CNAR'S NETWORK NEWS eMAGAZINE Issue 06. Winter 2024

Continue Your Professional Development in Regulation

RENEW TODAY!

Thank you for being a valued part of CNAR’s dynamic network of regulatory professionals. Your dedication to excellence is invaluable! We’re very grateful for your ongoing support and engagement.

By continuing your connection with CNAR, you’ll retain your access to professional development in regulation opportunities, cost-saving benefits, and an extensive library of learning resources – all designed to support your critical work in the regulatory field.

Renew with CNAR today to continue accessing our robust library of resources and engage in discussion with your peers! *Organizational level is based on the

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN REGULATION RESOURCES WITH CNAR

Exclusive Access to Learning Resources:

Discover whitepapers, eBooks, event replays, and webinars covering essential topics like AI, DEI, Truth & Reconciliation, governance, and much more.

Expand Your Network:

Connect with peers, share insights, and build relationships through CNAR’s events and discussion forums tailored to regulatory professionals across Canada.

Enhance Your Professional Practice: Take advantage of tools and resources that help you stay ahead of trends, tackle challenges, and achieve regulatory excellence.

RENEW BEFORE JANUARY 1ST, 2025

CNAR Year in Review

VIRTUAL DISCUSSIONS

Three Virtual Discussions in 2024 on the topics of International Mobility and Professional Registration, AI and Technology, and Hot Topics in Testing. This series provided an opportunity to hear from colleagues, associates, and subject matter experts on hot topics in regulation and engage in thoughtful dialogue in a more casual, accessible atmosphere.

WINTER WORKSHOPS

CNAR’s 2024 Winter Workshops on the topics of Right Touch Regulation, Effective Risk Management, and Impactful Leadership provided the regulatory community with in-depth learning experiences where they could delve into these topics with applied focus.

UNLEARN AND LEARN

CNAR’s UnLearn and Learn Series in 2024 focused on Addressing Anti-Black Racism, and Neurodiversity. This series supports the “unlearning” of biases or assumptions individuals unconsciously hold, whether personal biases or those that exist structurally in organizations, systems, and society. The series helps to identify blind spots and determine how to change practices in professional regulation.

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

An additional event in commemoration of International Women’s Day - RISE to Kind Leadership: How Kindness Inspires Inclusivity, with Dr. Bonnie Hayden Cheng

The Regulatory Roundtable (formerly known as Virtual Discussions) will begin in 2025!

The Virtual Discussion forum is getting a new look!

CNAR Year in Review

SPRING WORKSHOPS

The Spring Workshops provide the regulatory community with the opportunity to learn from the expertise of CNAR’s Partner organizations and other organizations involved in the practice of professional regulation.

17TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE

The 17th Annual CNAR Conference in Canada’s picturesque capital brought together over 900 regulators (both in person and online) from coast to coast, welcoming presenters and attendees from Newfoundland to the Yukon. We are very grateful for the contributions of dedicated volunteers, members, speakers, partners, and sponsors who came together to make CNAR 2024 such a success.

LEARNING RESOURCES

CNAR’s exclusive learning resources became more accessible with our updated Portal Resource Centre.

INAUGURAL RESEARCH PROGRAM FINDINGS

Exclusive to CNAR members and produced with the inaugural round of funding to CNAR’s Research Program recipients Tracey L. Adams and Kathleen Leslie, CNAR released this comprehensive report, Public Interest Regulation in a Digital Age: Challenges and Opportunities

UPCOMING 2025 EVENTS

REGULATORY PRACTICE IN MULTI-PROFESSION REGULATION: RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Join us on January 29th for CNAR’s first Regulatory Roundtable event of 2025!

This event is free to all CNAR members and $50 for non-members.

Date: January 29, 2025

Time: 12:00 PM ET – 1:00 PM ET

Venue: Zoom (link to be sent out prior to event)

REGISTER HERE

There are many regulators across Canada that regulate more than one profession, whether in the same field - such as lawyers and paralegals - or in different fields (see recent amalgamations of regulators of several health care professions in British Columbia). Multi-professional regulators may arise from the amalgamation of several existing singleprofession regulators or by taking on a mandate to regulate a new profession.

How can such regulators ensure that multi-professional regulation does not erode their ability to regulate each profession in the public interest? What risks may arise to regulatory practice and what can regulators do to avoid them?

In this Regulatory Roundtable, our panel of speakers come from organizations with different histories of regulating multiple professions. They will explore these questions and share insights from their experiences; the panel will also discuss some of the consequences or impacts of moving from a single-profession regulator to a multi-professional regulatory framework – and what regulators can do to manage potential risks.

While the discussion focuses on multi-professional regulators, the insights shared will also be applicable to regulatory practice by single-profession regulators.

The conversation will be facilitated by:

Bradley Chisholm Principal & Founder The Regulator’s Practice

Bradley founded The Regulator’s Practice in 2022 recognizing the significant pressure and change regulators were facing and wanting to support them through it. As a consultant and executive leader, Bradley has worked with professional regulators for over a decade. Most recently he served as Chief Officer – Strategy and Governance for the BC College of Nurses and Midwives where he supported two amalgamations and the development of a modern governance framework for the amalgamated multiprofessional regulator. Bradley was awarded the Governance Professionals of Canada’s Governance Professional of the Year, in 2021, for his work influencing and supporting regulatory governance modernization across Canada.

Panelists are:

Cara-Marie O’Hagan

Executive Director, Policy, Equity and External Relations, Law Society of Ontario (LSO)

Cara-Marie O’Hagan is the Executive Director of Policy, Equity and External Relations at the Law Society of Ontario (LSO). The division provides benchers with research and analysis of policy options and strategic advice on policy implementation and issues management. As head of the equity and external relations functions at LSO, Cara maintains productive relationships with all levels of government and a wide range of stakeholders. She also oversees the LSO’s equity initiatives, focusing on policies and programs involving the legal professions.

Before joining the Law Society in 2017, Cara was the Vice President of Stakeholder Relations and Member Communications for OMERS, the municipal pension plan in Ontario. Prior to assuming that position, Cara worked as the Director of Policy for several ministers, including the former Attorney General and Minister of Finance.

Cara also served as the director of the Law Research Centre at Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly Ryerson). In that role, she led a team in the winning proposal for the Law Practice Program. The LPP combines online and in-person learning that replicates the law firm experience using actors, simulation tools and real time scenarios.

Cara frequently participates in activities in the regulatory sector. She is a member of the Standing Committee on the Model Code and the National Wellness Steering Committee at the Federation of Law Societies of Canada. Cara is also on the board of the Elizabeth Fry Society, Toronto Chapter.

Carin Plischke Registrar & CEO College of Complementary Health Professionals of British Columbia (CCHPBC)

Carin is the Registrar and CEO of the College of Complementary Health Professionals of British Columbia (CCHPBC), formed through the amalgamation of four regulatory colleges. Prior to this role, Carin was the Registrar and CEO of the College of Occupational Therapists of BC (COTBC). She assumed this position after having served on COTBC’s Board, including as Board Chair. Her other roles have included working as the Chief Operating Officer at the Ministry of Health as well as leadership roles in public and not-forprofit healthcare. She is a member of the Canadian College of Health Leaders, a Leading Practice Reviewer with the Health

Standards Organization, and a surveyor with Accreditation Canada. As an innovative change agent, Carin leads organizational transformations with a visible, approachable leadership style that creates internal support for change. She prioritizes empowering employees to build a positive, inclusive, and diverse workplace culture. Her strong governance background and proven ability to build relationships with external partners helped her build and oversee resilient and innovative organizations.

Stacy Bryan Registrar College of Dental Hygienists of Nova Scotia (CDHNS)

Stacy Bryan attained her Diploma in Dental Hygiene from University of Alberta in 1989 and holds a Master of Arts in Leadership (2014) from Trinity Western University. She has served as Registrar for Nova Scotia’s dental hygiene regulatory body, the College of Dental Hygienists of Nova Scotia, or CDHNS, since September 2017.

Prior to that, Stacy served as Deputy Registrar, and at times as Acting Registrar, for the Alberta dental hygiene regulatory body, now called the Alberta College of Dental Hygienists (ACDH) from 2002 to Sept 2017. She also practiced clinically for over 20 years as a community health dental hygienist, in dental practices, and provided mobile care to residents in longterm care settings in Alberta.

