This site contains information about Dr. M. Persinger and his violations of professional and ethical standards as found by the College of Psychologists of Ontario. The report from the College’s Complaints Committee is reproduced in full below, in accordance with the style of the original. The cover letter that accompanied the report is dated 12 March 1998.

The Committee noted that Dr. Michael Persinger is a professor in the Department of Psychology at Laurentian University. Dr. Persinger was Ms. Adele Loosemore’s professor for a Brain and Behaviour course and a methods and Research Design course. In November, 1994, a group of graduate students in the Child and Development ("CDEV") Master’s Program, including Ms. Loosemore, filed a complaint with the Dean of Social Services (sic) regarding the classroom conduct of Dr. Persinger. In January, 1996, Ms. Loosemore filed a further complaint about Dr. Persinger’s conduct with the CDEV Committee. In response, Dr. Persinger forwarded a letter to CDEV members in which he made comments about Ms. Loosemore. Ms. Loosemore’s complaint concerns these comments.

The Committee noted that Ms. Loosemore raises the following concerns:

Ms. Loosemore complains that Dr. Persinger provided comments about her in his letters to the CDEV Committee and Faculty that were equivalent to a diagnosis of her mental health without any supporting clinical evaluation. Ms. Loosemore alleges that Dr. Persinger’s evaluation was based solely on a report she provided to the CDEV Committee regarding Dr. Persinger’s conduct, rather than on comprehensive psychological testing. Ms. Loosemore states that she completed the Myers-Briggs test in one of Dr. Persinger’s classes and alleges that Dr. Persinger may have used this test to form the conclusions about her mental state found in his letters to the CDEV Committee and Faculty. Ms. Loosemore also alleges that, to the extent that any of Dr. Persinger’s comments were based on an evaluation of her, he did not obtain her consent to perform such a psychological assessment. As well, Ms. Loosemore expresses concern that Dr. Persinger violated her confidentiality by sending copies of his letters containing comments about her of a clinical nature, to the CDEV Committee and Faculty without her consent. Ms. Loosemore alleges that Dr. Persinger used his standing as a psychologist in an attempt to destroy her credibility.

In reviewing Ms. Loosemore’s allegations, the Committee determined that the following were the main issues for its consideration:

In December, 1995, the Council of the College of Psychologists of Ontario approved a revision of the Standards of Professional Conduct. An overview of the revised professional standards states:

The overview also states:

The revised standards (Standards of Professional Conduct, December 2, 1995) incorporate a broad definition of "Psychological services", including ‘education and training’ and ‘research and scholarly activities’. The previous standards (Standards of Professional Conduct, Incorporating Revisions Adopted since December 1986, and including Additions since 1991) define "Psychological services" as "services provided by or under the direction of a psychologist". This definition does not include an educational element. The Committee noted that under the previous standards, allegations of this nature would be solely dealt with in the academic setting.

The central allegations of this complaint occurred in early February, 1996. Notice of the new standards was given to members of The College of Psychologists in the December, 1995, edition of the Bulletin.

The Committee reviewed the overview of the current standards as well as the previous and current standards themselves, in addressing this issue. The Committee determined that, at the time of the events giving rise to this complaint, Dr. Persinger was governed by the revised standards and had been given reasonable notice of them. The Committee therefore concludes that the conduct complained of was within its jurisdiction and mandate to consider.

The Complaints Committee considered the following information to be relevant to this issue:

Ms. Loosemore provided the following information in her letter of complaint to the College, dated June 24, 1996:

1. In his letter [to the CDEV Committee], Dr. Persinger provided his diagnosis of my psychological health. Given the fact that this was presented as a response to my complaints, I believe that Dr. Persinger used his standing as a psychologist in a deliberate and vindictive attempt to destroy my credibility, provide himself with a defence, retaliate against me, and intimidate me.

