Governing Ourselves informs members of legal and regulatory matters affecting the profession. This section provides updates on licensing and qualification requirements, notification of Council resolutions and reports from various Council committees, including reports on accreditation and discipline matters.
INVESTIGATIONS
The College investigates and considers complaints about members that relate to alleged professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity. If the Investigation Committee concludes that a complaint does not relate to one of those three matters or is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, it does not proceed with the complaint.
Approximately four out of five complaints are not referred to the Discipline Committee but are dismissed or resolved by other means. Examples of cases considered by the Investigation Committee and not referred to a hearing are provided here.
Case #1
Complaint: Authoring and refusing to modify a document that contained inaccurate information
Outcome of investigation: Not refer and take no further action
A student’s parent complained that a College member had authored an official document, placed in the child’s Ontario Student Record (OSR), and that when the member was provided written information stating that the information was inaccurate, the member refused to modify the document. The complainant said that the erroneous information was misleading and harmful to the child.
In response, the member stated that the document was completed from information in an assessment report written by a regulated health professional and was not inaccurate or misleading. The member explained that after the document was written the complainant requested that it be removed from the student’s OSR for a variety of reasons, a request that the school board refused. The member also stated that, at a later date, the complainant arranged for the regulated health professional to meet anew with the student, and as a result of that meeting, the health professional provided an addendum to her original report. That addendum stated that the original report had reflected what the student had told the regulated professional at that time, but that at their subsequent meeting, the student clarified what he had earlier said.
With regard to the allegation of an inaccurate document, the panel noted that the member authored the document based on information provided in the original report from the regulated health professional. As to the allegation of refusing to modify the document, the panel was of the opinion that it would not have been appropriate for the member to rewrite the document as if the initial report from the health professional had never been received. The panel also noted that, in response to the complainant’s concerns, the member did attach the health professional’s addendum to the document. As a result, the panel directed that no further action be taken regarding this complaint.
Case #2
Complaint: Grabbing a student and frequent yelling
Outcome of investigation: Written caution
The College received a complaint from a parent indicating that a member had grabbed her child by the arm, causing a small bruise, and that later, her child had also indicated that the member often yelled at students.
In response to the complaint, the member stated that her physical contact with the student had consisted of softly placing her hand on the student’s shoulder, to reassure her. The member denied the allegation of frequent yelling.
After reviewing the documents and information from the investigation, the panel noted that the member acknowledged initiating some physical contact with the student, but that the information provided by witnesses was inconsistent as to the nature of that contact. In respect to the yelling, the panel noted that some information received from the local Children’s Aid Society and the employer supported this allegation. As a result, the panel determined that it would caution the member in writing regarding physical contact with students and yelling at them.
Case #3
Complaint: Authorizing a student to make an inappropriate purchase
Outcome of investigation: Written caution
An employer reported to the College that, during a stop at a department store on an out-of-town field trip, a member indicated to a store cashier that a student, who was under the age of 12, could purchase an object. The cashier requested authorization from an adult because the object carried warnings related to language, violence and sexual content and was rated as appropriate for persons over the age of 17.
Following a review of the information obtained from the employer, the Registrar filed a complaint. In her reply to the complaint, the member stated that the cashier had simply indicated that authorization was required and did not state why. The member indicated that she should have more closely examined the object before providing permission and that, had she been aware of the warnings, she would not have given her approval.
The panel noted that the member recognized her error in not fully examining the object, accepted the consequences imposed by her employer and attempted on multiple occasions to contact the student’s parents to apologize. The panel decided to caution the member regarding her responsibility to ensure the welfare of students under her supervision.