Stacy has taken leadership roles in a variety of professional organizations throughout her professional career, including Chair of the Federation of Dental Hygiene Regulators of Canada (FDHRC) from 2019 to 2021, and she is currently Chair of the NS Regulated Health Professions Network. Her terms as Chair of the FDHRC included the initiation of the amalgamation of the FDHRC and the National Dental Hygiene Certification Board (NDHCB).

Stacy is part of a small group of individuals – including the public and registrant members of dental hygiene, dental technology, and denturism, the Registrar of the NS Denturists Licensing Board (DLBNS) and the Secretary of the Nova Scotia Dental Technicians Association (NSDTA) – that is spearheading the government-mandated amalgamation journey of three professions in Nova Scotia — dental hygiene (828 practising licence holders), dental technology (23 registered dental technicians), and denturism (30 practising licence holders).

THE INTERSECTION AND DISSECTION OF CONTINUING COMPETENCE AND QUALITY ASSURANCE: REFLECTIONS FOR ALL

Join us on February 19th for another CNAR Regulatory Roundtable event!

Continuing competence and quality assurance programs are designed in different ways, with different requirements, and different combinations of elements. With all of the possibilities, the questions still remain – “What makes for effective continuing competence and quality assurance programs? What are best or promising practices?”.

This Regulatory Roundtable will feature a panel from regulators of different professions, with different approaches and programs for continuing competence and quality assurance. Panelists will discuss and share insights from their experiences about important considerations in designing and implementing these programs.

Topics that may be discussed include:

• The intersection between program purpose and language.

• Making program design elements meaningful and impactful.

• Relationships and how to engage registrants to make programs real for them.

• Operational capacity, team skillsets, and alignment to program purpose, design, and implementation.

This event is free to all CNAR members and $50 for non-members.

Date: February 19, 2025

Time: 1:00 PM ET – 2:00 PM ET

Venue: Zoom (link to be sent out prior to event)

REGISTER HERE

The conversation will be facilitated by:

Teresa Bateman Principal Director

Callidus Arte Solutions Ltd.

Teresa Bateman is an instinctive and practical professional, with over 35 years of leadership in health care, focused on regulation, standards, communication and competence development. She is an accomplished public speaker, editor, writer, published author, communicator, and entrepreneur.

Teresa holds a Master of Arts in Professional Communications from Royal Roads University where she studied team dynamics. Through her studies and her work in nursing regulation, she developed a keen interest in leadership, competence development, and organizational culture, collaborating on many projects and presenting throughout Alberta, Canada, and internationally.

In 2022, she formed Callidus Arte Solutions Ltd., a boutique communications and strategy business, providing support to organizations and groups, with a focus on making complex messages simple. Her recent projects have included strategy development, and comprehensive reviews of continuing competence programs and competency profile development, engaging her background in nursing, adult education, research, and regulatory governance.

For fun, Teresa guides a not-for-profit society as their President, using her skills and passion for people to engage volunteers and partners in the community. She also loves travel, nature, and every moment of time possible with her family.

Panelists are:

Alexandra Cavasin Manager, Practice and Quality Assurance Insurance Council of British Columbia

Alexandra Cavasin is the Manager, Practice & Quality Assurance of the Insurance Council of British Columbia. The Insurance Council of British Columbia is the provincial regulator and licensing body overseeing the licensing and professional conduct of more than 50,000 insurance professionals working in the insurance industry, including insurance agents, salespersons, and adjusters, as well as the agencies and firms that employ them. Alexandra has oversight over the day-to-day operations of the practice and quality assurance department and is responsible for the development and management of the practice and audit programs. Her team enhances public protection and provides support to licensees through proactive practice and regulatory guidance, handling inquiries and complaint intake, undertaking licensee practice audits and compliance audits, addressing breaches, and by acting as subject matter experts internally and externally to help guide and inform regulatory practices. Alexandra brings over 20 years of experience in insurance and risk management to her role with the Insurance Council and has held various insurance industry and leadership positions throughout those years.

Susan Taylor, RN, BScN, MBA Director, Quality

Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (RCDSO)

Susan Taylor (she/her) is the Director, Quality with the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (RCDSO). Her role includes supporting the Quality Assurance Committee in its oversight of dentists’ compliance with provincial regulations as well as overseeing the broader goals of the Quality Department, working in collaboration with registrants, external partners, and other departments to improve college processes that drive patient outcomes.

Over the course of her career, Susan has held progressive leadership roles in all health care sectors. She is passionate about designing impactful continuing education approaches that influence change and uses a range of data-driven methodologies and quality improvement techniques to inform instructional design and evaluation. She has had extensive experience in connecting and collaborating at community, regional, and provincial levels to amplify system-level results.

Susan is a registered nurse with the College of Nurses of Ontario and has an undergraduate degree in Nursing and a Master of Business Administration from McMaster University. She is a graduate of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s Improvement Advisor program and is certified as a Lean Six Sigma Blackbelt.

Wanda Squires, LPN Practice Consultant

College of Licensed Practical Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador (CLPNNL) of Nova Scotia (CDHNS)

Wanda Squires is the Practice Consultant with the College of Licensed Practical Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador. Since 2015 Wanda has been providing scope of practice support and continuing education to Licensed Practical Nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Wanda is a 2004 graduate from a Practical Nursing program in Calgary, Alberta. Her practice areas included obstetrics, ambulatory care, day-surgery, emergency, acute care, long term and dementia care, and in a special procedure area.

Wanda is responsible for providing regulatory information to LPNs, RNs, educators, and other stakeholders. She is the lead on the Continuing Competency Program for LPNs and liaises with her counterparts across the country regarding the LPN role and scope of practice in other Canadian jurisdictions.

Wanda has a passion for nursing, and for LPNs practicing to their full scope of practice where it’s safe to do so. When she’s not in the office, you can find her at the rink or on the court watching her children play sports or when the weather is nice, she enjoys gardening and hiking the beautiful Newfoundland outdoors.

UNLEARN AND LEARN SESSION

From Concept to Action: Establishing a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Working Group

CNAR’s UnLearn and Learn Series supports the “UnLearning” of biases or assumptions we unconsciously hold. These may be personal biases; they may also exist structurally in organizations, systems, and society. The series helps to identify blind spots and determine how to change practices.

Join us on March 5, 2025 for an UnLearn and Learn Session on the process of establishing a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) working group in a regulatory environment.

Deborah Adams, Registrar & CEO of the College of Registered Psychotherapists of Ontario (CRPO) and Darcy Belisle, Lawyer and EDI Consultant will present a compelling case study on launching a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Working Group at CRPO, regulator with over 14,000 registrants.

This session will detail the step-by-step process CRPO undertook to establish a working group comprised of registered psychotherapists who are members of equity-deserving communities. Learn about the process, from developing a proto group to drafting a terms of reference, recruiting members, and appointing co-chairs. This practical journey highlights the tools, principles, and leadership strategies utilized to create a sustainable foundation for meaningful engagement and sustainable change. Through storytelling and participant interaction, we will explore how CRPO navigated challenges, engaged equity-deserving community members, and prioritized inclusion at every stage. This session provides actionable insights and tools to help participants establish or enhance DEI initiatives in their own regulatory environments.

Through this session, the aim is to:

1. Provide understanding on the value and impact of creating a DEI working group that amplifies the voices of equity-deserving community members in a regulatory context.

2. Explore practical tools and strategies for forming and maintaining a sustainable DEI committee, including an understanding of the inputs and resources required to undertake this work.

3. Present opportunities for enhancing trust with equity deserving communities and organizational growth that flow from the complex – yet rewarding– process of establishing a DEI working group.

Attendees will have the opportunity to engage with the presenters during the session through interactive, real-time tools and a Q & A period. To participate in these interactive elements, participants can use an internet-enabled phone, tablet, or the web browser on the device being used to join the session.

This event is free to all CNAR members and $50 for non-members.

Date: March 5, 2025

Time: 12:00 PM ET – 1:30 PM ET

Venue: Zoom (link to be sent out prior to event)

Deborah Adams Registrar & CEO College of Registered Psychotherapists of Ontario (CRPO)

Deborah holds a Master of Health Science in Health Administration from the University of Toronto. She has had professional experience in both primary care and professional regulation. Prior to being appointed the Registrar/CEO of the College of Psychotherapists of Ontario in 2017, Deborah had the privilege of being the administrative lead for both palliative care and family medicine for Sinai Health and the registrar at the College of Midwives of Ontario. Deborah is committed to supporting staff, Council and committees in a progressive approach to governance and core regulatory work.

