about who's able to… able to see what.
   you want to document the process of explaining the consent to your client.
And you want to make sure that that finds itself in the clinical notes and records, because You really want to bulletproof yourself or be defensive,   in your… in your practice.
I said earlier that privacy was a… was a large area.
   it is a complicated and very varied area. You have a number of pieces of legislation and… whether or not those pieces of legislation are going to apply to you will depend on the role and responsibility that you're that you're serving at any one particular point in time. So we have…
The federal legislation, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, known as PAPITA,  that governs the use and disclosure of personal information by private sector organizations.
In the course of for-profit commercial activities. You also have the Privacy Act, which governs the collection and disclosure of personal information.
By federal government institutions. And then you have Canada's anti-spam law as another aspect of privacy protection.
And at the provincial level, some provinces have privacy laws that may apply instead of PAPEDA, Because they are deemed substantially similar to PAPEDA.
And Ontario's Personal Health Information Protection Act is one of those,   pieces of legislation.
So, um… Well, a lot of complexity associated with,   privacy.
And in terms of, um… resources, my, um… colleagues who work with me here in Ottawa Ruba El-Saye and Wadassi Tamrit have written a document that talks about issues around  privacy and health professionals, you'll find it on the Gowling WLG website. And I'd be remiss also not to thank Wadassi for her assistance in, uh.
And helping me prepare our presentation today But just in terms of the basics.
   you should have a privacy policy. Which should cover the following. The collection, use, and disclosure of personal information.
Storage, retention, and destruction of records containing personal information. Breach notification and response protocols.
So I've tried to touch on some of the major issues, and to provide you with some Risk mitigation,   strategies.
  obviously, um… I,   can't cover the whole waterfront in the time allocated.
But there are,   practical resources that you can turn to  and we've listed some of them here, including the telephone number for the Gowling WLG Pro Bono Legal Hotline.
And,   as I said, if you have questions that arise   from my presentation,   you can contact the hotline, and,   someone will respond to you and just simply reference the fact that,   you were   here listening to the presentation today.
So, I hope that's of some assistance to you. And it's a… it's a pleasure to be here to speak to you.
And once again, thank you to the college for extending the invitation.

Thank you, Todd. That was very informative. And,   provides helpful insight for how our registrants can mitigate risk in their professional practice.
I especially appreciated hearing about the balancing perspectives from the Council side and the college side, and I trust that our participants did as well. So, thank you again.

I'm now going to facilitate our Q&A portion.   that concludes our speakers for this morning.

We have received several questions in advance of this seminar regarding certain standards that we feel are worth highlighting.
This also gives us the opportunity to share some of our key insights and learnings from the standards over the past year.
   Todd mentioned that in each scenario he sees, it's fact-based, so this implies that there's typically no one-size-fits-all response to how a standard might apply in a particular circumstance.
So, for this reason, we've taken the approach of addressing questions at a fairly high level.
And we'll point to specific standards that might be important for you to consider as we think through some of these,   trickier problems.
The first question,  we've heard a little bit about today already, which is the use of artificial intelligence.
So, we had a few questions. 

What is the college's position on using AI in clinical practice?
   recognizing that AI is an emerging tool and has a variety of applications and settings.
This could be used for note-taking,   computer-assisted scoring and test interpretation to assist with psychodynamic assessments   report writing, you name it.
So the specific requirements around AI use can be found in Standard 17, Use of Technology.
  the standard sets out that registrants are expected to maintain current knowledge of all technologies that they use.
Including the risks that may be associated with its use. It also identifies that paying attention to context is key. So, registrants must be sensitive to cultural, regional, and local issues that might impact service delivery when using AI.
Standard 17.2 goes on to specify that registrants must be sufficiently familiar and competent to use the technology.
So that is, AI should not replace a registrant's professional knowledge, skill, and judgment.
One cannot simply abandon their professional responsibilities because they use AI.
   AI-generated reports or findings does not relinquish the requirement for you to review findings and ensure that you understand and agree with the opinions being communicated to the client.
   Zimra, in her presentation, spoke a little bit about the adequacy of information to support conclusions, so that would be an important consideration.
When thinking about how you might want to use AI in your practice.
Of course, informed consent would be important here with respect to the risks around privacy.
You know, Todd spoke to us a little bit about the potential risks of privacy of personal health information and confidentiality.
  so that's an especially important consideration here. But in summary, as long as the use of AI complies with all of the other standards, such as privacy, opinions, competence, consent.
Evidence-based practice,  and that the technology is used in a responsible manner. Registrants are free to use AI in their practice, as they deem to be appropriate.

