The following are summaries of some recent decisions of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee, reflecting three different dispositions. They are provided for educational purposes. Information in these summaries has been altered to protect the privacy of both members and complainants, and to protect the confidentiality of the investigation process. The relevant substance of the allegations and outcomes remain unchanged.
Suitability of a Government-Funded Program: Decision Not to Investigate the Allegations (F&V)
A complainant was referred to psychological services provider in relation to a government-funded program. The complainant indicated that it was inappropriate for a contract to have been signed between the government and this psychological services provider without his knowledge or consent. He did not wish to receive services from this provider.
The panel of the ICRC considering this matter did not believe it was within the College’s authority to examine the validity of the contract between the member and the government. It also appeared that the complainant could seek services from a different provider by following a set process. Finally, the panel noted that the member had not in fact provided psychological services to the complainant. Altogether, the panel did not believe there was any risk to the public, and there was no practical purpose in proceeding with the investigation. The panel therefore considered the complaint to be frivolous, vexatious, made in bad faith, moot or otherwise an abuse of process, and decided to take no further action.
Adequate Information to Support Conclusions: Decision: Take No Further Action
The complainant alleged that the member did not gather as much relevant information as possible for a report, which was provided to an insurance company. In response, the member indicated that upon reviewing the psychometric testing, she noted that a substantial portion had not been completed. She told the complainant that it would be in her best interest to complete as much of the testing as possible. However, the complainant still did not provide that information.
The panel believed that the member’s conclusion that no clinical interpretations could be made was not unreasonable, as this was in the context of a lack of information provided by the complainant, and the member’s apparent best efforts to obtain that information. The panel also noted that the member reported on the complainant’s symptoms in an objective manner. The panel therefore decided to Take No Further Action with respect to the complaint.
Timeliness of Report: Decision: Advice
The complainant alleged that she had requested a report be provided to a third party following the termination of services. The report was not provided until eight months after the request had been made. The member in his response indicated that he had been dealing with some health issues at the time, and that he continued to attend to current clients.
The panel of the ICRC considering this matter understood that the member was managing unfortunate personal circumstances, but believed that eight months was an excessive amount of time to wait for a report. The panel also believed that even though the client was no longer current, she could still expect a response to her request within a reasonable amount of time. The panel therefore decided that it would be appropriate and in the public interest to provide the member with Advice in this regard.
| Term | Defininition |
| Frivolous, vexatious, made in bad faith, moot or otherwise an abuse of process | A panel may take no further action in this case. |
| Take No Further Action | A panel may take no further action if it believes there is no risk to the public. |
| Advice | A panel may give advice if it identifies low risks. Advice is meant to help the member avoid future risks. |