FIRST QUARTER, JUNE 1, 2020 – AUGUST 31, 2020
REFERRALS TO DISCIPLINE
- DR, DARREN SCHMIDT
A referral was made to the Discipline Committee on July 14, 2020. At issue are allegations of professional misconduct in that Dr. Schmidt:
• Failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to section 1, paragraph 2 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation (O.Reg. 801/93), made under the Psychology Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 38. In particular, Dr. Schmidt failed to maintain Standards:
o 2.1 (General Conduct);
o 10.2 (Familiarity with Tests and Techniques); and
o 10.3 (Rendering Opinions);
• Created a false, misleading, or improper record contrary to section 1, paragraph 20 of O.Reg. 801/93; and
• Engaged in conduct or performed an act, in the course of practising the profession, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional, contrary to section 1, paragraph 34 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation (O.Reg. 801/93).
This matter is currently at the pre-hearing conference stage.
- DR. MARTIN ROVERS
A referral was made to the Discipline Committee on June 29, 2020. At issue are allegations of professional misconduct in that Dr. Rovers:
• Failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to subsection 1(2) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation (O.Reg. 801/93), made under the Psychology Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 38. In particular, Dr. Rovers failed to maintain Standards:
o 2.1 (General Conduct);
o 3.1.1 (Meeting Client Needs);
o 4.1.1(1), (3) and (8) (Supervision); and
o 5.1 (Competence);
• Failed to supervise adequately a person who was under his professional responsibility and who was providing a psychological service, contrary to subsection 1(5) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation (O.Reg. 801/93);
• Submitted an account or charge for services that he knew or ought to have known was false or misleading, contrary to subsection 1(23) of O.Reg. 801/93; and
• Engaged in conduct or performed an act, in the course of practising the profession, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(34) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation (O.Reg. 801/93).
This matter is currently at the pre-hearing conference stage.
HEARINGS
- DR. OREN AMITAY
A Hearing was held on August 24, 2020. The Discipline Committee panel made findings of professional misconduct with respect to Dr. Amitay’s failure to adhere to a Specified Continuing Education or Remediation Program (SCERP) ordered by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC). The panel found that Dr. Amitay engaged in conduct or performed an act, in the course of practising the profession, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to section 1, paragraph 34 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation (O.Reg. 801/93).
The panel imposed an Order, which included a reprimand by video conference, that Dr. Amitay successfully complete the SCERP as ordered by the ICRC on December 23, 2015. The panel also ordered that Dr. Amitay complete a one-on-one course on governability and the role of members of a self governing profession. Finally, the panel ordered Dr. Amitay to pay Discipline hearing costs in the amount of $3500 within 30 days of the Discipline Committee’s order.
- DR. MARGARET PEGGI LISWOOD
A Hearing was held on August 24, 2020. The Discipline Committee made findings of professional misconduct in that Dr. Liswood breached professional boundaries and engaged in a personal and sexual relationship with a former patient. The panel found that Dr. Liswood failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to subsection 1(2) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation (O.Reg. 801/93) made under the Psychology Act, 1991. In particular, Dr. Liswood failed to maintain Standards of Professional Conduct (December 2, 1995, Reprinted July 2002):
• 1.1 and 1.5 (General Conduct); and
• 12.5 (Relations with Current or Former Clients).
The panel also found that Dr. Liswood engaged in conduct or performed an act, in the course of practising the profession, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to section 1, paragraph 34 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation (O.Reg. 801/93).
The panel imposed an Order, which included a reprimand by video conference, suspending Dr. Liswood’s Certificate of Registration for a period of 12 months. This suspension would take effect should Dr. Liswood successfully re-apply for a Certificate of Registration. Dr. Liswood is a former member of the College as she has resigned her membership. The panel also ordered that, should Dr. Liswood’s Certificate of Registration be reinstated, she must successfully complete the PROBE Course with an unconditional pass, and successfully complete the PROBE Plus course. Finally, the panel order Dr. Liswood to pay Discipline hearing costs in the amount of $3500 within 30 days of the order.
ONGOING MATTERS
This matter is at the pre-hearing stage.
The Registrar referred an application for reinstatement to the Discipline Committee on March 27, 2019. A hearing has not yet been scheduled for this matter.