The following are summaries of 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.
Concerns Already Addressed by the ICRC: Decision – Not to Investigate the Allegations – F&V
The College received a complaint about a member which appeared identical to a previous complaint from the same individual regarding the same member. This previous complaint had been considered by the ICRC and resulted in the member agreeing to Undertakings with the College to remediate some concerns.
The panel of the ICRC reviewing the new complaint did not identify any new allegations that had not already been considered in the first complaint investigation. The panel therefore considered the new complaint to be frivolous, vexatious, made in bad faith, moot or otherwise an abuse of process, and decided to take no further action.
Appropriateness of Language: Decision – Advice
The complainant was referred to the member for an assessment in relation to a workplace accident. The complainant alleged that the member’s report contained conclusions that were inappropriate and insulting.
The ICRC panel considering this matter did not believe that the member’s conclusions were inappropriate or unsupported by the information collected. The panel did identify some concerns with the member’s language choices however, which could appear pejorative. In particular, the panel believed statements or phrases such as “this was a histrionic and unconvincing response”, “increasingly dramatic”, and “fabricating symptoms out of thin air” could lead to client distress, and to the client losing faith in the credibility of the assessment. The panel provided the member with advice regarding the importance of choosing sensitive, clear, and objective language to describe observations.
Supervision and Consultation: Decision – Undertakings
A complaint was received from an insurance company alleging that a member, among other things, had provided inappropriate supervision to unregulated individuals who were providing clients with diagnoses. In response to the complaint, the member indicated that he was not in fact supervising these unregulated individuals but was being “consulted on diagnoses”.
The panel of the ICRC considering this matter had concerns that in this context, consultation for the purpose of providing a diagnosis may fall outside the scope of the definition of “Consultation” provided in the Standards of Professional Conduct, 2017. According to the Standards, “Consultation is the provision of information, within a relationship of professionals of relatively equal status, generally based upon a limited amount of information, that offers a point of view that is not binding.”
The panel did not believe this would hold for an opinion on a diagnosis provided to someone not independently authorized to provide a diagnosis. Rather, the panel believed that such an opinion would be received as binding. The panel also questioned whether the limited information offered in consultation in this context would be sufficient to opine on a diagnosis. The panel therefore decided it would be appropriate and in the public interest to request that the member enter into an Acknowledgement and Undertaking, comprised of a Coaching program, to better understand the differences between, and the requirements of, both supervision and consultation.