Darcy Belisle Lawyer and Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Consultant

Darcy Belisle is a results-driven lawyer and certified equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) professional who is dedicated to creating meaningful and sustainable change within organizations.

Over the past decade, his work has focused on inclusionrelated policy, having delivered hundreds of rights and DEI education sessions as an advisor with the Centre for Human Rights, Equity, and Inclusion at York University; acting as Senior Counsel, Indigenous Initiatives, with the Law Society of Ontario; holding a number of policy roles with the Government of Ontario, as well as a staff lawyer position at Toronto’s Aboriginal Legal Services clinic.

In 2021, Darcy established an independent consultancy, which has enabled him to support self-regulating organizations through DEI committee development, training, and other strategic opportunities aimed at creating inclusive, broad-scale, and lasting systemic change.

Elevating Relationship Practices in Regulation

The regulation of professions involves a myriad of relationships from both within and without the organization.

CNAR’s 2025 Winter Workshop Series aims to support aim to support regulators with elevating relationship practices in specific areas related to governance and leadership, cross-jurisdiction and inter-regulatory collaboration, and public engagement.

All workshops will take place virtually on an online platform. Pricing is per workshop per person. Members, Partners, and Suppliers can enjoy discounted pricing. CNAR’S 2025 WINTER WORKSHOP SERIES

PRICING IS PER PERSON, PER WORKSHOP

• Members, Partners, and Suppliers: $220

• Non-Members: $260

REGISTER HERE

WINTER WORKSHOP 1

Effective Board and Staff Relations: Partnering in Leadership

Effective relationships between boards and staff are essential for an organization’s success, shaping its leadership and culture. Building and maintaining these constructive relationships requires ongoing effort, especially with the changes brought by annual board elections, appointments, and shifts in executive management. While each has distinct roles, collaboration is key to achieving shared goals. How can boards and staff work together effectively in regulatory leadership that serves and protects the public interest? What are best and promising practices?

Shona McGlashan of McGlashan Consulting Inc. will open this workshop with an interactive session Aligning the Stars: Effective Board and Management Dynamics. This session will benefit anyone who serves on, or works with, boards of directors. We’ll discuss how to create a joint leadership culture that advances your organization’s goals, what boards want from management, and what management wants from their boards. We’ll consider strategies and actions for effective decision-making, what builds trust in the boardroom, and what can disrupt it. Attendees will leave the session with an appreciation of how board culture, information flows, and governance processes impact decision-making. Attendees will also take away pragmatic suggestions for board and management actions and behaviours that build a strong and collaborative governance culture.

Following the opening session, a panel of members from the regulatory community will engage in discussion about effective board and staff relationships. Drawing from their work and experience in different roles and different sizes of regulatory organizations, the panelists will share insights, strategies, and actions for what makes for

Date: Thursday, February 6, 2025

Time: 12:00 – 3:00 pm ET

Venue: Virtual (link to be provided to registrants closer to the event date)

Who should attend? This workshop is open to anyone from the regulatory community. It will be of particular interest to chairs, vice chairs, and members of regulatory boards and committees, executive directors, registrars and others in management roles, and staff whose work supports boards and committees, as well as anyone interested in regulatory governance and leadership practices.

effective board and staff relations in the regulatory context. Panelists will draw on circumstances that have gone well and when challenges have arisen. Attendees will have the opportunity to engage with the panelists in a Q & A. The discussion will be moderated by Sam Lanctin, Principal, Sam Lanctin Consultant and CNAR Board Director, with panelists: Brian Munday, Executive Director, Alberta Land Surveyors’ Association (ALSA), Claudette Marie Warren, Chair, College of Massage Therapists of Newfoundland and Labrador (CMTNL), Lara Thacker, Governance Specialist, Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (RCDSO), and Ruth McHugh, Chair, College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents (CPATA) and Chair, CPA Alberta.

Shona McGlashan Principal McGlashan Consulting Inc.

Shona McGlashan FCG GPC.D ICD.D (she/they) is the principal at McGlashan Consulting Inc., specializing in values-based governance, equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in leadership, and workplace mental health and wellbeing. She is a senior leader with over 25 years’ experience heading governance, public affairs, diversity and inclusion, and workplace mental health functions on both sides of the Atlantic. She is a Fellow of the Chartered Governance Institute, a governance thought leader, and a sought-after speaker and facilitator. She is the recipient of Governance Professionals of Canada’s 2023 Governance Professional of the Year award.

Shona’s most recent executive roles were VP Governance & Corporate Secretary at Vancity Credit Union, where she also led the organization’s mental health strategy, and Chief Governance Officer at Mountain Equipment Co-op. She began her career advising the Speaker, MPs, and parliamentary committees in the UK’s House of Commons. Shona now provides strategic governance advice to boards and executive teams across the gamut of public and private sectors, including credit unions, co-operatives, regulatory bodies, not-for-profits, professional associations and other values-led organizations.

As principal at McGlashan Consulting Inc., Shona supports organizations in the following areas:

• Governance: Governance advisory services with an inclusion lens, including Inclusive Board Assessments, chair and director coaching, governance evaluations, and governance insights for new directors and NFP boards.

• Equity, diversity, and inclusion in leadership: Strategy advisory and education for boards and executive teams.

• Workplace mental health and wellbeing: Mental health strategy advisory services; workshops for leaders and individual contributors.

Shona is the board chair at Pain BC and vice-chair and Governance Committee chair at Bard on the Beach. She is a parent of teenagers, voracious reader, Gaelic learner, and student of mindfulness.

Sam Lanctin

Principal

Sam Lanctin Consultant

Sam Lanctin is the former Registrar of the New Brunswick College of Pharmacists. A pharmacist by profession, Sam began his career in community pharmacy, operating multiple pharmacies over 10+ years.

Since early in his career, Sam has been involved in a wide array of pharmacy, community, and volunteer organizations at the local, provincial, national, and international levels. His extensive participation on boards, committees, and tasks forces has helped develop a keen and lasting interest in organizational governance matters.

Building on more than 25 years of leadership experience, Sam is now an independent consultant, providing a variety of advisory services to professional regulatory authorities, professional associations, and other organizations, in the areas of governance, planning, strategy, board relations, policy development, and leadership, among others.

Sam holds a Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy degree from Dalhousie University and an MBA from the Université de Moncton. He also earned the Director designation from the Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD.D). He also serves as a Director on CNAR’s Board.

Brian Munday Executive Director

Alberta Land Surveyors’ Association (ALSA)

Brian Munday is the Executive Director of the Alberta Land Surveyors’ Association. Brian is not a land surveyor himself but has a business background holding a Bachelor of Commerce degree and an MBA.

He has been involved in the land survey profession since 1992 when he joined the Association of Ontario Land Surveyors and then the Canadian Council of Land Surveyors in 1995 and has been with the Alberta Land Surveyors’ Association since 1997.

In his current position, Brian has worked with 28 presidents and over 80 other governing body members. Brian has navigated their different approaches to being on a Council and their different expectations of what he should be doing – all the while the government’s and the public’s attitude toward regulatory bodies has changed.

Claudette Marie Warren, BScHKin, RMT Chair

College of Massage Therapists of Newfoundland and Labrador (CMTNL)

Claudette Marie Warren has been practicing Massage Therapy since 2006, integrating her knowledge of Kinesiology from her Bachelorette Degree of Science in Human Kinetics from Saint Francis Xavier University (2002) within her clinical practice. She studied her craft at the Halifax Campus of the Canadian College of Massage and Hydrotherapy and moved to Mount Pearl to become a Registered Massage Therapist in Newfoundland.

Claudette was nominated and elected to the College of Massage Therapists of Newfoundland and Labrador (CMTNL) Board of Directors in January 2020, as a Director and Chair of Complaints and Discipline. Since April 2022, she has been serving as Chair of CMTNL’s Board.

In addition to CMTNL Board duties, Claudette has played a part in the development of CMTNL’s examination process, including multiple choice question development and observed structured clinical exam (OSCE) stem development. She also served as an OSCE examiner. Prior to being a part of the OSCE examination process, Claudette was Lead Instructor of one of the province’s massage therapy programs for two and a half years. She facilitated both theory and practical applications with students in classroom, clinical, and outreach settings.

