CNAR'S NETWORK NEWS eMAGAZINE Issue 01 . Summer 2023

From the Executive Director

As we reach the mid-year point, excitement is in the air! We are very pleased to share several CNAR milestones with you.

For the first time in CNAR’s history, we have sold out our in-person Annual National Conference, with record-breaking registration numbers. We look forward to hosting over 800 delegates in beautiful Vancouver, British Columbia and online via our virtual platform. With an impressive program, an exciting kick off by Rick Mercer, and a highly informative workshop lineup supported by six of our corporate partners, we look forward to a great Conference event this October!

For those who are unable to join us in Vancouver, we encourage you to register for the virtual Conference, where content will be livestreamed from the plenary room on October 17th and 18th. You can take advantage of the chance to connect virtually with folks onsite, view live sessions, and ask presenters questions throughout the event.

This year, CNAR also celebrates our 20th Anniversary! As part of this milestone, we invite you to share how CNAR may have had made an impact on you - either personally or professionally. Did a chance meeting at a CNAR Conference create a lifelong friendship? Did a Coping with COVID Virtual Discussion help guide your best practices during an unprecedented time during the pandemic? Did a speaking engagement lead to new connections or business opportunities? Please take a moment to share your experience with us – and qualify to win a ticket for CNAR 2024! (See details in section 4.)

Finally, it’s my great pleasure to share yet another CNAR ‘first’ in this very special year. CNAR has awarded funding and selected a team to commence research on ‘Public Interest Regulation in a Digital Age: Challenges and Opportunities.’ We congratulate Dr. Tracey L. Adams, Professor, Department of Sociology, Western University and Dr. Kathleen Leslie, Associate Professor, Faculty of Health Disciplines, Athabasca University, who won the RFP after an extensive process conducted last winter. More information is provided below, including the opportunity to join the researchers’ advisory committee.

CNAR also recently saw changes on our Board, welcoming new Directors, Isabelle Gonthier and Michael Radano. I greatly look forward to collaborating with them, as well as the entire Board who continues to play a critical role in guiding CNAR through our continued growth.

On behalf of all the CNAR team, we thank our Affiliates, Partners, volunteers, event attendees, speakers, and sponsors for your continued support. Together, we continue to build a diverse and knowledgeable community of professionals dedicated to excellence in regulation. It will be a pleasure to see many of you again this fall in Vancouver.

Enjoy the rest of your summer!

Sincerely,

Alyson Gaffney Executive Director

Corporate Update

STRATEGIC PLAN

In support of good governance, the CNAR Board develops, approves, resources, and monitors the implementation of a well-informed, multi-year strategic plan.

With input from CNAR Board Directors, Members, Affiliates, Partners, other key stakeholders, and CNAR staff, CNAR is pleased to present our 20242026 strategic plan. If you have any questions about the strategic plan, do not hesitate to reach out to CNAR’s Executive Director, Alyson Gaffney at agaffney@cnar-rcor.ca.

Events

CNAR 2023 ANNUAL NATIONAL CONFERENCE

CNAR 2023 IN-PERSON EVENT

CNAR 2023’s in-person event, which will take place October 17th and 18th in Vancouver, is now sold out! We are thrilled to welcome delegates from Newfoundland to British Columbia, from across many sectors to the premier event in Canadian professional regulation. We look forward to celebrating our 20th Anniversary with you, which will be kicked off by a special keynote by the ever-entertaining Rick Mercer!

(You may join our waiting list for the two-day in-person event HERE and we will do our best to accommodate you if space becomes available.)

CNAR 2023 VIRTUAL EVENT

Not able to secure an in-person ticket? Consider joining us virtually, where you will have the ability to view and replay the full Conference program*, interact with other delegates and sponsors, and enjoy CNAR TV live interviews. Please click HERE to review the program and register for the Virtual Conference.

*Only one session from each concurrent block on the twoday program will be streamed live; lunch n’ learns will not be livestreamed. However, all concurrents and the lunch n’ learn sessions will be pre-recorded and available for replay after the Conference (as well as live plenary sessions). Please note, Rick Mercer’s October 17th keynote will not be livestreamed or recorded due to contract restrictions.

