Frequently Asked Questions about Ethics

In brief, the CPA does not have a role in responding to direct complaints of unethical behaviour against its Members or Affiliates.

The CPA is a national, voluntary association whose Members or Affiliates include scientists, practitioners, and educators in Psychology.  The CPA does not certify, license, or regulate its Members to practice in Canada. That is the responsibility of provincial/territorial regulatory bodies of Psychology under their respective statutory laws (for a list of those bodies, please visit: https://cpa.ca/public/whatisapsychologist/regulatorybodies/).

The CPA does not investigate complaints of alleged unethical behaviour against its Members or Affiliates. This is based on the fact that the CPA does not have regulatory authority or jurisdiction over the research, teaching, or practice of psychology in Canada. This is also based on the principle that fairness and justice are best served when investigation and review of complaints are carried out as close as possible to the parties and situation by bodies with the legal mandate, resources, and structures to do so.

For the same reasons, the CPA does not contest or re-adjudicate complaints that already have been processed by an appropriate external body (e.g., a professional regulatory body, a university disciplinary committee, a court of law).  In the case of a substantiated complaint against one of its Members or Affiliates, the CPA reviews the findings of the external body and decides whether the individual subject to that complaint can remain a Member or Affiliate of the CPA.

An external report is a verified report of unethical or criminal conduct by a CPA Member or Affiliate, or evidence that a Member or Affiliate is misusing the Association’s membership or affiliateship in a way that implies certification or licensure. It may come from several sources.

Regulatory, licensing, or certification bodies sometimes publish the names of persons who have been sanctioned, the specifics of the sanction, and the nature of the conduct that led to the sanction. Also, the Association may be notified by CPA Members or Affiliates or by members of the public of media reports and/or records that a CPA Member or an Affiliate has been convicted or sanctioned, or has misused the Association’s membership or affiliateship.

No. The report must concern conduct that has been verified; that is, formally judged by an appropriate body (e.g., a professional regulatory body, a court of law, a statutory tribunal, a university disciplinary committee) to have been unethical or criminal. Allegations of unethical conduct or criminal charges alone are not considered to be subject to review by the Committee on Ethics.

The Association’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO), or the CEO’s designate, forwards the matter with all available information to the Chair of the Committee on Ethics for review. The Chair determines whether to: (i) make a recommendation directly to the CEO; or (ii) refer the matter to the Committee’s Review Subcommittee for a formal review of the unethical behaviour and recommendation to the CEO. The Chair and the Review Subcommittee may request further information from other sources to help determine whether the unethical behaviour is inconsistent with the expectations set out in the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists.

Once the review of an external report has been completed, the Committee’s Chair or Review Subcommittee, as applicable, makes a recommendation to the Association’s Chief Executive Officer about whether any action needs to be taken regarding the individual’s membership or affiliateship in the Association (e.g., a “cease and desist” order to the Member or Affiliate, temporary conditions on continued CPA membership or affiliateship, recommendation that the Member or Affiliate be suspended or expelled from the Association).

Individuals are required on the CPA membership/affiliateship application or renewal forms to respond to ethics questions pertaining to whether they have been sanctioned for unethical behaviour or convicted for serious criminal offence. The expression “self-disclosures of unethical or criminal conduct” refers to any disclosure of unethical behaviour or serious criminal offence made voluntarily in completing a CPA membership/affiliateship application or renewal form. Such disclosures are reviewed by the Chair of the Committee on Ethics or its Review Subcommittee, as applicable, only if it involves the disclosure of a serious criminal offence for which the individual has been convicted and a pardon has not been granted or the disclosure of unethical conduct for which the individual was sanctioned by a regulatory body, licensing board or any other professional, scientific or administrative body.

A serious criminal offence is defined by the CPA’s Rules and Procedures for Dealing with Reports and Complaints of Unethical Behaviour (found here: https://cpa.ca/aboutcpa/committees/ethics/rulesandproceduresreportsofunethicalbehaviour/ ) as an infraction of the Criminal Code or related statutes that has resulted in a peace bond, a fine of $5000 or more, probation, or any period of post-conviction imprisonment, and would include conviction of any offence classified as an indictable or hybrid offence for which a pardon has not been granted.

A sanction is any condition or penalty imposed by a disciplinary body (e.g., regulatory/licensing/certification body, research ethics board, complaint structure within a university) because of conduct that was judged by that disciplinary body to be unprofessional or unethical. Such sanctions may include, but are not limited to, fines, loss of funding, demotion or loss of position, required education, required supervision, or temporary or permanent revocation of a license or certification to practice.

The Association’s Director of Membership brings a need for review of the application or renewal to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), or the CEO’s designate, who forwards the matter with all related information to the Chair of the Committee on Ethics (CoE) for review. The Chair determines whether to: (i) make a recommendation directly to the CEO; or (ii) refer the matter to the Committee’s Review Subcommittee for a formal review of the unethical behaviour and recommendation to the CEO. In either case, the individual who reported to have been sanctioned or convicted may be asked for further information by the CPA Ethics Officer or the Chair of the CoE to help to determine whether the unethical or criminal behaviour is inconsistent with the expectations set out in the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (found here: https://cpa.ca/aboutcpa/committees/ethics/codeofethics/).

Once the review of a self-disclosure has been completed, the Committee’s Chair or Review Subcommittee, as applicable, makes a recommendation to the Association’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or the CEO’s designate about whether the relevant membership/affiliateship application or renewal should be approved, denied, or made provisional under specified conditions and, in the case of an existing Member or Affiliate, whether further action is required (e.g., temporary conditions on continued CPA membership or affiliateship, recommendation that the Member or Affiliate be suspended or expelled from the Association). The CEO then determines whether to uphold the recommendation made by the Committee’s Chair or Review Subcommittee. The CPA Board of Directors is responsible for making the final determination when the CEO does not agree with the recommendation from the Committee on Ethics.