Prior to her terms with the CMTNL, Claudette served on the Board of Directors of the Newfoundland and Labrador Massage Therapists’ Association (NLMTA), the provincial professional association.

Claudette also holds clinical practice in both Newfoundland (Mount Pearl) and in Labrador (Labrador City). She is a strong advocate for both trauma-informed and evidenceinformed clinical practice settings within massage therapy. Claudette feels that education standards for the entry-level therapist, continued education for the profession, and evidence-informed best practices are key aspects of the future growth within the profession.

Lara Thacker Governance Specialist

Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (RCDSO)

Lara Thacker (she/her) is the Governance Specialist at the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (RCDSO) and currently leads the RCDSO’s Governance Review and Modernization Strategic Project. She provides support to the RCDSO’s Registrar, Board, and Governance Committee to ensure effective and efficient governance.

Lara has over 18 years of experience in health regulation, holding senior positions in regulatory bodies, including over

nine years as the Director, Quality Assurance at the College of Kinesiologists of Ontario.

Lara’s career has focused on putting people at the centre through inclusion, collaboration, and consultation to achieve successful program development and organizational transformation.

Lara holds a Master of Public Administration from Queen’s University, and currently serves on the Town of Caledon’s Appeal Board.

Ruth McHugh, MBA, FCPA, FCMA, ICD.D – Corporate Director Chair, College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents (CPATA) Chair, CPA Alberta

Ruth McHugh is a professional accountant, a recognized FCPA, and holds an MBA from Edinburgh, Scotland. Ruth also holds the ICD.D designation from the Institute of Corporate Directors and the iGP from the Council of Canadian Innovators Innovation Governance Program.

Ruth has held C-Suite roles in the public, private. and not for profit sectors. Now in private practice, Ruth previously led executive oversight of Alberta’s Legislative Assembly Office and has served as Chief Operating Officer for the Office of the Auditor General of Alberta.

Ruth is an experienced international corporate director, advising and serving on boards with a global focus at the nexus of innovation, regulation, and governance.

Collaboration to Address Complex Issues: Leveraging Connections, Opportunities, and Creative Team Strategies

Date: Thursday, February 27, 2025

Time: 12:00 – 3:00 pm ET

Venue: Virtual (link to be provided to registrants closer to the event date)

Who should attend? This workshop is open to anyone from the regulatory community. It will be of particular interest to:

• Individuals in any role – senior leaders, managers, and staff – involved in, or preparing for, collaborative regulatory projects, whether with other regulatory bodies, other stakeholder groups, or across teams within the same organization.

• Individuals from any sized regulator, but especially small to medium sized regulators, who are facing resource constraints and are looking for practical strategies and ways to maximize the resources they have through collaboration for meaningful impact.

• Individuals from national federations/ associations of provincial and territorial regulatory bodies who bring those regulators together for a profession to address common issues.

• Anyone who is working on addressing complex issues with others, whether internal or external to the organization, and is looking for fresh ideas and strategies to solve problems and move forward in the work.

Regulators across professions and jurisdictions are facing many shared and complex issues. These include pressures to address access to services and labour shortages in certain sectors, expectations to carry out processes faster without undermining public protection safeguards, and grappling with the unknown of rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, and more! The opportunities and options for taking action are influenced in part by differing views of what a regulator’s role and mandate includes, and the parameters or constraints they operate within.

To address common issues, regulators are building relationships and collaborating with each other and other stakeholder groups. This workshop aims to support regulators in elevating their practices in collaborative problem solving.

Dr. Jennifer Walinga, Professor, School of Communication and Culture, Royal Roads University will open with an engaging, interactive session From Barriers to Breakthroughs. Through this practical, action-oriented session,

regulators will learn techniques and strategies for collaborative approaches to address complex issues. We will learn about:

• The importance and how to properly define a problem. Working together to find solutions relies on being able to define and agree on what the problem actually is!

• Shifting perspectives from barriers to realities. There are aspects of regulation that can’t be changed and can feel like barriers to addressing issues and achieving solutions. Shifting mindsets can open opportunities not previously seen!

• A toolbox of strategies and methods for collaborative dialogue and problem-solving. Expand the tools you can use to work together and tackle complex issues! This session will include an interactive presentation, small group discussion (optional), and Q & A.

In the second part of the workshop, a panel from the regulatory community will engage in discussion about regulatory collaboration to address complex issues. Panelists will share insights, and practical strategies and solutions, from collaborative initiatives they have been involved in to tackle common issues facing regulators on complex matters. Attendees will have the opportunity to engage with the panelists during the closing Q & A. Panel information will be forthcoming.

Dr. Jennifer Walinga

Professor School of Communication and Culture, Royal Roads University

An educator for over 35 years, Dr. Jennifer Walinga is a professor of organizational communication, including leadership communication, culture development, group facilitation, strategic planning, and decision-making. Her research and consulting are grounded in theories of optimal performance, creative insight, and values-based leadership. Through her consulting work, she blends organizational, educational, and sport psychology and has developed interventions designed to penetrate barriers, confront the challenges of change, and unlock innovative solutions. Dr. Walinga is currently facilitating projects in both the public and private sectors with a special emphasis on health and education. A member of Canada’s Commonwealth, World, and Olympic Championship rowing teams and Canada’s Sports Hall of Famer, Dr. Walinga draws heavily upon her experience as an elite athlete when facilitating personal and organizational performance.

Examples of Defensible Psychometric Exam Processes

CNAR is very pleased to present our latest white paper, a companion piece to our previously released “Overview of Defensible Psychometric Exam Processes.” The earlier white paper provided an overview of key aspects for having a defensible highstakes exam program, with focus on eight stages. As acknowledged in that white paper, the details of each stage may vary depending on the type of assessment being developed. Organizations have different options for addressing the elements in each stage.

To help readers gain a deeper understanding of the stages, this white paper provides examples of

how testing organizations approached a particular stage of defensible high-stakes exam programs. The examples serve as snapshots of some of the different approaches that are possible given the variations that exist between types of assessments. The focus in this white paper is on the examples. For information about what each stage is about, readers are to refer to the earlier white paper.

What should – or could – be the regulatory

response to Artificial Intelligence?

Dr. Zubin Austin, Professor, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy and the Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation – Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto & Principal Investigator of the CNAR-funded research project “Future Of REgulation in thiS age of IntelliGent macHines and Technologies (FORESIGHT-2)”

Artificial intelligence (AI) is growing in its prominence and ubiquity in everyday life. From face-scanning applications that reduce the need for passwords on phones to novel search engines (now called “answer engines”) like Perplexity, the rise of AI in everyday life and widely used consumer products raises important social, legal, and ethical questions. Within regulated professions, the dissemination of AI across various domains of professional practice is also accelerating in ways that are seen and unseen by patients/clients and practitioners themselves. As a result, many regulators have now begun to assess if and how they should be responding to this rapid evolution in the public interest.

Artificial intelligence is frequently described as the use of computers and technologies to perform activities and tasks traditionally requiring human intelligence. An important distinction is made between “human-in-the-loop” (HiL) and “human-outof-the-loop” (HoL) technologies based on whether final decision-making responsibility continues to rest with the human user of the AI technology, or whether actions can be taken without human oversight or approval. For example, a calculator may perform a mathematical task but still requires a human being to do something with the results displayed on the screen. In contrast, AI currently exists that allows buy-and-sell decisions for stock market trading to be made based on mathematical calculations without human oversight or approval.

Many regulated professionals are already using tools that have both HiL and HoL AI components – whether these professionals are aware of it or not. This has lead to calls for regulators to become more directly involved in establishing guardrails for responsible adoption of AI in professional practice in ways that protect public safety and interests.

Mindful of the experience of social media over the last 20 years, there are concerns that failure to begin to actively regulate AI at this early, nascent stage will mean that the technology will evolve in a regulatory vacuum and therefore be impossible to contain and manage when it grows in the ways social media has expanded.