IN-PERSON OCTOBER 16TH PRE-CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS

CNAR 2023 features several compelling preConference workshops, which will take place (in person only) on October 16th.

FULL DAY Fundamentals of Regulation

8 am–4 pm PT

FULL DAY

SOLD OUT

Master Class 2023: Advancing Your Journey in Truth and Reconciliation: Two-Eyed Seeing and Building Relationships + Demystifying AI for Regulatory Leaders

8 am–4:30 pm PT

VERY LIMITED SPACE AVAILABLE!

Morning Half-Day Workshops

(RUNNING CONCURRENTLY)

2023 Master Class I: Advancing Your Journey in Truth and Reconciliation: Two-Eyed Seeing and Building Relationships

8 am–12 pm PT

(Registrants can select this half-day session ‘a la carte’ or select a Full-Day Master Class Session Package which includes the AI session below.)

Human Rights Issues for Professional Regulatory Organizations – Understanding Obligations and Ensuring Compliance

8:30 am–12 pm PT

(Presented by Field Law)

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion throughout the Assessment Lifecycle – Key Considerations and Plan of Action

8:30 am–12 pm PT

(Presented by PSI Services)

Navigating Conflict in Investigations

8:30 am–12 pm PT

(Presented by Barker Hutchinson & Associates)

Afternoon Half-Day Workshops

(RUNNING CONCURRENTLY)

2023 Master Class II: Demystifying AI for Regulatory Leaders

1 p.m.–4:30 p.m. PT

(Registrants can select this half-day session ‘a la carte’ or select a Full-Day Master Class Session Package which includes the Truth and Reconciliation session above.)

A Regulator’s Role in Mental Health and Wellness

1 p.m.–4:30 p.m. PT

(Presented by Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc)

Curiosity Doesn’t Have to Kill the Cat, It Can Help You Get the Cream: How to Employ Engagement Tactics to Achieve Your Mandate

1 p.m.–4:30 p.m. PT

(Presented by Pivotal Research Inc.)

Academic Credential Evaluations

Methodology: Key Lessons from World Education Services

1 p.m.–4:30 p.m. PT

(Presented by World Education Services)

THANKS TO OUR SPONSORS

Premier Sponsor

Silver Sponsors

Exhibitor Sponsors

Feature Package Sponsors

Bronze Sponsors

Gold Sponsors

Platinum Sponsors

Events

CNAR 2024 ANNUAL NATIONAL CONFERENCE

Mark your calendars now! CNAR 2024 will take place at The Westin Ottawa from October 7th to the 9th , 2024. Contact Alana Coleman, Director, Communications and Member Services at acoleman@cnar-rcor.ca if you have any questions.

SEPTEMBER UNLEARN AND LEARN SESSION: TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION

Registration now OPEN!

CNAR will host an UnLearn and Learn in September in advance of the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation on September 30th. During this virtual event, you will have the opportunity to learn about a framework for Truth and Reconciliation through Treaty Implementation (TRTI), and the efforts of one regulatory body to respond to the Calls to Action for Truth and Reconciliation.

Date: September 6th, 2023

Time: 12 pm ET–1:15 pm ET

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

Pricing: FREE for Affiliates and Partners; $40/person for Non-Affiliates

Registration: https://portal.cnar-rcor.ca/ events/event-registrations/

Rhett Sangster, Director of Reconciliation and Community Partnerships and Joni Brass, Truth and Reconciliation Data Coordinator, at the Office of the Treaty Commissioner (OTC), will present the TRTI framework as an example of how organizations can take a holistic approach to think about, act on, and evaluate Truth and Reconciliation efforts.

Pamela Kovacs, Senior Policy Counsel, Law Society of Saskatchewan, will share the Law Society of Saskatchewan’s experience working with the OTC and TRTI framework and the initiatives it has been undertaking on its journey of Truth and Reconciliation. This includes bringing together an Advisory Group, developing a formal commitment to reconciliation with an action plan, reviewing regulatory processes and structures, providing opportunities for competency and awareness training, and collaborating and building relationships with Indigenous organizations.

