Ontario health professional accused of publicly disclosing client names on social media
The Ontario Health Professions Appeal and Review Board has confirmed a decision requiring a psychotherapist facing a complaint alleging a breach of confidentiality to attend an oral caution and complete a specified continuing education and remediation program (SCERP).
In Caloura-Lobo v Curtis, 2025 CanLII 73722 (ON HPARB), the applicant was a psychotherapist with a therapy studio. In December 2023, the respondent allegedly viewed the studio’s Instagram page and saw a story that showed a calendar where client names were visible.
The respondent made a complaint claiming that the applicant breached confidentiality by publicly disclosing client names on social media. She provided screenshots of the Instagram post.
The Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the College of Registered Psychotherapists and Registered Mental Health Therapists of Ontario investigated the respondent’s complaint.
The committee decided to require the applicant to attend an oral caution and complete an SCERP consisting of a course on ethics and boundaries. The applicant requested a review of the committee’s decision.
Committee decision upheld
The Ontario Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirmed the committee’s decision under s. 35(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, schedule 2 to Ontario’s Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991.
First, the board found the committee’s investigation adequate. The board determined that the committee’s investigation covered the relevant events and acquired the information needed to reach an informed decision on the complaint’s issues.
The board saw no reason to reasonably expect that further information might have impacted the decision if the committee had obtained it.
Next, the board deemed the committee’s decision reasonable, transparent, intelligible, and justified. The board held that the decision showed a coherent and rational connection between the pertinent facts, the outcome, and the reasoning leading to that outcome.
The board explained that the committee applied its knowledge of the profession’s expected standards and privacy legislation to evaluate the applicant’s conduct and acts.
The board said the caution and SCERP were reasonable since they flowed logically from the record’s information. The board added that the caution and SCERP would help tackle the committee’s concerns about any deficiencies identified, improve the applicant’s practice, and safeguard the public.
The board found that the committee reasonably concluded that the oral caution would assist the applicant in understanding the significance of her actions, offer an educational opportunity to ensure she would practise safely and ethically in the future, and foster public trust in the profession.
The board concluded that the information in the record supported the committee’s decision, despite the complaint not detailing the applicant’s use of a specific type of practice software.