What should – or can – regulators be doing now to support safe and responsible adoption of AI in professional work? Despite its ubiquity and importance, there is relatively little regulatory research that has been undertaken to address this important question. Recently, the Canadian Network for Agencies of Regulation (CNAR) awarded funding to the Austin research laboratory at the University of Toronto to explore this issue. The focus of this work is to determine existing best and promising future practices with respect to regulation of AI in professional work, in an effort to open discussion within the regulatory community on how to proceed with this issue. Preliminary findings of this research are now emerging, with important implications for regulators, professionals, and those clients/patients they both serve. Key preliminary findings include:

1

RIGHT-TOUCH PROACTIVE REGULATION OF AI SHOULD BE CONSIDERED

Given that AI technologies (particularly HoL-AI) is still in its infancy, there are significant concerns that heavy-handed prescriptive regulation at this stage will stifle innovation and undermine attempts to unleash its full potential. Conversely, the current regulatory vacuum with respect to AI may be problematic, and set the stage for greater potential social harms, as has been seen with the unregulated expansion of social media. Finding ways of using regulatory guardrails now – to help guide the responsible and safe evolution of the technology itself – will be important, rather than waiting for the technology to mature then retrospectively attempting

to institute guardrails. Such regulatory guardrails must be judiciously developed so as not to stifle innovation but instead to ensure principles of equity, transparency, openness, and fairness are maintained in the public interest.

2

“REGULATION” OF AI IN PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE WILL LIKELY INVOLVE MULTIPLE PARTIES

Regulatory bodies (“colleges”) are only one form of regulation, and these bodies will need to work constructively and collaboratively with a large number of other legal and social systems to establish appropriate guardrails. Currently, the use of tort law and legal systems as both a deterrent to overreach and a remedy for harm caused by AI is central to the regulatory guardrail system. Legal action is, however, costly and time consuming and not well suited to a patient/client safety agenda. Similarly, the use of “industry standards” associations, or “accreditation bodies” as part of the regulatory quilt have an important albeit in complete role to play in protecting public interests. Ultimately, the scale of AI, the for-profit motivation of the technology industry, and the rapid pace of evolution of systems all means that regulatory bodies will need to work in concert with other societal and legal safeguarding instruments and institutions to contain AI in ways that allow it to evolve in the public interest.

3

THE TIME FOR REGULATORY BODY INVOLVEMENT WILL BE ACCELERATED BY HOL-AI

Most (but not all) AI currently used by professionals can be categorized as HiL, meaning the human

professional still has ultimate decision-making control. From a regulatory perspective this means that the human professional is still subject to their regulatory body’s scrutiny should problems arise. Traditionally, regulatory bodies have focused their attention on people who perform certain professional or restricted acts. As HoL-AI evolves and technology performs these acts independently, there are important unresolved jurisdictional questions as to whether regulatory bodies can regulate technology in addition to people. Interviews with key informants for this research project have suggested that most regulators believe the time to impose regulation of AI will coincide with the rise of HoL-AI; until then, most appear satisfied that existing regulatory structures focused on professionals are sufficient to prevent harm associated with HiL-AI.

4

A PRINCIPLE BASED (RATHER THAN RULE BASED) APPROACH TO REGULATION

This research project has undertaken reviews of the literature, consultations with key stakeholders and experts from around the world, and interviews with regulators to determine options and alternatives for regulators. The evolving consensus from this work has been that a rigid rules-based approach will not only stifle technological innovation, but it will also simply be unworkable. Instead, focusing on core principles to support equitable, safe, and responsible adoption of AI should be adopted instead. Work is currently underway to more clearly define these, but certain principles have emerged already. For example, disclosure and consent (so patients/clients are aware), transparency (so practitioners are aware), and safety standardization have been identified as important guardrails for regulators to consider.

This project will be sharing results during 2025, particularly with respect to the principles of interest that can guide regulatory responses. Without CNAR’s support through its research grant program,

research such as this that examines issues of societal importance through a regulatory lens would not be possible. The Austin Lab expresses its gratitude to CNAR for supporting this work and for providing opportunities to disseminate early findings.

CNAR will be opening a new round of funding in 2025 under its Research Program and will welcome proposals from qualified researchers to conduct research in the field of professional regulation in the public interest. In addition to creating an insightful paper available to the Canadian professional regulatory community, the successful research team will have the opportunity to present research findings to the community at a CNAR event. The researcher can also elect to seek publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

The call for proposals will be released in January 2025.

Call for Conference Speakers to be released in January 2025!

CNAR 2025 will take place October 20th to 22nd in Calgary, Alberta. The in-person event has sold out for two consecutive years, and is again expected to be the mustattend premier event in Canadian professional regulation!

CNAR is committed to presenting diverse topics and learning opportunities for both beginner and advanced regulators from all across Canada. We welcome speakers who can share their experience in professional self-regulation, whether ground-breaking successes or crises that resulted in lessons learned.

Proposals from both within and outside CNAR’s member and Partner community are welcome.

The 2025 Conference Planning Committee will review every valid and complete proposal. The decision will be made according to:

• Completeness: Submissions including “TBDs” with regard to content or Speakers will not be sent to the Committee for consideration. Ensure your session description is clear, concise, and has an easily comprehensible key message.

• Originality: Topics not widely discussed within the regulatory community at other conferences or presented by the same speaker at other conferences will be more highly rated.

• Level of Interest to Target Audience: Presentation suggestions should be compelling, current, and relevant to the Canadian regulatory community.

• Topic: Topic should be compelling and applicable on a national level and/or across regulatory professions.

• Vendors: Vendors should be partnered with a regulator.

• Geography: CNAR is looking for content representing regulators from across Canada.

• Panel Presentations: CNAR delegates want to hear from various organizations and appreciate different perspectives. Panel presentations and discussions are considered stronger by the Committee than single presenters.

• Diversity: CNAR is looking for geographic and professional diversity, as well as minority voices.

Thank you to CNAR’s Corporate Partners for your ongoing support!

AI in testing – Moving from Theory to Practice

Everyone is talking about AI. It’s on the agenda at every conference and event. But a lot of these discussions are highly theoretical. Is AI an opportunity or a threat? What are the risks and ethical implications? While all these questions around the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ of AI are of course important, we also need to pay attention to the ‘what’. If we don’t, testing organizations and regulators risk getting left behind in a rapidly evolving environment.

In the testing industry, for example, what are the points in the assessment lifecycle where deploying AI will be beneficial for testing organizations and test takers? Looking beyond existing systems and processes, what areas can we look at afresh and completely transform with AI?

In 2025, the practical application of AI will be an important focus for the testing industry, regulators, and the team at PSI, as well as the partners we work with. We’ve already made exciting progress in 2024 with groundbreaking advancements across three key areas of the assessment lifecycle.

1

AI-POWERED TEST PREPARATION

AI is transforming test preparation, moving us from basic practice tests to tailored, adaptive experiences. This gives test takers much more than just a score, with performance feedback that is clear, accessible and accommodating to diverse needs.

Real-time AI is adapting test taker pathways to reinforce user strengths and address areas for improvement, enhancing engagement through gamified features like badges and leaderboards. For test takers, these new test preparation tools help them reach their full potential, while significantly reducing test day anxiety.

For testing organizations, using AI makes the process for developing test preparation materials both fast and efficient. It’s also an opportunity to monetize test preparation with fully branded practice test apps on the App Store, customized to individual programs. We’ve seen that a third of test takers who purchase and complete a practice test will go on to buy an available

test prep solution. And we’ve also seen that those who engage with our enhanced test prep are much more likely to pass on their next attempt than those who just engage in practice tests.

What’s more, test preparation is a great place to start for any organizations cautious about using AI to develop live test content. If you’d like to find out more about AI-powered test prep, a recent episode of the PSI Tried and Tested podcast with Yermie Cohen, founder of Memorang, is a good place to start.

2

AI-DRIVEN TEST DEVELOPMENT

The benefits of AI-driven test content development are clear. A larger and more diverse bank of test items reduces the risk of item exposure and increases test security. But we know there are understandable concerns about validity, accuracy and security. I discussed this topic in another episode of the PSI Tried and Tested podcast with Marc Weinstein, Managing Attorney and expert in the legal risks associated with the use of AI in testing.

It’s still important that we use AI alongside Subject Matter Experts (SME) review to ensure accuracy and relevance. A human-in-the-loop process means testing organizations benefit from rapid, scalable item creation with the quality assurance of human collaboration and oversight. AI is used for routine tasks, while SMEs are empowered as ‘content architects’ to guide, verify and refine test content – ensuring every item meets the required standards. SMEs spend time on item review, rather than item creation.

An added benefit of AI-driven test content development is continuous data-driven improvement, with engagement insights supporting the ongoing refinement of item quality.