In her letter to the College, dated September 25, 1996, Ms. Loosemore states:

In his letter of response, Dr. Persinger also includes a letter from himself to the Director of CDEV Graduate Studies at Laurentian University, dated March 21, 1994, which states:

In his letter of response, Dr. Persinger also includes a letter from the Dean of Social Sciences, Geoff Tesson, to himself, dated June 30, 1996, which states:

1. Evaluation, diagnosis and assessment of individuals and groups.

2. Interventions with individuals and groups.
3. Consultation.
4. Program development and evaluation.
5. Supervision.
6. Education and training.
7. Research and scholarly activities.
8. Administration of psychological services.

Ms. Loosemore states that Dr. Persinger’s comments about her contained in letters to the CDEV Committee and Faculty, were used to maliciously and publicly attack her reputation, intimidate her, and stop her from pursuing complaints she had filed against him at Laurentian University. In his letters to the CDEV Committee and Faculty, dated February 1 and 5, 1996, Dr. Persinger refers to Ms. Loosemore’s letter of complaint (to the university) as "containing confabulations and distortions". He continues, "although I have no data with respect to the etiology of the motives of these two students, the contents of Ms. Loosemore’s letter are frankly delusional". Lastly, Dr. Persinger writes that Ms. Loosemore’s letter "is effectively paranoid ideation".

In his letter of response to the College, dated September 9, 1996, Dr. Persinger states that Ms. Loosemore and her colleagues had been employing political agitation to have him disciplined. Dr. Persinger states that Ms. Loosemore’s letter of complaint regarding his classroom conduct had been circulated to members of the CDEV Committee. Dr. Persinger explains that the Coordinator of the CDEV Program showed him the letters of complaint and invited Dr. Persinger to respond.

Dr. Persinger states that his rebuttal to Ms. Loosemore was neither a personal retaliation nor an intimidation. He further states that his comments were factual observations of behaviour and designed to offer an explanation for the extreme nature of Ms. Loosemore’s behaviour and why she might prevaricate or perceive in this manner. Lastly, Dr. Persinger states that his comments were made as a professor and not as a psychologist and that the contention that his letter was written to destroy or to be vindictive is an anomalous perception by the complainant.

In his letter to Dr. Persinger, dated June 30, 1996, the Dean of Social Sciences, Geoff Tesson, states that he had been concerned with Dr. Persinger’s "willingness to publicly malign students and colleagues" and urges Dr. Persinger to assume a more professional attitude toward those with whom he has disagreements.

The Standards of Professional Conduct define "psychological services" as services of a psychological nature which are provide by or under the direction of a member. Psychological services include, ‘education and training’ and ‘research and scholarly activities’. The Committee noted that under this definition, Dr. Persinger would be responsible for adhering to these standards as a professor in an academic setting.

Principle 2.14 of the Standards requires a member to provide professional opinions in an objective and unbiased manner [emphasis added].

The Committee considered whether Dr. Persinger’s comments to the CDEV Committee and Faculty, relating to Ms. Loosemore, constitute "professional opinions". The Committee concludes that these statements could be perceived as professional opinions, given that they were made by Dr. Persinger, who is a psychologist, in his capacity as a professor with regard to his perceptions about his student. Dr. Persinger’s comments contained clinical terms and were noted in two separate letters, printed on Laurentian University letterhead. The letterhead also indicated the Dr. Persinger was a member of the Psychology Department. The letters were addressed to CDEV Committee Members, in one instance (February 1, 1996), and addressed to CDEV Faculty Members in the other instance (February 5, 1996).

Once the Committee had determined that Dr. Persinger’s statements could be perceived as "professional opinions", it further considered whether Dr. Persinger presented these opinions in an objective and unbiased manner. The Committee is of the opinion that Dr. Persinger did not present his opinions in an objective and unbiased manner. The Committee noted that Dr. Persinger does not provide objective data to support his professional opinion when he refers to Ms. Loosemore’s letter as "delusional" and "effectively paranoid ideation". Dr. Persinger states that his comments were not psychological diagnoses but rather "factual observations of behaviour" and "common descriptors". The Committee concluded that Dr. Persinger’s comments were not objective or neutral and that evidence indicated that Dr. Persinger did not have adequate data to make these statements.

