NSBEP gets yet another judicial rebuke in Yates case
Nova Scotia’s Board of Examiners in Psychology seems to have decided on some aversion therapy to break its bad habit of heavyhanded and unfair treatment of psychologists that don’t check all the board’s boxes.
That characterization of the modus operandi of Nova Scotia’s psychology cartel isn’t mine. The double-barrelled adjectives were fired off by a Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge.
Months ago, Mr. Justice Timothy Gabriel ruled in favour of Dr. Pamela Yates and against the NSBEP in a judicial review that set aside the board’s rejection of her application to practice in Nova Scotia. He instructed the board to use its statutory discretionary power in reassessing Dr. Yates’s application.
The judge also awarded Dr. Yates legal costs but her lawyer, Dennis James of Patterson Law, and the NSBEP were unable to agree on how much of James’s bill the board will pay, so back to Judge Gabriel they went where he determined the amount – $12,000 - in a decision released last week.
The board’s submission on costs drew another harsh rebuke from the court.
As important as all this is to Dr. Yates, an internationally-recognized forensic psychologist, there is an even bigger picture.
Unless you have a good insur- ance plan, or the money to pay for private psychological counselling, in Maritime Canada you or your kids are likely to wait months for help. The IWK recruits psychologists non-stop, and at any moment in time has as many as five openings in psychology.
Rather than rigidly apply its rulebook, you’d hope the NSBEP would look for solutions to get help for those kids. By all indications, including recommendations from some of the leading psychologists in Canada – recommendations the NSBEP didn’t consider – Dr. Yates would be part of that solution.
Pamela Yates grew up in northend Halifax, got a PHD in psychology, practised and taught, and climbed to a top-level job with Corrections Canada, a job she left to return to her native Nova Scotia, work at the IWK and help troubled kids. Except, the NSBEP decided she doesn’t make the grade down here.
The board doesn’t like her Carleton degree or the fact that her senior job at Corrections Canada kept her away from clinical work in re- cent years.
She’s quite willing to work under supervision in Nova Scotia to re-establish her clinical status, but strict application of NSBEP rules require that she move back to Saskatchewan, the province where she’s licenced, and do that to re-establish her clinical status. Then, a year later, she can return to Nova Scotia and work.
The hidebound NSBEP decision will only lengthen the line of troubled kids waiting for clinical psychology services, unless of course their parents can pony up the hefty fee for private counselling.
Mr. Justice Gabriel was critical of the board’s rigidity in his initial ruling, telling the NSBEP that its discretionary power is there for a reason, use it.
But, in its submission on costs, the board overreached and tried to convince the judge that his initial ruling was a split decision so costs should be minimal. These shrinks either need to rethink where they get their legal advice or learn that judges mean what they write.
In his most recent ruling, Mr. Justice Gabriel set them straight.
“I must respectfully disagree with the Board’s contention that success was mixed or divided . . . the relief granted was ultimately in accordance with what the Applicant (Dr. Yates) sought. In my view, the Applicant was com- pletely successful.
“It is also, I believe, fair to consider my finding that the conduct of the Board through the actions of the (former) Registrar, Dr. (Alan) Wilson, left a great deal to be desired with respect to the procedural fairness, or lack thereof, accorded to the Applicant in this process.”
If you are unfamiliar with judicial decisions this may seem mild criticism when it is in fact a good old-fashioned judicial butt-kicking and the judge was just getting warmed up.
He reminded the Board of its responsibility to exercise its discretion in reviewing Dr. Yates’s application and said failure to do so “transcends merely procedural considerations and reflects a degree of high-handedness and disregard for the Applicant, particularly given what was at stake. (Dr. Yates’ very ability to earn a livelihood).”
The tragedy here is not confined to the years Dr. Yates has lost from her stellar career while she fought this tight little self-governing circle. The tragedy is kids continue to suffer, while the board’s actions raise doubts about whether its concern is quality or quantity.