3

AI-ENHANCED TEST SECURITY

It’s not enough to respond to known test security threats. While tried and tested security methods such

as a lockdown browser shouldn’t be ignored, AI can be deployed to proactively identify and counteract emerging threats. This allows us to stay ahead of escalating and changing risks, such as digital forgeries and deepfakes.

Deepfakes, for example, have surged in recent years with a 3,000% increase from 2022 to 2023, according to the 2025 Identity Fraud Report from PSI partner Entrust. Document fraud has also skyrocketed. Digital forgeries have doubled to 34.8% of all document fraud attempts in the last six months, up from 16.7% last year.

As the technology used to commit malpractice continues to advance, test integrity can be protected with additional layers:

• Deepfake detection: use AI-driven detection to identify and mitigate deepfake threats.

• Biometric identity checks: confirm test taker identify with face, voice and keystroke recognition.

• AI-enabled security checks: apply speech similarity and room similarity detectors.

• Generative AI response detector: identify unauthorized use of ChatGPT and other tools.

As with test content creation, human oversight is still important in test security processes. The involvement of online proctors and human reviews of biometric similarities, for example, put safeguards in place to ensure AI is used responsibly and fairly.

Future proof to AI

When applied in these ways, AI goes beyond testing to equip test takers with the preparation they need to perform at their best on test day. For testing organizations, there are more ways to implement AI across the assessment lifecycle, including for secure test delivery – and we are uncovering new opportunities all the time. But whether AI is used to scale-up content generation or enhance test security, these AI advancements allow rapid transformation of current systems. Taking AI from the theoretical to the practical and future proofing your organization for AI.

What are Vexatious Complaints + What Can Regulators Do About Them?

By Vivan Stevenson, KC + Francesca Ghossein, Field Law

Regulators have noted an increase in complaints generally including complaints which are sometimes referred to as “frivolous” or “vexatious”. Examples of the latter complaints are those made by the same party or parties systematically against all staff and/ or counsel involved in the litigant’s matter on the regulator’s end, or new and repeated complaints about the same factual situation.

The courts have mechanisms for dealing with parties who pursue these types of claims in the court system,

notably: vexatious litigant orders and Civil Practice

Note 7 (CPN7) procedure. We have previously written about the use of the CPN7 procedure as it relates to claims against regulators. But what can regulators do themselves in similar situations? What powers does a regulator have to control its own internal process as it relates to vexatious complaints or complainants?

The authority of a regulator to deal with vexatious complaints comes from its governing legislation. Some statutes allow the regulator simply to refuse to accept complaints that are vexatious, frivolous, made in bad faith, or otherwise an abuse of process. Once the complaints director identifies the complaint as one that falls within the description in the statute, the complaints director can simply refuse to accept and

review it. Other statutes may provide that this type of claim can be dismissed, and others may be silent as it relates to vexatious complaints. Where the only option under statute is dismissal, this does not address the two main reasons why regulators’ resources are strained as a result of vexatious complaints: first, this option still requires the regulator to review the complaint in detail and provide cogent reasons for dismissal, and second, most statutes allow for those dismissals to be appealed.

HOW TO DETERMINE IF A COMPLAINT IS FRIVOLOUS OR VEXATIOUS?

The terminology used to describe these types of unmeritorious complaints varies from one statute to another, but the wording that is consistently used is “trivial”, “frivolous”, “vexatious”, “made in bad faith”, “abuse of process”, or some combination of those terms. The terms overlap and may be interpreted slightly differently in different jurisdictions but as general guidance:

“Frivolous” and “trivial” are both terms that relate to the importance, seriousness, or legal or factual basis for a complaint. Ask yourself: is the matter so minor that it does not warrant any of the regulator’s resources be spent on it?

“Vexatious”, “bad faith” and “abuse of process” tend to relate to the purpose or intent of the complaint. They generally describe complaints that are motivated by ill-will, animosity, improper purposes and intended to vex, harass, or seek to relitigate the same issue hoping for a different result. Ask yourself: is the complaint intended to annoy or embarrass? Has this issue been adjudicated before? Is the complainant knowingly asking for an outcome that is not possible?

Vexatious complaints often clearly lack a factual basis. That alone, however, is not sufficient to render them vexatious. It is important for the regulator to properly assess whether it is simply a case of the complaint not containing sufficient evidence of unprofessional conduct, and deal with it on that basis.

In Catford v. The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, the Court identified a few factors that

are relevant to the determination of whether a claim is frivolous or vexatious, and they include:

• whether the situation where the dispute in which the conduct occurred is a personal one,

• whether the conduct complained of relates to the practice of the profession,

• whether there are any other unsuccessful proceedings (including against third parties) in which similar issues were or are raised: “the previous complaint does not have to be identical to fit the criteria; it is sufficient if the previous complaint is about essentially the same issue.”

• whether there is a better forum for the complainant to have raised the concerns, and

• whether the complaint appears to be made for an ulterior or improper purpose.

In Catford, the Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “Committee”) decided not to proceed with reviewing a complaint for the following reasons: the behaviour complained of did not relate to the practice of medicine, there was no reasonable prospect of the Committee taking action, and the Committee was not the appropriate forum to undertake the review. The complainant appealed the Committee’s decision to the Board, who confirmed the Committee’s decision, relying on a provision of the Health Professions Procedural Code (Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professionals Act of Ontario), which allowed the Board to refuse to review a complaint if it found to be “frivolous, vexatious, made in bad faith, moot or otherwise an abuse of process”. The complaint in this case was described as clearly having no merit, seeking to relitigate a claim already decided and having been brought for an improper purpose.

WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU’VE DEEMED A COMPLAINT FRIVOLOUS OR VEXATIOUS?

Once a regulator decides that a complaint might fall under one or more of these categories, the best course of action to take depends on the regulator’s statutory authority. As indicated at the outset, some regulators’ statutes permit them to refuse to accept frivolous or vexatious complaints altogether, saving them the

time and expense involved in providing reasons for dismissal and from being caught in a potentially never-ending loop of requests to have their dismissals reviewed. As an example, the legislation in Catford (cited above) gave the Complaints Committee (and the Review Board) the power to refuse to accept a complaint that is “frivolous, vexatious, made in bad faith, moot or otherwise an abuse of process”, with some procedural safeguards: if the committee considers a complaint to fall under that category, it must give the complainant and the member notice that it intends to take no action with respect to the complaint and give them the right to make written submissions with 30 days after receiving the notice. If the panel is satisfied, after considering the written submissions, that a complaint was unmeritorious, the panel shall not take action with respect to the complaint.

Other statutes limit a regulator’s ability to refuse to accept or deal with a complaint even if it is frivolous or vexatious. That is the case in the Health Professions Act (HPA) in Alberta, for example, as section 55(2)(e) only allows regulators to dismiss complaints that are trivial or vexatious. A complaints director operating under the HPA may choose to dismiss a complaint which is potentially trivial or vexatious on the basis of insufficient evidence of unprofessional conduct rather than finding the complaint trivial or vexatious, to avoid the risk of a review committee finding that characterization unreasonable or to take into consideration complainant sensitivities and other contextual factors.

Even where regulators are constrained by their legislation in this way, one possible recourse for the regulator is to seek assistance from the courts by, for example, requesting that a court issue a “vexatious litigant” order requiring a repeat complainant to seek leave from the court before filing any new complaints or appeals with the regulator. The court has said that such assistance is available where it is “essential to the proper administration of justice” (to “avoid an injustice”), where the body in question is “powerless to act” in relation to the injustice, and so long as the court intervention does not contravene existing legislation: Carter v Alberta (Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General), 2019 ABQB 491. The success

of such a request to the courts will depend on the wording of the specific statute and the actions that the regulator can show it has taken to try and protect its own process from abuse. Where a regulator has exerted all of its authority as granted to it by statute, and is still not able to adequately shield itself and protect its resources from abusive complaints and complainants, the option of seeking assistance from the courts (albeit potentially costly and somewhat cumbersome) is worth exploring.

The last category of statutes are those that can be unclear or silent as to how the regulator can and should deal with vexatious complaints under its complaints process. In those cases, depending on the language of the statute as a whole, a regulator could explore an argument that it has implied authority to enact measures to quickly dispose of complaints that are deemed vexatious. An example of a statute that while silent on the treatment of vexatious complaints, grants a statutory delegate broad powers to control its process is the Alberta Human Rights Act (The Human Rights Commission is not a regulator, but as an administrative tribunal whose powers are also delegated by statute, its governing statute serves as a relevant example). Section 17(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act empowers the Commission to make bylaws respecting “procedural matters related to the handling of complaints”. The Court commented that there was “no reason to read that power narrowly, so as to exclude an ability to control vexatious complaints1”.

