A Committee’s decision finding a psychologist/registrant guilty of professional misconduct for failing to use the term “non practicing” in his advertising was upheld by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

22. December 2015 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Psychologists – Psychologists – Governance – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Licence to practice – Unauthorized practice – Advertising – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Rules and by-laws – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness Sydiaha v. ...

A non-practising psychologist (“Sydiaha”) appealed from a decision of the Council of the Saskatchewan College of Psychologists where it had found him guilty of professional misconduct for advertising himself as a psychologist, without specifying that he was non-practising

24. June 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Psychologists – Psychologists – Disciplinary proceedings – Unauthorized practice – Advertising – Professional misconduct / conduct unbecoming – Public interest – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Sydiaha v. Saskatchewan College of Psychologists, [2014] S.J. No. 254, 2014 ...

The appellant psychologist appealed a decision of the Saskatchewan College of Psychologists finding her guilty of professional misconduct for failing to comply with the College’s Code of Ethics and issuing a reprimand. The College’s Discipline Committee had rejected the joint submission by the psychologist and College’s counsel on agreed facts and undertakings, and instead issued an order as to the appellant psychologist’s future practice. The College Council upheld the Discipline Committee’s decision. The appeal was allowed in part. The Court agreed that the appellant psychologist’s admissions as to the facts behind the charges were tantamount to guilty pleas. The Council’s decision to uphold the findings of guilty pleas was within the range of reasonable decisions. However, the Discipline Committee and Council erred in its application of section 32 of the Psychologists Act in requiring a reprimand given in every case where there was a breach of professional standards. As well, the process of rejecting the joint submission without an opportunity for further submissions from either counsel for the College or appellant psychologist was unreasonable. As a result, the reprimand was struck from the disposition.

25. June 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Psychologists – Psychologists – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct / conduct unbecoming – Penalties – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Nanson v. Saskatchewan College of Psychologists, [2013] S.J. No. 295, 2013 SKQB ...

The appellant, a psychologist, successfully appealed a decision of two counts of unprofessional conduct on the basis that the reasons provided in the prior appeal decision were inadequate. Not only were the reasons void of any explanation for the findings of professional conduct, but there was no line of analysis within the reasons that could have reasonably led to the ultimate conclusion.

23. November 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Psychologists – Psychologists – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Investigations – Evidence – Failure to provide reasons Sussman v. College of Alberta Psychologists, [2010] A.J. No. 1157, 2010 ABCA 300, Alberta Court of Appeal, October 13, 2010, J.E.L. ...

The appellant, Ms. Mitten, successfully appealed a Chambers decision which dismissed her originating notice. Her originating notice sought judicial review of the decision of the respondent College’s Discipline Committee, which upheld the Registrar’s decision to take no further action in respect of her complaint.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Psychologists – Investigations – Psychologists – Competence – Judicial review application – Judicial review – Availability – Standard of review – Correctness – Evidence – Compliance with legislation Mitten v. College of Alberta Psychologists, [2010] A.J. No. 545, 2010 ABCA 159, Alberta Court of Appeal, ...