Ethical Review Panel

EDPS 604
Alicia, Christina, Gabe, Jacqueline and Marjorie

Presentation Outline
1. Legislation Supporting the Process
2. Reviewing a Dismissal of a Complaint
3. Ethical Principles / Standards of Practice
4. What do you think?
5. Outcomes and Rehabilitative Actions

Legislation Supporting the Process

In Alberta, Psychology is governed by the Health
Professions Act (HPA, 1999)

This is an umbrella act for 29 health professions, including

psychology

It

is separated into 10 parts, with part 10 including

profession specific provisions

This

legislation was set to regulate the profession of

psychology in January 2006

Purpose of Legislation
The purpose of the legislation:
1.Protect the public from incompetent and unethical practice
2.The profession of psychology defines the standards subject to the approval of the
government
3.The College is accountable to the government
4.The goal of the College is to ensure that complaints are handled in a manner consistent with
the principles of natural justice, transparency, objectivity, independence and fairness. This
regulatory body protects the public
5.Due process is afforded to both the complainant and the regulated member
6.The principle of administrative justice applies to all professionals in Canada and requires
considerable resources to ensure compliance
7.Where a psychologist act in a manner that is contrary to the College's guidelines, the
Hearing Tribunal may determine that the psychologist's behaviour constitute a lack of
knowledge, skill or judgment, and therefore is "unprofessional conduct" under the HPA.
8.A psychologist who is the subject of disciplinary proceedings may be asked to explain to
what extent they considered the principles set out in the Code when dealing with a particular
ethical or practical issue.

Review of Dismissal of Complaint

The Complaints Director is the College officially mandated by the Health Professions Act (HPA) to
act on complaints against regulated members. The Council appoints the roster of regulated members to
sit on the Hearing Tribunal and the Complaint Review Committee.

All complaints received since January 2006 are processed under Part 4 for of the Health Professional
Act. The HPA and the Psychologist Profession Regulation constitute the primary legislation that
applies to all members of the College of Alberta Psychologist.

A complainant may apply, in writing with reasons, to the hearings director for a review of the

dismissal of a complaint within 30 days after being notified of the dismissal under section 55 or 67 of
the HPA. Despite section 14(2), on receipt of an application under subsection (1) the hearings director
must notify the investigated person, give a copy of the application to the complaint review committee
and direct the complaints director to give a copy of the report made under section 66 to a complaint
review committee.

Review of Dismissal of Complaint

A complaint review committee may determine whether the submissions to it with respect to a
review under subsection (3) by the complainant and the investigated person must be written, oral
or both.

The complaint review committee, on complying with subsection (3), must

(a) refer the matter to the hearings director for a hearing,
(b)
direct the complaints director to conduct or appoint an investigator to conduct a further
investigation and to prepare a report on the further investigation and submit it to the complaint
review committee for its consideration before acting under clause (a) or (c), or
(c) confirm that the complaint is dismissed if in the opinion of the complaint review committee
(i)
the complaint is trivial or vexatious, or
(ii)
there is insufficient or no evidence of unprofessional conduct.

The complaint review committee must give the complainant and the investigated person written
notification, with reasons, of any action taken under subsection (5).
Within 60 days after receipt of a report under subsection (2), a complaint review committee must
commence a review of the report and the decision to dismiss the complaint.

Investigating the Complaint

Ethical Principles and Standards of Practice

The Four Ethical Principles with their

Respective Values and Standards as Found in
the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists
(CPA, 2000) and the
College of Alberta Psychologists Standards of
Practice (CAP, 2005)

Informed Consent
Dr. Meyer failed to obtain written informed consent.
Although Dr. Meyer explained that it is her practice to
explain the "ground rules" to ensure that everyone
understands the goals of treatment, she was unable to
provide evidence of written consent.
I.21, I.23, I.24 (Canadian Code of Ethics,CPA)
3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5 {3.5.1-3.5.9}, 7.1 {7.1.5} (Standards of Practice, CAP)

General Respect

I.1, I.3 (Canadian Code of Ethics,CPA).

6.3 (Standards of Practice, CAP)

Dr. Meyer failed to demonstrate appropriate respect to Mr. Smith generally, as well as specifically in
written communication. This lack of respect was demonstrated through unflattering notes and words
such as control freak and possible alcoholic?

