Registrant: Ms. Melina A. Dayne (Registration No. 2204)
Date: November 30, 2018
Status: In Effect
Nature of Action: A Panel of the Inquiry Committee issued an Order under section 35(1) of the Health Professions Act suspending the Respondent’s registration on an interim basis during the Inquiry Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Respondent’s fitness to practise, professional competence and compliance with professional standards under section 33(4), and pending any resulting hearing of the Discipline Committee.
Reason: On August 21, 2018, the Inquiry Committee opened an investigation under section 33(4) of the Health Professions Act into concerns about the Respondent’s fitness to practise arising from the content of a letter the College received from the Respondent and a subsequent telephone conversation between the Respondent and the College’s Deputy Registrar. A College inspector then attended at the Respondent’s office to complete a practice inspection on August 28, 2018. As a result of the practice inspection, further potential concerns were identified about the Respondent’s compliance with minimum professional standards in her psychology practice. Subsequent efforts by the College to confirm the Respondent’s voluntary agreement to change her practising status while the Inquiry Committee continued to investigate these concerns were unsuccessful.
In the circumstances, a Panel of the Inquiry Committee was struck to consider the potential need for an interim suspension order under section 35(1) of the Act to protect the public during the Committee’s ongoing investigation.
Based on a provisional assessment of the facts, the Inquiry Committee Panel determined that there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that the Respondent’s ability to practise psychology is impaired, and that she is not meeting minimum professional standards in her practice with respect to her clinical record-keeping and her use of adequate consent forms. The Panel was not satisfied that the concerns about record-keeping and use of forms were sufficient, by themselves, to warrant an interim suspension order. However, based on its review of the available evidence, the Panel was concerned about the risk that the Respondent’s apparent impairment could have an impact on services provided to clients. The Panel concluded that this concern was sufficiently serious, in conjunction with the other identified practice concerns, that the Respondent’s continued practice presented a serious risk of harm, and that an interim suspension order was therefore necessary to protect the public.