Further, in his response to the College, Dr. Persinger attaches recent research he had conducted concerning episodic memory as a possible explanation for Ms. Loosemore’s "anomalous recollections". The Committee is of the opinion that inclusion of such research in his response provides further evidence that Dr. Persinger did not present his opinions in an objective and unbiased manner.

The Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists range from minimal behavioural expectations to more idealized, but achievable, attitudinal and behavioural expectations.

The Code is intended to guide psychologists in their everyday conduct, thinking and planning and in the resolution of ethical dilemmas. It advocates the practice of both proactive and reactive ethics. Another use of the Code is to assist in the adjudication of complaints against psychologists. A body charged with this responsibility is required to investigate allegations, judge whether unacceptable behaviour has occurred, and determine what corrective action should be taken. In determining corrective action, one of the judgments the adjudicating body needs to make is whether an individual conscientiously engaged in an ethical decision-making process and acted in good faith, or whether there was a negligent or willful disregard of ethical principles. The articulation of the ethical decision-making processes contained in this code provides guidance for making such judgments.

The Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists includes responsibility to "others" in its requirements. "Others" is defined as any individual or group with whom psychologists come in contact in the course of their work. This definition includes students.

The Committee considered whether the evidence indicated that Dr. Persinger had publicly used demeaning descriptions of Ms. Loosemore. The Committee concludes that Dr. Persinger violated Principle I: Respect for the Dignity of Persons by using demeaning descriptions of the complainant in his letters to the CDEV Committee and Faculty.

Dr. Persinger describes the statements as descriptions and not diagnoses, nonetheless, the Committee concludes that the type of language used by Dr. Persinger in his letters to the CDEV Committee and Faculty does not convey respect for the dignity of Ms. Loosemore. The Committee is of the opinion that Dean Tesson’s letter to Dr. Persinger, dated June 30, 1996, indicating concern with Dr. Persinger’s willingness to publicly malign students and colleagues was additional evidence in support of Ms. Loosemore’s position that Dr. Persinger had engaged publicly in use of demeaning descriptions of her. Thus, the Committee finds Dr. Persinger to be in violation of Principles I.2, I.3, and I.35 of the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists, as defined above.

The Committee also considered whether Dr. Persinger conducted himself in a manner that respected the spirit of fair treatment of Ms. Loosemore. The Committee concludes that Dr. Persinger did not respect the dignity of Ms. Loosemore in making these comments about her in this context. The Committee finds that using clinical labels of "paranoia" and "delusional ideation", as descriptors of Ms. Loosemore’s behaviour, in the circumstances, does not reflect a spirit of fair treatment. The Committee concludes that Dr. Persinger was in violation of Principle I.24 of the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists.

Principle II of the Code of Ethics relates to the concept of responsible caring. Principle II.1 states that psychologists should protect and promote the welfare of clients, students, research participants, colleagues and others [emphasis added]. Principle II.2 states that in adhering to the principle of responsible caring, psychologists would avoid doing harm to clients, students, research participants, colleagues and others [emphasis added]. Principle II.5 states that psychologists should make every reasonable effort to ensure that psychological knowledge is not misused, intentionally or unintentionally, to harm others.

The Committee considered whether Dr. Persinger protected and promoted the welfare of his student, Ms. Loosemore, and avoided doing harm to her, with respect to the contents of his letters to the CDEV Committee and Faculty.