Regulators have noted an increase in complaints overall, including those sometimes labelled as “frivolous” or “vexatious.” Since these complaints often consume a disproportionate amount of resources, regulators are encouraged to seek guidance on managing their impact on the complaints process. Contact Vivian Stevenson, KC, Francesca Ghossein, or any member of Field Law’s Professional Regulatory Group for assistance in determining the scope of authority to address such complaints and exploring creative solutions to streamline complaint management.

This article has been published with the permission of Field Law, and may be republished only with the consent of Field Law. “Field Law” is a registered trademark of Field LLP.

1 Makis v Alberta Health Services, 2020 ABCA 168 at para 36.

Managing the High-Profile Investigation

By Dean Benard, Benard + Associates

Occasionally, we get cases that are described to us as “high profile,” “potentially scandalous,” or “controversial.” When these cases come along, stakeholders often have great concerns that everything is done perfectly with no room for criticism. When I hear this, I think, “Does that mean our usual investigation is not perfect?” Of course, this isn’t what people are implying, but it is reflective of the anxiety provoked by the involvement

of high-profile people, the increased risk associated with some cases, or the potential for media attention. The biggest mistake that can be made in these circumstances is to move away from your standard practices. The key is to stick to what you do best and not to second guess your approach because of the people involved or the risk associated with the case. Every investigation should adhere to best practices and the fundamental principles of investigation that, if maintained, will ensure the investigation will withstand scrutiny, even unfair scrutiny. These principles center on confidentiality, fairness, and maintaining an unbiased approach.

APPROPRIATELY MAINTAINING CONFIDENTIALITY

Confidentiality is extremely important in cases where the people involved are well-known or the subject matter of the investigation is intriguing. As a professional, the investigator will, of course, maintain the strictest confidentiality, but the parties and various witnesses may find this more difficult. In all cases, the investigator should remember to reinforce people’s understanding of the importance of confidentiality.

If a matter receives media attention, it can be particularly challenging and frustrating to maintain confidentiality. The media will run with limited information, and you may be prohibited from clarifying their misreported facts. The investigator or your organization might be criticized in the media, making it tempting to want to set the record straight. However, the duty to rise above that temptation and adhere to the principle of confidentiality is paramount. The consequences for satisfying a shortterm desire to defend oneself will most often lead to greater long-term problems, not only for the investigator and the organization, but possibly for other innocent parties.

When answering questions for the media, always listen carefully to what is asked and remember that you are under no obligation to answer questions. If you know the media will call, make sure you prepare and know in your mind what information you can share and what you can’t share. If cases like this are common for you, media and public relations training may be helpful. The ability to manage media inquiries without compromising confidentiality is crucial. Appointing a spokesperson to speak on behalf of the organization is often the best approach. Also, preparing key messages while practicing responses to potential questions can help maintain control over the narrative.

In addition to confidentiality guidelines and privacy laws restrict the sharing of information. This often ties the hands of authorities and the investigator, preventing them from sharing information that might create greater understanding and reduce controversy.

ENSURING FAIRNESS IN THE INVESTIGATION PROCESS

All investigations must be conducted in a fair manner, and everyone involved must see the investigation as fair. When someone involved in a matter is a “high-profile individual,” the other party may believe a fair investigation is not possible, and in fact the high-profile individual might feel the same. The investigator must take the time to ensure the parties understand the process and are afforded the opportunity to provide their input concerning witnesses or other information that may, in their opinion, assist in the investigation.

This does not mean the investigator allows the parties to dictate how the investigation will be conducted, but it is important to allow for their input and to explain why certain things may or may not be done.

High-profile cases often involve complex evidentiary challenges. For example, in a case involving allegations against famous people, the investigator might face difficulties locating witnesses who are reluctant to cooperate. Engaging in various location techniques and using open-source intelligence efforts including social media searches can be effective strategies to track down witnesses.

No matter what the outcome of an investigation, people will not be satisfied if they believe the process was unfair.

ALWAYS MAINTAINING AN UNBIASED APPROACH

The fastest route to an allegation of investigatory misconduct is a perceived biased approach to the investigation. More than ever, investigators come under attack by allegations of conflict of interest affecting outcome, conducting an unbalanced investigation, and emphasizing prejudicial or gratuitous information.

Investigators should expect some of these allegations as there may be no way to avoid them, particularly with matters in the media where polarizing and often uninformed opinions have formed. Lack of information often results in the creation of

information and theories that misinformed people fabricate to support their narrative.

The only way to manage these issues is through an appropriately conducted investigation that relies on the evidence gathered and a fair assessment that is presented appropriately within the process designed to evaluate that evidence. Negative comments about the investigator or the regulatory body feels like an attack on the investigator’s integrity or the validity of the regulator’s role. As insulting as it may feel, the best defense against such attacks is a strong record of acting with integrity.

It is important to remember that an investigator’s verbal and written communication will be scrutinized. Investigators need to be acutely aware of the things they say to people during an investigation and the way they write their reports. Be cautious when parties to a matter ask your opinion about small, seemingly innocuous things. People invested in an issue may take a small thing and blow it up into something much larger.

Reports need to be clear, concise, factual, and always provide the information gathered on both sides of an argument. Investigators must maintain an open mind and not fall into the trap of believing something occurred and seeking evidence to support that belief. Investigators are neutral and gather the evidence from all sides allowing the evidence to lead to decisions.

Finally, when managing a high-profile case, relieve your own anxiety and that of all people involved by reassuring them you will conduct the investigation as you do all others, and you will maintain the principles outlined above. Keep the lines of communication open as appropriate. Remember there are three kinds of news: good news, bad news, and no news. No news is the worst and will create anxiety, so keep your clients / superiors informed and aware.

In the end, a high-profile investigation heightens everyone’s awareness and creates anxiety for all involved, including the investigator. Maintaining the principles and approach that made you worthy of conducting the investigation in the first place will be your clear path to success.

Stop the Cheating:

Introduction

Assessments have the power to shape candidates’ futures. They can empower individuals to achieve their goals—and help them realize their skills and potential. But what happens when candidates cheat? Who’s to blame? Where does the responsibility fall? How can you prevent cheating? And why should you invest in preventing it in the first place?

Cheating undermines the validity of assessments, leading to unfair advantages and potentially unqualified individuals entering critical roles.

There are many benefits to protecting the integrity of your assessments by preventing cheating. Institutions and assessment program owners who are curious to understand the risks and learn why it’s essential for ensuring program and candidate success should read on.

Educational institutions, professional organizations, and other credentialing services must ensure that their assessments enable candidates to confidently succeed with their hardearned knowledge, skills, and abilities—and eliminate any possibilities for candidates to take unethical shortcuts. Why?

Cheating undermines the validity of assessments, leading to unfair advantages and potentially unqualified individuals entering critical roles, for one. A recent high-profile case, known as the “Varsity Blues” scandal, involved several wealthy parents utilizing test fraud to ensure their children could gain admission to prestigious universities. While this may seem relatively victimless, other cases, such as the Pakistan International Airlines’ pilot license cheating scandal, may have led to the crash of a passenger flight in 2020. In cases like these, cheating can harm the reputations of the administrations responsible as well as impact their credibility.

Candidates are responsible for following ethical test-taking practices, but cheating is a broader issue that requires your action, too. Implementing robust policies to establish secure testing environments will reduce your risk, maintain fairness, and uphold assessment integrity. That’s why it’s crucial to prevent cheating with an approach built from proven strategies that consider every angle.

In this guide, we explore modern cheating tactics that are common both in testing centers and remote testing environments and provide you with actionable strategies for combating these methods effectively.

Cheating 2.0

Cheating in examinations is not a new phenomenon. Crib sheets, notes passed between test-takers, looks over someone’s shoulder, or even stealing a look at a test ahead of time are examples of traditional cheating. However, the methods and technologies employed by cheaters today have become increasingly sophisticated.

Advances in technology have given rise to “Cheating 2.0,” where candidates use gadgets such as glasses with built-in cameras, small Bluetooth devices, and wireless earbuds. Moreover, candidate impersonation has become a significant concern, necessitating robust identification measures.

Combating In-Person Cheating

Test centers must adopt comprehensive security protocols to combat the evolving threat of test fraud.