CNAR’s new UnLearn and Learn series aims to support the regulatory community in its work and learning journey in equity, diversity, and inclusion, and truth and reconciliation.

Attendees will also have the opportunity to ask questions and share their experiences, as time permits.

CNAR’S INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM: FULL EVENT PACKAGE NOW AVAILABLE FOR RENTAL!

Last spring, CNAR was very pleased to host our very first virtual International Symposium, featuring renowned regulatory advisor Harry Cayton. Speakers from the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand, and Australia explored topics related to regulation in a changing world, including AI, truth and reconciliation and compassionate regulation.

This event garnered an extremely enthusiastic response from attendees; and CNAR is now offering the entire event recording for replay!

To purchase a 30-day rental package ($250/per person for Affiliates), please click https://portal. cnar-rcor.ca/events/event-registrations/. To learn more about the speakers and review the session descriptions, please click HERE. An event brief featuring key learnings from the International Symposium is also available on the CNAR Portal. Be sure to check it out!

CNAR White Paper Available!

AN OVERVIEW OF DEFENSIBLE PSYCHOMETRIC EXAM PROCESSES

CNAR is pleased to announce the availability of a new highly informative white paper, An Overview of Defensible Psychometric Exam Processes, co-authored by CNAR Education Planning Committee members and Partners, Greg Pope, Chris Beauchamp, Melanie Lloyd, and Greg Sadesky. The white paper tackles key aspects of the defensibility of a high-stakes exam program, using as a foundation a cornerstone document in psychometrics, The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (2014), which describes the elements of a psychometrically defensible and fair exam program.

This white paper is now available exclusively to CNAR Affiliates and Partners via the CNAR Portal. To access this and CNAR’s full library of resources, join CNAR by completing an application.

“ THIS WAS AMAZING!!! I APPRECIATED THE BREADTH OF TOPICS AND SPEAKERS. LOVED THAT SO MANY DIFFERENT LOCATIONS AROUND THE WORLD WERE ABLE TO PRESENT LIVE! THAT MADE IT FEEL UNIQUE AND SPECIAL.

2023 International Symposium attendee, via feedback survey

JOIN CNAR

CNAR’s 20th Anniversary

SHARE YOUR CNAR EXPERIENCE!

CNAR’s 20th Anniversary celebration is underway! Stay tuned this fall to join in a trivia contest (for a chance to win a ticket to CNAR 2024!) and be sure to check out CNAR milestones on our social media channels. We also welcome the CNAR community to contribute a brief video clip (90 seconds to two minutes) sharing your experience with CNAR: how it may have served as a resource during COVID or at other points in your professional career; or perhaps facilitated lasting professional relationships via the Conference, Board, partnership or volunteering. We encourage you to share your story! Those who submit will also have a chance to win a ticket to CNAR 2024. Contact Alana Coleman at acoleman@cnar-rcor.ca for more information.

Very special thanks to Daniel Roukema and MDR Strategy Group who helped kick off our 20th Anniversary year in the Winter issue of The Registrar. Visit their website to learn more about The Registrar.

CNAR Research Program Funds Public Interest Regulation in a

Digital Age:

Challenges and Opportunities Project

After an extensive RFP process launched last winter, CNAR congratulates its selected research team, Dr. Tracey L. Adams, Professor, Department of Sociology, Western University and Dr. Kathleen Leslie, Associate Professor, Faculty of Health Disciplines, Athabasca University, who were selected for their topic, ‘Public Interest Regulation in a Digital Age: Challenges and Opportunities.’

This research will be conducted to help build knowledge and a deeper understanding about the issues, opportunities, and challenges of technological advancements and digitization in the regulation of professions in the public interest. The research will have broad applicability spanning jurisdictions across Canada and involve regulators from diverse professions. Research results will be presented at CNAR’s National Conference in 2024.

Researchers on this project are seeking eight to 12 members of the professional regulatory community to join an advisory committee that will help guide this research project; participants will receive an honorarium for their involvement. For more information about the time commitment and responsibilities of the advisory committee, please contact Tracey Adams at tladams@uwo.ca

CNAR’s Research Program was created to fund additional research on trends in regulation, generate a knowledge base on relevant issues, and encourage dialogue among those who strive for excellence in professional regulation. This funding award in research is a CNAR first, marking another significant milestone in our 20th Anniversary year.