Based on the evidence before it, the Committee concludes that by describing Ms. Loosemore in the manner in which he did, to the CDEV Committee and Faculty, Dr. Persinger did not promote her welfare as his student. The Committee also concludes that the evidence indicates that Dr. Persinger did not avoid doing harm to Ms. Loosemore. She felt that her reputation had been publicly attacked and that Dr. Persinger had attempted to destroy her credibility. The Committee supports Ms. Loosemore’s concern that Dr. Persinger’s letters are written on stationary which includes the letterhead and emblem of Laurentian University and the letterhead of the Department of Psychology. The Committee noted that these symbols increased the chance that the comments might be interpreted as psychological diagnoses based on a psychological assessment of Ms. Loosemore (i.e., increased the credibility attached to the comments).

Ms. Loosemore alleges that the comments contained in Dr. Persinger’s letter have been taken very seriously by other members of the psychology department. Further, Ms. Loosemore that she was approached by several Faculty members who expressed concern about Dr. Persinger’s written comments about her. The Committee did not have information before it to determine with certainty whether Faculty members did approach Ms. Loosemore or how they viewed the letter, however, the Committee determined that the contents of the letter alone indicated violations of Principles II.1 and II.2 of the Canadian Code of Ethics of Psychologists.

As earlier stated, the Committee is also of the opinion that whatever information Dr. Persinger based his written comments on, could be perceived as "psychological knowledge". Based on the content of Dr. Persinger’s letters and his response to the College, the Committee finds that Dr. Persinger violated Principle II.5 by failing to ensure that "psychological knowledge" relating to Ms. Loosemore was not misused.

Ms. Loosemore provided the following information in her letter of complaint to the College dated June 24, 1996:

Referring to Dr. Persinger’s letters to the CDEV Committee and Faculty, dated February 1, and 5, 1996, Ms. Loosemore states:

The Committee determined that the following standards, in effect at the time of the events giving rise to the complaint, were relevant to this issue:

In her letter to the College, dated June 24, 1996, Ms. Loosemore provides comment relating to Dr. Persinger’s letters to the CDEV Committee and Faculty. Ms. Loosemore expresses concern that no clinical evaluation exists to support Dr. Persinger’s comments and that his diagnosis of her was based solely on separate reports that she had provided to the CDEV Committee regarding his conduct, rather than on comprehensive psychological testing. Ms. Loosemore suggests that the only psychological testing Dr. Persinger could have utilized in arriving at the conclusions stated in his letters to the CDEV Committee and Faculty, was the Myers-Briggs Indicator Test.

In his letter of response, dated September 9, 1996, Dr. Persinger states that he did not perform a psychological evaluation of Ms. Loosemore and that the statements in his letters of February 1, and 5, 1996, to the CDEV Committee and Faculty, did not contain a diagnosis. Dr. Persinger states that he had been invited by the Coordinator of the CDEV program to respond to complaints against him. Dr. Persinger states that clinical terms were not employed as diagnoses and that the term "paranoid ideation" is a valid interpretation of Ms. Loosemore’s letter of complaint to the CDEV Committee. Dr. Persinger adds that Ms. Loosemore’s statements were so inaccurate as to be ludicrous and that because Ms. Loosemore may have actually believed what she had written, the probability was high that her statements were misperceptions or confabulations.

Principle II.5 of the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists require members to make every reasonable effort to ensure that psychological knowledge is not misused, intentionally or unintentionally, to harm others. The Committee concluded that the comments about Ms. Loosemore contained in Dr. Persinger’s letters to the CDEV Committee and Faculty, did employ clinical descriptions. The letters were submitted by Dr. Persinger on University letterhead citing the Psychology Department. Dr. Persinger authored the letters and presented himself as a psychologist. The Committee determined that, while the comments may not denote diagnoses per se, they are clinical in nature and it is reasonable to think that others may perceive these statements. The Committee concludes that Dr. Persinger misused "psychological knowledge" (or what could be perceived as such) to harm Ms. Loosemore and thus violated Principle II.5 of the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists by making comments of a clinical nature without conducting a clinical evaluation.