Fair Treatment/Due Process

Dr. Meyer failed to act in spirit of fair treatment / due
process to Mr. Smith, as portrayed in her refusal to allow
client access to charts, as well as a lack of response to
this request.
I.12 (Canadian Code of Ethics,CPA)
7.1 {7.1.4, 7.1.10}, 12.14 {12.14.1} (Standards of Practice, CAP)

Confidentiality
While covering family counseling "ground rules," Dr.
Meyer failed to obtain written informed consent on the
onset of counselling. Dr. Meyer also failed to obtain written
informed consent before disclosing information gathered in
a session with Mr. and Mrs. Smith only. Information
disclosed pertained to issues of alcoholism on her father's
side of the family.
I.44, I.45 (Canadian Code of Ethics,CPA)
3.1-3.5, 12.2, 12.3, 12.8 (Standards of Practice, CAP)

Minimize Harm
Dr. Meyer's failed to be aware of the need for
discretion when recording information as
previously stated. Dr. Meyer also failed to assure
that discontinuing her services would not cause
harm to her clients.
II.30, II.34 (Canadian Code of Ethics, CPA)
6.3, 9.1 {9.1.1-9.1.5}, 9.2 (Standards of Practice, CAP)

Offset/Correct Harm
Dr. Meyer failed to be open to concerns about perceptions
of harm she was causing. Mr. Smith felt that Dr. Meyer was
ganging up on him and was trying to persuade him that all
of the family's problems were his fault."

II.42 (Canadian Code of Ethics, CPA)

General Caring
Mr. Smith's allegation of being physically pushed out of the
office of Dr. Meyer demonstrates a failure to protect and
promote the welfare of clients. In keeping with this
allegation, Dr. Meyer also failed to avoid doing harm to
clients.
II.1, II.2 (Canadian Code of Ethics, CPA)

Straightforwardness/ Openness
Dr. Meyer failed to explain her reasoning to Mr. Smith,
before disclosing information regarding alcoholism to
Jessica. Dr. Meyer should have explained the reasons for
disclosure, and exactly how the information was useful
to Jessica.
III.16 (Canadian Code of Ethics, CPA)
12.14 (12.14.1, 12.14.2, Standards of Practice, CAP)

What do you think?

Based on the information that we have presented so far,

What do you think would be an appropriate order?

What sanctions would be suitable?

Outcome and Possible Rehabilitative

Actions
DECISION *
Following a review of the detailed Investigators Report and evidence provided during the
hearing, the Review Committee unanimously finds the conduct and behaviour of Dr.
Mary Meyer to be unprofessional.
As noted in the agreed findings Dr. Meyer failed to maintain appropriate record keeping
practices, failed to demonstrate respect towards her client, failed to perform her
professional responsibilities in a candid and forthright manner, failed to respond to her
clients request for further information, failed to protect the welfare of her client and failed
to identify that her services were potentially causing harm to one of her clients. In each
instance her conduct contravened sections of the College of Alberta Psychologists
Standards of Practice (2005) and the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (2000) and
is unacceptable for a member registered to practice as a psychologist in the province of
Alberta.
*Any decision and order made by the Discipline Committee, the Council, a hearing tribunal or the council is
deemed to be a decision and order of a hearing tribunal or the council under the HPA, 1999

Outcome and Possible Rehabilitative

Actions
The Hearing Tribunal orders that the appropriate sanctions in the circumstances of this matter are as
follows:
1. A Reprimand shall issue as against Dr. Meyer.
2. Dr. Meyer is to attend a professional training course in ethics to address issues of unethical practices
in the workplace. The cost of this education shall be the responsibility of Dr. Meyer. The training must
be approved by the CPA Complaints Director.
3. Dr. Meyer will work under supervision for a period of six (6) months. The supervisor is to be
approved by the Complaints Director and monthly reporting must be received from the supervisor. Dr.
Meyer is responsible for the cost of supervision. This supervision shall focus on record keeping,
informed consent, minimizing risk and harm, and interpersonal interactions. (Section 65 HPA RSA
2000. Chapter H 7)
4. Dr. Meyer shall pay a fine in the amount of One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars. The fine shall be
paid within one (1) year of the date of this Consent Order. (Section 49 HPA RSA 2000. Chapter H 7)
5. Dr. Meyer shall pay costs in the amount of Five Thousand Five Hundred ($5,500.00) Dollars. These
costs shall be paid within one (1) year of the date of this Consent Order. (Section 49 HPA RSA 2000.
Chapter H 7)

References
Alberta Legislative Assembly. (1999). Health Professions Act.
Canadian Psychological Association. (2000). Canadian code of ethics for
psychologists (3rd ed.). Ottawa: Author.
College of Alberta Psychologists. (2012). Standards of Practice (draft).
Edmonton: Author.

Questions?