The next question we received is around the difference between supervision and consultation, and this is such an important question.
And we're seeing this question a lot lately, especially from our RBAs.
Or those that are working in institutions that oversee both regulated RBAs.
And non-regulated individuals under the supervision of RBAs.   Todd also mentioned that this is a common issue that Council sees on the complaint side, so really an important standard worth understanding.
the most important thing to note about supervision is that the clients receiving the supervised services are the supervisor's clients, and I mentioned that in the intro.
So, all professional responsibilities flow from this fundamental premise. As well, the supervisee is required to comply with the direction of the supervisor and adhere to the standards of professional conduct It's up to the supervisor to determine the supervisee's level of competence, and therefore what level of involvement might be required.
So there's no standard meeting frequency or anything that we can advise. It's really left to the discretion of the supervisor.
I find standard 4.2, rather, to be particularly helpful.   it describes the purpose of supervision, and sets out that outside of these specific situations.
Superv… supervision should not be used. So it states that the supervision should only be used when it's required and meets the defined threshold.
Such as… such as when a supervisee requires it to competently deliver services, so they might not have the adequate knowledge, skill, judgment, training.
it could be used when a non-registrant is assisting a registrant in performing a service.
Such as psychometrics, or to fulfill the college's registration requirements. Outside of these situations, supervision should not be used On the other hand, consultation is defined as the provision of information or advice In a relationship where the recipient is not required to act on the information or advice provided
By the consultant. And the consultee is not ultimately accountable to the consultant. So, in these cases, the consultee would be required to adhere to their own standards of professional practice.
as they might be other regulated health professionals and would have their own standards of practice to adhere to.
Regardless, in both supervision and consultation,   like I said, it may or may not involve direct involvement with the client,  depending what the situation calls for.
and regardless, in each situation, there should be a clear agreement in place, so that both parties understand their roles and obligations. And Todd spoke about this as well, of the importance of a clear supervisory agreement   is of utmost importance.


The next question, psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy. So, this is another practice-specific question about which standards apply for the use of ketamine and psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy.
The answer to this question lies in standards 10.3 and 10.4 under Assessment and Intervention.
These standards state that registrants must be familiar with the evidence supporting the utility and effectiveness of the interventions they employ.
Recognizing that psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy is an emerging tool.  as well, registrants must be familiar with the evidence-based tools and techniques.
typically used to support a specific treatment, and must evaluate and use any new and emerging tools and techniques With caution, ensuring client safety.
So, there is an expectation that registrants still be familiar with evidence-based practice and weigh the risks associated with the use of using these new and emerging tools.
Recognizing,   the importance of safety again. Of course, as, you know, as with all modalities, informed and capable consent is essential.
Registrants should be upfront with their clients around the risk and their limits of certainty about their predictions.
and competency of the provider is important as well. So, standard sets out that registrants are expected to self-monitor.
And refrain from conducting activities with which they may be unfamiliar or not competent to engage in, and I'll speak about that a little bit more.
of course, the legality of the substance is another really important consideration for a variety of reasons.
Including potential criminal conduct, ability to appropriately treat the client. Due to the lack of awareness of the actual substance or dosage.
As well as competent issues of the provider. Our last question,   is around that of competence.
This is a commonly asked question by psychologists,   particularly, who are restricted from practicing solely within their authorized areas of practice and client groups.
But it can also be relevant to behavior analysts more generally, if they're unsure that they can provide a certain type of treatment or modality.
So often, we receive questions from registrants asking permission to use certain types of modalities, and so… so this is something really worth clarifying.
The question we received is, when providing general services such as teaching a course, what are the rules with respect to authorized areas of practice? How do I know if I'm allowed to provide the service?
So, outside of these authorized areas and client groups, which is tied to your certificate of registration.
The college is not in a position to grant someone with permission to provide a certain type of service.
As self-regulated professionals, we trust and expect registrants to self-monitor and refrain from conducting activities with which they may be unfamiliar or not competent to engage in, or which require specialized knowledge, skill, or experience.
controlled acts is an exception. Those are defined in the RHPA.  these are acts that might… may be performed only by authorized, regulated professionals.
Controlled acts are considered to be potentially harmful if performed by someone not authorized  and they… they require specific knowledge, skill, and judgment.
So, unlike psychologists that are,   enabled to perform two controlled acts, including communicating a diagnosis and providing psychotherapy, RBAs cannot provide controlled acts The practical application section within the standards has some helpful guidance,   around this question, and speaks to different scenarios.
So it states that although registrants are required to work within their authorized areas of practice and client groups.
In circumstances where the service is unrelated to an individual client, a registrant may provide services more generally.
So, examples of this could be acting in it as an administrator of an agency that serves a lifespan of development, as in one can take on a leadership role within a healthcare institution.
you are free to conduct a research study with participants for non-clinical purposes.
Of course, there should be no expectation from the public that a clinical service is being delivered.
you are free to teach an undergraduate course.  as opposed to a graduate-level course, which would be intended to prepare participants and students,   for future clinical practice.
Teaching a general 51³Ô¹ÏºÚÁÏÍø 101 course, or speaking on a podcast.
For example, would be considered appropriate,  for the majority of registrants that have the required knowledge, skill, and judgment to speak about these things more publicly.
So I know we're a little bit over time, but I really hope that,  everyone enjoyed the seminar.
This now concludes our seminar for today. So, again, we just, we hope you found this to be of value.
and relevant regarding the standards, as well as the complaints and discipline process.
Wanted to,  thank our speakers, as well as the college staff for contributing to the seminar.
If you are left wondering about specific standards, and I know we received some questions throughout the presentation,  you are free to email the Practice Advice Service. I mentioned we really try to get to these within 2 business days or sooner.
Or my email is there, you are… you can email me directly if you have more questions about the presentations  a reminder, please fill out the feedback survey that should be landing in your inboxes.   we read each and every one of these, and in the spirit of continuous improvement, we consider your feedback and comments to understand how to best meet your needs in the future.
so, again, just thank you for carving out the time in your busy schedules We really value this opportunity to connect and engage with our registrants in this setting. So, thank you, have a great rest of your day and your summer ahead.