Proctor Training and Certification

Proctors play a critical role in maintaining test integrity. They must be trained to recognize and respond to various cheating methods. Certification ensures that proctors know the latest security protocols and are equipped to handle suspicious activities.

Enhanced Check-In Procedures

Candidates should be required to present multiple forms of government-issued ID verified using magnetic strips or barcode readers. Biometric security measures, such as fingerprint or facial recognition, further enhance identity verification.

Secure Testing Environment

Test centers should implement partitioned workspaces and closed-circuit television (CCTV) systems to monitor candidates closely. Regular audits and staff training help maintain these security measures.

Computer-Based Testing (CBT) Security

CBT offers additional security through encrypted exam delivery and dynamic exam forms generated by Linear On-the-Fly Testing (LOFT). This method ensures that each candidate receives a unique exam, making it difficult for cheaters to memorize or share answers.

The Challenge Of Cheating In Remote Testing

Remote testing has allowed many organizations to expand their footprint. Candidates are no longer limited to where and when they can test, and credentialing organizations are no longer limited to how many people they can test at a time. However, with the rise of remote testing, new challenges have emerged, particularly the issue of proxy testing.

Proxy test-taking is a particularly egregious form of cheating. It involves someone more knowledgeable taking the exam on behalf of the candidate. Amateurs, such as friends, colleagues, or professionals who offer their services for a fee, can do this. While proxy testing can undoubtedly occur in person, cheating in remote environments can be particularly difficult to combat due to the lack of physical presence and direct supervision. Proxy testing has become a prevalent and effective method of cheating, posing a significant threat to the integrity of remote assessments.

Proxy testing has become a prevalent and effective method of cheating, posing a significant threat to the integrity of remote assessments.

To address this issue, credentialing organizations need a reliable remote testing provider with a platform that can implement multiple layers of security.

Locked-Down Browsers

A proprietary locked-down browser prevents candidates from performing prohibited actions such as screen printing, copying, pasting, or accessing the internet during the exam. This isolates the exam session, making it the only application running on the computer.

Facial Recognition Technology

Facial recognition verifies the candidate’s identity at the start of the exam and continuously monitors for consistency. Any discrepancies, such as a different face appearing or multiple faces being detected, trigger immediate alerts to proctors.

Security Testing

Regular security testing identifies and mitigates vulnerabilities, such as unauthorized screen-sharing applications. Continuous updates ensure the platform stays ahead of emerging threats.

Actionable Strategies to Help Eliminate Cheating

To effectively combat cheating, organizations must adopt a multi-faceted approach:

1. Invest in Advanced Technology: Implement biometric authentication, encrypted exam delivery, and dynamic exam generation to stay ahead of cheating tactics.

2. Enhance Proctor Training: Regularly train and certify proctors to recognize and respond to the latest cheating methods. Emphasize the importance of vigilance and adherence to security protocols.

3. Conduct Regular Audits: Periodically audit testing processes and environments to identify potential weaknesses and ensure compliance with security measures.

4. Utilize Data Analytics: Leverage data analytics to detect unusual patterns or behaviors during exams, such as rapid completion times or frequent break requests. These indicators can help identify potential cheating attempts for further investigation.

5. Promote Ethical Behavior: Foster a culture of integrity by educating candidates on the importance of ethical behavior in testing. Highlight the consequences of cheating and the value of honest achievement.

Conclusion

As cheating tactics continue to evolve, educational institutions and professional organizations must remain vigilant and proactive in their efforts to maintain the integrity of their assessments. By investing in advanced security technologies, enhancing proctor training, conducting regular audits, utilizing data analytics, and promoting ethical behavior, these organizations can create a fair and secure testing environment that accurately reflects candidates’ abilities.

Ensuring the credibility of certifications and credentials ultimately benefits employers, government agencies, and the public, reinforcing trust in the testing process and the qualifications it validates.

ProProctor™ by Prometric

Prometric’s ProProctor™ remote assessment solution allows credentialing organizations to reach candidates anytime, anywhere. It offers several key benefits in combating proxy testing and ensuring the integrity of remote exams:

Enhanced Security

ProProctor™ offers a locked-down browser and facial recognition technology that provides robust security measures that prevent unauthorized actions and ensure candidate identity verification.

Continuous Monitoring

The platform continuously monitors the exam session for any irregularities, allowing proctors to intervene promptly if suspicious activity is detected.

Regular Updates

ProProctor™ undergoes regular security testing and updates to stay ahead of emerging threats and ensure that the platform remains secure and reliable.

About Prometric

Prometric is a leading provider of testing and assessment solutions, supporting over 25 million exam hours and serving more than seven million candidates every year. Using our AI-powered development tools, robust assessment delivery capabilities, stringent security, and dedicated candidate support services, Prometric ensures the success of testing programs for leading organizations in over 180 countries. Learn More

Thank you to CNAR’s dedicated volunteer community for your time and support!

CNAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Alice Kennedy Board Chair Registrar and Chief Executive Officer, Newfoundland and Labrador Council of Health Professionals

Margaret Drent Director Deputy Registrar, College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario

Glenn Pettifer Vice-Chair Registrar & Chief Executive Officer, College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario

Isabelle Gonthier Director Senior Vice President, Content Science at PSI Services LLC,

Leigha Hubick Treasurer Registrar, Institute of Chartered Professional Accountants of Saskatchewan

Sam Lanctin Director Principal, Sam Lanctin Consultant

Amit Banerjee Director

The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta

Michael Radano Director Chief Executive Officer, B.C. Association of Clinical Counsellors,

Denitha Breau Director Registrar and CEO, Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers

Colleen Wetter Director Principal Lawyer, Wetter Law

CONFERENCE PLANNING COMMITTEE (CPC)

Anita Ashton COO, College of Physiotherapists of Ontario

Graeme Keirstead Deputy Registrar, College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia

Leanne Loranger Manager, Policy and Practice, College of Physiotherapists of Alberta

Denitha Breau Registrar and CEO, Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers

Gregory Sim Partner, Field Law

CONFERENCE PLANNING COMMITTEE (CPC)

Elyse Sunshine Partner, Rosen Sunshine

Rebecca Durcan Co-Managing Partner, SML

Amy Block Partner, WeirFoulds LLP

Carole Reece Nursing Advisor, College of Registered Nurses of Saskatchewan

Greg Hutchinson President, Barker Hutchinson & Associates

Stuart Nash Manager, Individual Audits and Practice Reviews, Engineers and Geoscientists BC

Warren Board Chair, College of Massage Therapists of Newfoundland

EDUCATION PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE (EPAC)

Beata Pawlowska College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants

Greg Pope Spire Psychometrics

Chad Andrews College of Optometrists of Ontario

Jennifer Slabodkin College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents

Joan Atlin World Education Services (JuneDecember 2024)

Christine Nielsen Canadian Society for Medical Laboratory Science

Richard Spence Meazure Learning (June-December 2024)

Shelley Ball Shelsu Pacific Consulting

Melanie Therrien College of Licensed Practical Nurses of Alberta

Margaret Drent College of Audiologists and Speech Language Pathologists of Ontario

Pattie LaCroix College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia

Claudette

Doha Melhem Pivotal Research Inc.

Dean Benard Benard + Associates

Job Bank

CNAR members, Partners, and Suppliers can post and view jobs anytime, free of charge!

The following positions are currently active in the Job Bank located in the CNAR portal:

ALBERTA

• Manager, Practice Review (Calgary or Edmonton)

BRITISH COLUMBIA

• Instructional Designer (Vancouver)

• Indigenous Navigator & Restorative Resolution Consultant (Vancouver)

• Executive Director/Deputy Registrar, Education and Strategy & Guidance (Vancouver)

• Measurement Analyst (Vancouver)

• Director, Intake & Monitoring (Vancouver)

ONTARIO

• Communication Consultant (Toronto)

• Education and Upgrading Consultant (Toronto)

• Manager, Regulatory Action (Toronto)

To contribute content or subscribe to CNAR’s NETWORK NEWS, please contact Alana Coleman, Director, Marketing and Communications, at acoleman@cnar-rcor.ca.

Happy Holidays

From CNAR staff and the CNAR Board of Directors

CNAR will be closed for the holidays from December 23rd, 2024, reopening on January 3rd, 2025.

The CNAR staff and Board wish you a safe and happy holiday season!