1

IN THE MATTER OF THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS ACT, R.S.A. 2000, c.H-7;

AND IN THE MATTER OF A HEARING INTO THE CONDUCT OF (insert name of member), A MEMBER OF THE ALBERTA COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORKERS;

AND INTO THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT BY (insert name of complainant) INTO THE CONDUCT OF (insert name of social worker) PURSUANT TO S. 77(a) OF THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS ACT

REASONS FOR DECISION

Pursuant to a public hearing held on (insert date of Hearing) at the (specify Edmonton or Calgary) offices of(insert location), the Alberta College of Social Workers Hearing Tribunal is issuing its reasons for decision.

A hearing into the conduct of (insert name of social worker) was held on (insert date of hearing) pursuant to the Health Professions Act, R.S.A. 2000, c.H-7 as amended (the “Act”).

The members of the Hearing Tribunal were:

(List Tribunal members)

The hearing was a public hearing pursuant to s. 78 of the Act.

*CONSENT ORDER

*The investigated member, (insert name of member), provided a written admission of unprofessional conduct to the Hearing Tribunal dated (insert date of written admission) pursuant to s. 70(1) of the Act.

*The Hearing Tribunal accepts all (or part) of the admission of the investigated member.

The allegations in the Notice of Hearing arise from a complaint from (insert name of complainant), dated (insert date of complaint).

The allegations in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:

(Insert allegations from Notice of Hearing)

The hearing proceeded on [Insert date] (reference any adjournments) and grounds.

The Hearing Tribunal made decisions on motions as follows:

(Insert part making motion, order requested, decision and reasons for decision on motion matters)

The Hearing Tribunal heard from the following witnesses at the Hearing:

(List witnesses)

The following documents were accepted as Exhibits at the Hearing:

(List Exhibits)

General findings of fact:

(Write facts that are not in dispute)

(Articulate decisions on admissibility or weight of evidence)

(Each allegation)

Decision as to whether conduct does or does not constitute unprofessional conduct.

Facts relating to each finding

Reasons for decision

What evidence accept or reject (include admissions of investigated member)

Relate to obligations as social worker, Code of Ethics, Standards of Practice and accepted practice.

What violation of appropriate/mandated practice. How does this constitute unprofessional conduct. Specify specific legislative provisions relating to unprofessional conduct.

REASONS FOR DECISION ON SANCTION (TEMPLATE)

As a result of the findings of the Hearing Tribunal with respect to allegations of unprofessional conduct, the Hearing Tribunal makes the following orders in accordance with s. 82 of the Act.

1.

2.

3.

4.

The Hearing Tribunal makes its orders as set out above on the basis of the following reasons.

The Hearing Tribunal should make reference to the five objectives set out in the sanctioning principles and in addition address each of the associated factors in correlation to its reasoning with respect to its decision.

For example, if there was an allegation that the investigated member was practicing social work while incapacitated (see the definitions in the Health Professions Act and in s. 118 of the Act), the Tribunal would want to look at the risks that occurred to the public. This would be evidence that would be gleaned from the hearing of the matter. In accepting that evidence, the Hearing Tribunal would then want to address the objectives it was attempting to satisfy by making certain specific decisions (requiring the investigated member to seek treatment), which would be the protection of the public, rehabilitation of the member, and the integrity of the profession.

The Courts have recently created a higher standard of reasons for sanctioning decisions. Accordingly the Hearing Tribunal should articulate its justification for establishing certain consequences for the findings of unprofessional conduct that it makes. Each Hearing Tribunal will receive an outline with respect to the objectives of sanctioning and individual considerations.

{E6105913.DOC; 2}