Client expected penalized registrant to help seek relief from health profession regulator
The Ontario Registered Psychotherapists Discipline Tribunal has found professional misconduct on the part of a registrant who failed to file a mandatory report to the relevant regulator regarding the sexual abuse allegedly perpetrated by a registered massage therapist (RMT).
In College of Registered Psychotherapists and Registered Mental Health Therapists of Ontario v La Rose, 2025 ONRPDT 3, a client revealed during a January 2023 therapy session with the registrant psychotherapist that an RMT had sexually abused him. He divulged the RMT’s name and the specific sexual acts involved.
The registrant told the client about his obligation, as a registered health professional, to report the alleged sexual abuse to the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario (CMTO) under s. 85.1 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, schedule 2 to Ontario’s Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991.
The registrant reached out to the CMTO regarding his reporting obligations and accessed the regulator’s website, but ultimately did not file a report.
On the other hand, the client notified the CMTO that he had informed the registrant that an RMT had sexually abused him. The client expected the registrant to support him and file the mandatory sexual abuse report.
Over the next several months, the client and the CMTO repeatedly asked the registrant to submit the required report to the CMTO. The registrant did not respond. In July 2023, the registrant cancelled an appointment with the client, who ultimately met with another therapist.
The present disciplinary matter came before the College of Registered Psychotherapists and Registered Mental Health Therapists of Ontario, of which the registrant was a member.
Professional misconduct
The Ontario Registered Psychotherapists Discipline Tribunal ruled that the registrant’s actions and inaction amounted to professional misconduct under s. 51(1)(c) of the Code and s. 1 of Ontario Regulation 317/12, made under Ontario’s Psychotherapy Act, 2007.
The tribunal saw in the registrant disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct under paragraph 52 of the regulation, as well as conduct unbecoming of a member of the profession under paragraph 53 of the regulation, due to his mistreatment of a vulnerable client and his failure to respond to his regulator and client.
In an agreed statement of facts, the registrant admitted that he fell short of a professional practice standard under paragraph 1 of the regulation and failed to file the mandatory report with the CMTO despite his reasonable grounds to believe that an RMT had sexually abused his client, in violation of a provision of the Code under paragraph 42 of the regulation.
The tribunal determined that the registrant breached a vulnerable client’s trust and psychologically or emotionally abused him by persistently failing to respond to his requests to file the report with the CMTO, in breach of paragraph 2 of the regulation.
According to the tribunal, as a regulated health professional, the registrant had duties to reply to his client’s requests to submit a required report and cooperate with and respond to appropriate directions from another health regulatory college about filing the report.
The tribunal noted that the client relied on the registrant to support his efforts to seek relief relating to the RMT’s actions and felt “hung out to dry” when his therapist repeatedly failed to act or respond.
Penalty
The tribunal made the order the parties requested, which included the imposition of a reprimand, a one-month suspension, and a practice restriction.
The order also entailed extensive remedial measures, including therapy, record-keeping, a hired administrative assistant, specific professional education, and reassessment, with the registrant’s regulator and a clinical supervisor monitoring progress.
The tribunal agreed to the parties’ joint submission on the proper penalty, which appropriately balanced the objectives of the protection of the public, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, and confidence in the profession’s self-regulation.
The tribunal considered mitigating factors such as the registrant’s admitting his misconduct, reducing the costs and inconvenience to the parties, and eliminating the necessity for the vulnerable client and other witnesses to testify.
The tribunal noted that the registrant had been under a registered psychotherapist’s care and treatment since February 2022 due to severe avoidance issues and ADHD, which impeded him from timely communicating.
The tribunal concluded that the parties’ agreed penalty tried to address these medical and psychological issues through therapy and practice improvements.