The Complaints Committee considered the following information to be relevant to this issue:

Ms. Loosemore provided the following information in her letter of complaint to the College, dated June 24, 1996:

In Appendix II of Ms. Loosemore’s letter to the College dated June 24, 1996, she states that in the Fall term, 1994, she was enrolled in a class instructed by Dr. Persinger. She states:

In her letter to the College dated September 25, 1996, Ms. Loosemore states:

In his letter to the College, date February 7, 1997, Dr. Persinger responds to the College’s request for additional information and/or clarification. He states:

Ms. Loosemore and Dr. Persinger agree that the Myers-Briggs test was administered during one of his laboratory classes. Ms. Loosemore states that Dr. Persinger informed the class that the Teaching Assistants would administer a questionnaire which would measure the "cognitive style" of the individuals and that he would use the results to make changes in the course structure. Ms. Loosemore states that some time later she discovered that what Dr. Persinger had asked the class to complete was, in fact, the Myers-Briggs Personality Test.

Dr. Persinger asserts that the Myers-Briggs is not a personality test but is a cognitive style inventory. Ms. Loosemore disagrees and states that it is a ""personality test", which has typically been classified and described as a self-report personality inventory in the Mental Measurements Yearbook. Ms. Loosemore alleges that Dr. Persinger deceived her in his representation of the test.

Dr. Persinger contends that the collection of the Myers-Briggs data during the first laboratory for the second year Brain and Behaviour course has been coordinated for several years by the lab manager. Dr. Persinger states that the purpose of the study is to collect sufficient data to discern which cognitive styles are most successful in various laboratory environments and whether or not students who ultimately concentrate in Behavioural Neuroscience display a specific cognitive style.

Dr. Persinger provided the Committee with information that indicated the wording being used in the consent form, with respect to the Myers-Briggs test, was as follows:

Principle I.16 of the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists requires psychologists to recognize that informed consent is the result of a process of reaching an agreement to work collaboratively, rather than of simply having a consent form signed.

The Committee recognizes that it can not determine with certainly what information was provided to Ms. Loosemore in the context of the Myers-Briggs test. With respect to this issue, the Committee did not find that Dr. Persinger had violated professional standards. However, the Committee determined that it may be beneficial to Dr. Persinger for the Committee to provide advice on this issue to avoid future confusion. Advice is provided on page 20 of this decision.

Ms. Loosemore alleges that Dr. Persinger may have used this test to form conclusions about her mental state. Dr. Persinger states that he has never reviewed Ms. Loosemore’s Myers-Briggs test nor has he reviewed any of the other participants’ results.

Principle I.32 of the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists states that psychologists should explore and collect only that information which is germane to the purpose for which consent has been obtained.

The Committee considered whether the material before it indicates that Dr. Persinger explored and collected information (i.e., from the Myers-Briggs Test) only for the purpose for which consent had been obtained.

In her letter to the College, dated June 24, 1996, Ms. Loosemore provides comment on the contents of Dr. Persinger’s letters to the CDEV Committee and Faculty. She states that the comments contained in Dr. Persinger’s letters were made publicly and that Dr. Persinger did not obtain her consent to make such comments about her. Ms. Loosemore also states that Dr. Persinger’s letter and his response to her complaint (to the university) are now officially recorded in the Laurentian University files. Thus, Ms. Loosemore states that her right to confidentiality may continue to be violated and her credibility questioned as Dr. Persinger’s descriptions of her become known to individuals who can gain access to such files in the future.

In his letter of response, dated September 9, 1996, Dr. Persinger states that he did not conduct a psychological evaluation of Ms. Loosemore and thus did not need to obtain her consent. Further, Dr. Persinger states that he did not require Ms. Loosemore’s consent to make comments relating to her allegations, particularly when the allegations were distributed widely prior to that time, without his knowledge. Dr. Persinger states that rebuttals within the university setting are public when they concern a professor’s career and reputation.