Partner News

CNAR greatly values the input and relationships with our first-inclass corporate partners. We are also very pleased to welcome two new corporate partners in 2023.

GlickLaw helps regulators solve legal problems. GlickLaw was founded on the belief that we could provide more collaborative and cost-effective services to regulators within a specialized boutique environment.

WES validates international academic credentials and provides Canadian academic equivalents. WES’s International Credential Advantage Package (ICAP) delivers evaluation reports and verified transcripts in one package.

THANKS TO ALL CNAR’S CORPORATE PARTNERS

LEARN MORE ON GLICKLAW.CA

LEARN MORE ON WES.ORG/CA

A Primer on the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal

Natasha Danson

Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc

Many in the regulatory community in Ontario are familiar with the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal (OPSDT). In the simplest of terms, the OPSDT is the rebranded Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), with its own logo and website. The OPSDT is not new; it was created by the CPSO in September 2021. However, the OPSDT is currently getting some buzz because some Colleges under the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 (RHPA) are pursuing pilot projects with the Tribunal. But what is the OPSDT? What follows is a very basic primer on the Tribunal and how the model is being imported to other regulators.

WHAT IS THE OPSDT?

According to the OPSDT website, the Tribunal is a “neutral, independent, administrative tribunal that adjudicates allegations of professional misconduct or incompetence of Ontario physicians”. As noted above, the Tribunal was created by the CPSO in September 2021, and it is made up of physicians, non-physician government/ public appointees, and “experienced adjudicators”. The website notes that the Tribunal is “committed to holding fair, transparent and efficient hearings and making timely, understandable and wellreasoned decisions”.

The Tribunal states that its goal is to release written reasons within 12 weeks of the day the hearing ends. The OPSDT website also clarifies that the Tribunal is the CPSO’s Discipline Committee but with a new name. This is also outlined in the CPSO’s General By-law, which states that any reference to the OPSDT is deemed to be a reference to the CPSO’s Discipline Committee as set out in the relevant legislation.

The OPSDT website houses several resources for stakeholders involved the CPSO disciplinary process. Aside from posting links to the legislation and the Tribunal’s updated rules of procedure, there are user-friendly guides about the tribunal process, for witnesses, and regarding hearing preparation.

WHO IS ON THE OPSDT?

The Tribunal is chaired by David Wright, the founding Chair of the Law Society Tribunal at the Law Society of Ontario (LSO), and he led several reforms to the adjudicative processes there. The OPSDT includes six experienced adjudicators, at least one of whom would sit on every discipline panel. All the experienced adjudicators are lawyers, and four of the six are either current or previous adjudicators at the LSO.

None of the experienced adjudicators are on the CPSO Council; they are all appointed to the OPSDT by Council under the CPSO’s General By-law. The ability to appoint non-Council non- members to the Discipline Committee exists in the bylaws for most other RHPA regulators as well.

The rules about panel composition for Discipline Committees as set out in the RHPA remain in effect, which generally require that each disciplinary panel be composed of at least three and no more than five members, where at least two members are publicly appointed (i.e., appointed by the government) and at least one of the panel members is both a member of the College and a member of Council. All OPSDT panels consist of five members, which leaves room for an experienced adjudicator to sit on every panel. As a result, many panels will not have a majority of members of the profession on them.

The OPSDT is holding hearings without having independent legal counsel advise the Discipline Committee, the theory being that the experienced adjudicators possess the necessary legal knowledge and can contribute to deliberations on legal issues as they arise.

HOW IS THE OPSDT MODEL BEING PILOTED BY OTHER REGULATORS?

The OPSDT model could be imported to other Colleges, whereby the experienced adjudicators of the Tribunal are appointed to the Discipline Committees of those regulators as non-Council nonprofessional members. This is what is being piloted.

Having experienced adjudicators could streamline the hearing process, but eliminating the role of independent legal counsel is a departure for RHPA Discipline Committees and would likely require adjustments to hearings processes.

