A recent Divisional Court decision provides a useful overview of the principles that apply to regulators wanting to restrain unregistered individuals from engaging in unauthorized practice.
In The College of Psychologists and Behaviour Analysts of Ontario v. Tate, 2026 ONSC 4768 (CanLII), the regulator for psychologists (amongst others) sought a restraining order prohibiting an unregistered person from using protected titles (in this case, “psychologist” and “Doctor”), holding themselves out as a psychologist, performing controlled acts (in this case, communicating a diagnosis and providing psychotherapy) and creating a reasonably foreseeable risk of serious bodily harm. The uncontested evidence was that the individual had contravened the legislation by using the protected titles, referring to their psychological degrees, describing themselves as a “transpersonal psychologist” who integrated Indigenous practices with western psychological practices, including psychotherapy, and by communicating a diagnosis.
In granting the restraining order, the Court made the following explicit and implicit points:
- The authority to grant a restraining order is intended to protect the public.
- A restraining order will typically be granted where the regulator establishes that there has been a continued breach of the statute. The regulator need not prove harm, which is often required when a court grants an injunction in other contexts.
- In exceptional circumstances, which the responding individual must establish, a court may decline to grant the restraining order where it would be of questionable utility or inequitable.
- Using adjectives, such as “transpersonal” did not excuse the use of the protected title.
- Serious bodily harm can include harm to a person’s mental health.
- While there is a narrow exception in this legislation for “aboriginal healers providing traditional healing services to aboriginal persons or members of an aboriginal community”, the unregistered person had well exceeded the exception in this matter.
The Court also awarded the regulator $30,000 in costs because the regulator “attempted on several occasions to engage with the respondent, to no avail. The [regulator] was put to significant effort and expense to investigate and prosecute this matter.”