Principle I.38 of the Code states that a psychologist should be careful to relay information which they have gained about colleagues, colleagues’ clients, students, and members of organizations gained in the process of their activities as psychologists and which the psychologist has reason to believe is considered confidential by those persons, except as required or justified by law.

Principle I.40 of the Code require psychologists to share information with others only with the informed consent of those involved, or in a manner that the individuals involved cannot be identified except as required or justified by law, or in circumstances of actual or possible serious physical harm or death.

The Committee considered whether, with respect to his letters to the CDEV Committee and Faculty, Dr. Persinger discussed information about Ms. Loosemore for professional purposes only. The Committee determined that the evidence indicates that, in these circumstances, by making statements of a descriptive nature, Dr. Persinger shared information about Ms. Loosemore with the CDEV Committee and Faculty, without her informed consent. The sharing of information took place in circumstances other than those required or justified by law. The Committee determined that Dr. Persinger’s descriptors of Ms. Loosemore were framed in clinical terms and may have been misperceived by others, as well as by her. Based on these findings, the Committee concludes that Dr. Persinger did share information about Ms. Loosemore with the CDEV Committee and Faculty without her informed consent, thus violating Principles I.38 and I.40 of the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists.

The Committee has serious concerns about Dr. Persinger’s conduct with respect to his treatment of Ms. Loosemore. The Committee concludes that there was evidence that Dr. Persinger’s behaviour toward Ms. Loosemore violated the Standards of professional and ethical conduct regarding respect of dignity and worth of the individual as well as standards relating to responsible caring (i.e., through writing statements about her that demean her, such as "paranoid" and "delusional ideation").

Specifically, the Committee has strong concerns about Dr. Persinger’s comments in letters to the CDEV Committee and Faculty which could be misperceived by others as diagnostic in nature. The Committee finds that these comments were made without Dr. Persinger conducting a clinical evaluation.

As well, the Committee has grave concerns with respect to what is perceived to be a defensive and non-apologetic stance on the part of Dr. Persinger in his response to the complaint. The Committee determined that there is no evidence that Dr. Persinger has assumed responsibility for his actions. According to the evidence before the Committee, Dr. Persinger has not demonstrated any awareness of his inappropriate, unprofessional behaviour toward Ms. Loosemore.

THE COMMITTEE CAUTIONS DR. PERSINGER WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:

Psychologists should conduct themselves in a professional, respectful, and appropriate manner toward others, including students. In particular, the Committee urges Dr. Persinger to avoid the use of insensitive, unobjective and/or clinical language (in a manner which may be perceived as diagnoses) in his communications within the university setting.

THE COMMITTEE WISHED TO PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING ADVICE TO DR. PERSINGER:

In the future Dr. Persinger should take steps to ensure that his students are made aware that they are free to refuse participation in classroom testing (i.e., Myers-Briggs Inventory). The current wording being utilized in Dr. Persinger’s class is:

The Committee recommends that his wording be avoided and students not be required to indicate their name and reason for choosing not to participate.

In the future, in order to ensure that students clearly understand, it would be advisable for Dr. Persinger to ensure that consent forms used in classroom testing, are reviewed and clarified with students so as to avoid potential confusion. Dr. Persinger should ensure that students are provided with comprehensive information about specific research, the results, and the manner in which the research/results will be used.

The Committee also wished to inform the parties that the record of the Complaint’s Committee’s decision in this matter may be considered by the Complaints Committee when dealing with any future complaint of a "strikingly similar" nature, pursuant to the College’s policy on the use of similar fact evidence (see Addendum entitled "Policy re: Use of Similar Fact Evidence by Complaints Committee").

Judith Van Evra, Ph.D., C.Psych.

Professional Committee Member, Chair

Larry Cebulski, Ph.D., C.Psych.

Professional Committee Member

Marcia Sokolowski, D.C.S., C.Psych. Assoc.