The pilot projects are all in the early stage, so the way other regulators adopt the OPSDT model remains to be seen. While the pilot projects unfold, it is expected that the Tribunal will actively engage with stakeholders to seek feedback on how it can improve its processes. In the CPSO context, the Tribunal has set up a Practice Advisory Group (PAG) that provides feedback to the OPSDT Chair about Tribunal policies and processes. The PAG meets at least three times a year and is composed of lawyers who regularly represent physicians and the CPSO before the Tribunal. The terms of reference for the PAG note that it aims to function in an atmosphere of candour, and there is an expectation that members of the PAG will maintain reasonable discretion and confidentiality. Consistent with this expectation, no minutes or votes are taken at the PAG meetings.

More information about the OPSDT can be found on their website.

Reasonable and Probable Grounds Test in Appointing Investigators in the Regulatory Context–Kustka v CPSO

Jill Dougherty, Kelsey Ivory, Wamika Razdan, WeirFoulds LLP

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a substantial impact on all facets of society, especially within the healthcare system. In navigating these unprecedented terrains, health professionals have turned to diverse treatments, some of which lacked scientific and evidence-based support. Regulated health professionals and patients alike have at times sought to challenge the guidance and decisions of health regulators concerning COVIDrelated treatments and public health measures, including by bringing applications for judicial review. The resulting court decisions provide welcome guidance on these issues, which are still largely uncharted and are being grappled with in the aftermath of the pandemic.

OVERVIEW

In Kustka v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 1 the Divisional Court considered applications for judicial review seeking to quash the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario’s (the “CPSO”’s) appointment of investigators and the Inquires Complaints and Reports Committee’s (“ICRC”) interim order. In Kustka, a family medicine practitioner was alleged to have inappropriately prescribed ivermectin to an elderly patient to treat COVID-19, and to have inappropriately issued two COVID-19 mask exemptions. The physician’s patients joined her in the application for judicial review, arguing that the CPSO had violated their Charter rights.

The Court provided strong reasoning in support of its decision to remove the patients as respondents,

to decline the patients standing, and to quash the applications for judicial review as premature. It went on to provide useful commentary with respect to the “reasonable and probable grounds” test that applies where investigators are appointed under section 75(1)(a) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, Schedule 2 of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 18 (the “Code”), and with respect to the CPSO’s reliance on the following sources to support its reasonable and probable grounds:

• Reg 364/20, which provided that face masks should be worn in most indoor public areas subject to limited exceptions for those with medical conditions;

• Guidance from the Ontario College of Family Physicians stating that very few conditions justified an exemption;

• Guidance from the Canadian Thoracic Society supporting mask-wearing and stating that there was no evidence that masks would exacerbate an underlying lung condition; and,

• Guidance from Health Canada and the Ontario Science Table indicating that ivermectin should not be used to prevent or treat COVID-19.

FACTS

In late 2021, the CPSO received complaints that Dr. Sonia Kustka, a family medicine practitioner, had inappropriately prescribed ivermectin to an elderly patient to treat COVID-19 and issued two questionable COVID-19 mask exemptions during mandatory masking periods.

The CPSO’s Registrar appointed investigators to examine acts of professional misconduct or incompetence pursuant to section 75(1)(a) of the Code.2 Following an investigation, the CPSO’s ICRC imposed interim restrictions and monitoring obligations on Dr. Kustka’s certificate of registration.3 The ICRC later confirmed the restrictions, and the Registrar appointed investigators to examine Dr. Kustka’s cooperation with the investigation and her compliance with the interim order.4 Dr. Kustka brought applications for judicial review in relation to each of these steps.5 Dr. Kustka’s patients also brought applications for judicial review that challenged the initial appointment of investigators, the CPSO’s ability to obtain patient records during the investigation, and the ICRC’s interim order.6 The patients argued that the CPSO had infringed their rights under sections 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 7 claiming that the CPSO obtained medical records without their knowledge and consent (the “Patients’ Applications”).8