Professional Committee Member

Michael Giffen

Public Committee Member

In consideration of:

1. the view of the Health Professions Board, which has the authority to review decisions of the Complaints Committee, that it is impossible for the College to regulate the profession adequately if it does not maintain records of and respond to the existence of recurring complaints of a strikingly similar nature against the same member of the profession and monitor patterns of conduct by its members; and
2. the adoption of policies concerning this issue by other health care regulating bodies (e.g., the College of Nurses of Ontario, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario),

In September, 1995, the Council of the College of Psychologists of Ontario adopted a policy which provides for the Complaints Committee to be informed of prior investigations or hearings in certain specified circumstances. The policy will take effect no earlier that April 1, 1996, and will involve only those Complaints or Discipline Committee decisions which are made after April 1, 1996.

If there have been prior investigations or hearings regarding incidents that are "strikingly similar" (i.e., similar fact) to the current matter being reviewed by the Complaints Committee and the Complaints Committee’s Decision in the prior matter consisted of a caution to the member or there was a finding of misconduct or incompetence by the Discipline Committee, information about the prior incidents will be brought to the Committee’s attention to assist the Committee in determining whether or not the current incident is substantiated. The information provided will consist of the Decision and Reasons issued by the Committee in the prior matter, as well as a summary of the complaint investigation.

Any information that is noted on the public Register of the College with respect to the member in question shall be brought to the attention of the Complaints Committee at the time when the complaint is considered.

Any information that is noted on the public Register of the College with respect to the member in question shall be brought to the attention of the Complaints Committee at the time when the complaint is considered.

If the Complaints Committee considering the current matter determines that it has concerns about the conduct of the member, based on the allegations raised by the complainant, the Committee may consider the following information in determining the appropriate disposition of the matter: the Complaints Committee’s Decision and Reasons in a prior matter which was "strikingly similar", where it had issued a caution to the member, the Discipline Committee’s Decision and Reasons in a prior matter which was "strikingly similar", where there was a finding of misconduct or incompetence, or the Fitness to Practise Committee’s Decision in a prior matter which was "strikingly similar", where there was a finding of incapacity. In all such cases, a summary of the investigation will also be provided.

In considering whether to provide the Committee with information about a prior investigation or hearing, the investigative staff, with the assistance of legal counsel, if they are of the view that it is necessary, will evaluate and determine if a previous incident meets the test of "similar fact". In doing so, the investigative staff will consider several factors, including:

1. whether a similar type of service was provided by the member in the prior case and the current complaint;
2. whether the allegations raised by the complainant in the prior case are of a strikingly similar nature to those raised in the current complaint;
3. whether the complainant in the prior investigation alleged a strikingly similar pattern of conduct to that alleged/found in the current complaint (e.g., specific statements made, methods of providing services, unusual markers);
4. whether the concerns noted by the Committee in the prior decision are of a strikingly similar nature to the allegations raised by the complainant in the present complaint;
5. whether there is a real and substantial nexus or connection between the allegations made in the current case and the facts related to the previous complaint; and
6. whether the prejudicial effect to the member is overridden by the probative value of the information.

In determining what weight to ascribe to the similar fact information from the prior investigation, the Committee will consider the following issues:

1. Are the complainants known to each other?
2. How similar are the details of each case? Does it appear that there is a distinct "system/pattern" of conduct in place? 
3. How long ago was the prior investigation carried out? How long ago did the events related to the prior investigation occur?
4. How many complaints of a strikingly similar nature have there been? How many previous decisions of the Complaints Committee exist with respect to this particular member and this type of allegation?

Prior to issuing a decision of the Complaints Committee, the member complained against will be provided with a copy of the previous Decision and Reasons, stemming from the case which has been assessed to be a similar fact situation. The member will be asked to make a submission in writing as to the degree of relevance and weight that the Committee should place on this information in determining whether the current matter under review is substantiated. This submission will be forwarded to the Committee along with the investigation report.

(END)