APPOINTMENT OF INVESTIGATORS AND REASONABLE AND PROBABLE GROUNDS

The Divisional Court held that the test for determining whether the Registrar had reasonable and probable grounds to appoint an investigator is not rigorous.9 The Court distinguished the reasonable and probable grounds test in the professional regulatory context from the test used in the criminal context. It noted that the Registrar’s appointment only initiates an investigation, whereas in the criminal context, an arresting officer requires something less than a prima facie case to satisfy the reasonable and probable ground requirement prior to an arrest.10 Here, the Registrar had before her specific information regarding three instances that raised concern about Dr. Kustka’s COVID-19 treatment and protections. The information was sufficiently detailed as to be beyond “mere suspicion.”11 It was reasonable for the Registrar to conclude that the test to appoint investigators had been met.12

The Registrar also had before her authoritative sources and guidance regarding mask-wearing

and ivermectin, including: (1) Reg 364/20, which provided that face masks should be worn in most indoor public areas subject to limited exceptions for those with medical conditions; (2) Guidance from the Ontario College of Family Physicians stating that very few conditions justified an exemption;

(3) Guidance from the Canadian Thoracic Society supporting mask-wearing and stating that there was no evidence that masks would exacerbate an underlying lung condition; and, (4) Guidance from Health Canada and the Ontario Science Table indicating that ivermectin should not be used to prevent or treat COVID-19.

The Court concluded that the Registrar (and the ICRC in approving of her appointment) reasonably relied upon these policy documents and regulation in forming her reasonable and probable grounds.13 This reliance was reasonable and did not constitute an impermissible delegation of authority.14

CONCLUSION

It remains to be seen whether Dr. Kustka’s arguments will be repeated before the CPSO’s Discipline Committee. If those arguments are reiterated, the Court’s comments and “observations” will provide the Discipline Committee with useful guidance. Though the ICRC does not make findings of fact, the Divisional Court clearly had significant concerns with respect to the physician’s failure to cooperate with the CPSO’s investigation and noted that this failure both delayed the proceeding and provided a reasonable basis for the ICRC to be concerned about the physician’s governability.15

1 Kustka v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 2325 at para 1 [“Kustka”].

2 Kustka at para 2.

3 Ibid

4 Supra note 2.

5 (1) the Registrar’s appointment of investigators, (2) the ICRC’s interim order, (3) the ICRC’s decision confirming the interim order, and (4) the Registrar’s second appointment of investigators to assess Dr. Kustka’s cooperation with the investigation and her compliance with the interim order.

6 Kustka at para 5.

7 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.

8 Supra note 6.

9 Kustka at para 37.

10 Ibid

11 Ibid at para 38.

12 Kustka at para 38.

13 Kustka at paras 39-41.

14 Ibid

15 Kustka at para 42.

Upholding the Principle of Fairness in Regulatory Investigations

Dean Benard Benard + Associates

As we navigate the complex world of regulatory investigations, one principle arguably stands as the most important: fairness. Regulatory investigations, while crucial for dealing with complaints and reports of standards violation, ethical breaches, and unprofessional conduct,

should always be grounded in the principle of fairness. Now most people know this conceptually, but the concept is not as clear-cut as one might assume. So, how do we delve into the depths of fairness and ensure we integrate it into our investigative processes?

Let’s first discuss what we mean by fairness. In the broadest sense, fairness relates to just conduct, free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism. However, in regulatory investigations, it carries more specific implications. It means treating all parties involved in an investigation with dignity and respect, providing them with the necessary information about the process, allowing them to voice their perspectives, and ensuring that decisions are made transparently and impartially.

offering an opportunity for all parties to have a voice in putting forward their perspective.

• Is our investigation process procedurally fair? The principle of procedural fairness should guide our actions. This involves providing clear and timely communication to the parties involved, explaining the procedures that will be followed, sharing the evidence that has been gathered, and the reasons for any decisions made. In other words, no party should be isolated from information about the investigation or the potential implications for them.

• Are the investigators and decision makers refraining from allowing bias to impact their approach and decisions? We need to guarantee impartiality. As regulators, we are called to make judgements and decisions that can significantly impact those under investigation, and those who have made complaints or are alleged to have been impacted by someone else’s conduct or practice. So, we must actively mitigate biases and conflicts of interest, ensuring that our decisions are based purely on the facts at hand.

• Are we respecting people’s dignity? It is imperative that we respect the rights and dignity of all parties involved. This includes preserving confidentiality, being reliable, respecting the rights of individuals, and conducting our investigations with professionalism and respect.

Regulatory investigations have a profound impact on all stakeholders but also the public and the broader profession, in terms of confidence in the profession and maintenance of the profession’s reputation. It is our responsibility as investigators to ensure these processes are conducted with the highest degree of fairness. However, to uphold this principle, we must address several key considerations.

• Are our investigations balanced? This means giving equal consideration to all the evidence available, regardless of whether it supports the alleged violation or not. It also entails understanding the context in which the potential misconduct took place, considering the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and

The process of ensuring fairness in regulatory investigations requires vigilance by investigators, appropriate oversight of investigations, ongoing education, and a strong commitment to ethical approaches. By striving to act fairly, we reinforce the integrity of the regulatory system. Fairness in regulatory investigations is far more than a guideline – it is a principle that should permeate every aspect of our work.

By paying attention to this fundamental pillar of investigations practice, we not only uphold the integrity of our investigations but we strengthen the public’s trust in our ability to regulate effectively and justly. It’s our responsibility to demonstrate that fairness isn’t just a concept, but a tangible piece of the investigative process.

THE PROCESS OF ENSURING FAIRNESS IN REGULATORY INVESTIGATIONS REQUIRES VIGILANCE BY INVESTIGATORS, APPROPRIATE OVERSIGHT OF INVESTIGATIONS, ONGOING EDUCATION, AND A STRONG COMMITMENT TO ETHICAL APPROACHES.

Community Corner

CNAR congratulates our Board Director, Denitha Breau, who was appointed as the new Registrar and CEO of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers, effective August 1st .

NEW STUDY

Per a submission by one of our valued CNAR Affiliates, please find below information about a newly released study entitled, Sexual Misconduct: What Does a 20-Year Review of Cases in Quebec Reveal about the Characteristics of Professionals, Victims, and the Disciplinary Process? by Geneviève Manuela Martin and Isabelle Beaulieu. A brief summary of the study is below, followed by a link to the findings.

“A new study on sexual misconduct committed by professionals has just been published. This study analyzes the disciplinary decisions in matters of sexual misconduct rendered over the past 20 years by the disciplinary councils of Quebec professional orders. This study describes the characteristics of professionals who have been the subject of a disciplinary complaint for sexual misconduct, of victims, and of acts of sexual misconduct. It also documents the processing time and outcome of disciplinary complaints related to sexual misconduct.

The search yielded 296 decisions including 249 male and 47 female members from 22 regulated

professions, and involving 470 victims. Results indicate that male professionals approaching mid-career accounted for a greater proportion of cases of sexual misconduct. Moreover, physical and mental health professionals were overrepresented in cases, as were female adult victims. Acts of sexual misconduct concerned mostly sexual touching and intercourse and occurred during consultations. Female professionals were more inclined to establish romantic and sexual relationships with clients than their male counterparts. Of the 92.0% of professionals found guilty of at least one count of sexual misconduct, two thirds eventually returned to practice. Following the guilty verdict, few faced rehabilitative measures. Recommendations are provided for the prevention of sexual recidivism and the accompaniment of victims of sexual misconduct throughout the disciplinary process.”

To learn more, please click below.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ONGOING CONTRIBUTION TO CNAR AND THE REGULATORY COMMUNITY, DENITHA!

COMMUNITY FORUMS

Need help finding resources? Wish to connect with the community to discuss hot topics? Interested in checking out current news items? Be sure to post and subscribe to CNAR’s community forums, located in the CNAR Portal.

JOB BANK

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

The following positions are currently posted to the CNAR Job Bank located in the CNAR Portal:

British Columbia Registrar Quality Assurance Consultant

Ontario Executive Assistant to CEO Director, Data and Research

Saskatchewan Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Consultant

CNAR PORTAL