Saskatchewan · Saskatchewan College of Psychologists

Remediation and Reflection for Saskatchewan Psychologists

The Saskatchewan College of Psychologists publishes its Discipline Committee decisions on purpose — so that members know the standards expected of them. Read them, and a pattern is plain: when the Committee wants to fix a deficiency, it orders a course. A psychologist who has already completed relevant education, before the decision, can show the very thing the Committee would otherwise impose — and every route through the system rewards exactly that.

Saskatchewan psychology decisions name education as the remedy

The Saskatchewan College of Psychologists publishes its Discipline Committee decisions deliberately — the Committee has said its decisions are placed on the website so that members know the standards expected of them and the public can inform themselves about conduct and competence. That means you can read, in the College’s own words, what it treats as a fitting remedy.

The published decisions show a consistent shape: a reprimand, a directed course or education requirement with proof of completion sent to the Registrar, and a fine — often with costs. In one matter a provisional licensee was reprimanded and fined, with a course required and completion to be evidenced directly to the College. In another, a psychologist admitted, on an Agreed Statement of Facts, failing to keep adequate client records, and the penalty combined a reprimand with a directed course.

Insight, in a psychology context

Insight is not an apology, and it is not conceding every allegation. It is a demonstrated understanding of why the practice fell short, what it meant for the client, and what has specifically changed. For psychologists, the most common and most serious concerns — boundary and dual-relationship issues, consent, confidentiality, and record-keeping — are areas where insight is both essential and closely scrutinised, because they go to the trust at the centre of the therapeutic relationship.

The three things being assessed

Insight

An accurate grasp of what happened and why, including the uncomfortable part. Insight that reaches only as far as what you were caught for reads as damage limitation.

Remediation

Completed, evidenced steps — not intentions. Dated actions, with proof of completion of the kind the Registrar would accept.

Assurance against repetition

A credible account of why it will not recur — a changed practice or habit, often supported by ongoing clinical supervision, which carries particular weight in psychology precisely because so many concerns arise in the unsupervised space of the consulting room.

Why timing decides the outcome

Every route through the Saskatchewan system rewards work already done:

• The PCC’s choice of disposition — between dismissal, a resolved ADR with remedial actions, and referral to a hearing — is directly informed by whether you have identified and addressed the deficiency.
• Alternative dispute resolution is one of the PCC’s four routes, and a resolved ADR with agreed remedial steps is far more achievable when you bring completed work to it.
• At a hearing, insight and completed remediation support a joint submission on penalty — which the Committee must weigh seriously.

A Discipline Committee that has to order you to complete a course is a Committee that did not see evidence you had already done it — and the finding, the published decision and the ASPPB filing all follow.

Remediation matched to the usual psychology concerns

• Boundaries and dual relationships — a professional boundaries course, a written framework, and ongoing supervision.
• Consent and confidentiality — targeted education plus a documented change to your consent and information-handling processes.
• Record-keeping — a records course and an audit of your files against the College’s Professional Practice Guidelines, with before-and-after evidence.
• Scope and competence — supervised practice or further training in the specific area, with evidence of changed practice.

What documented reflection looks like

• What happened, factually and without minimisation.
• Why it happened — the real contributing factors, without hiding behind them.
• The impact on the client, from their perspective rather than yours.
• What you changed, specifically, with dates and proof.
• How you know it is working — supervision, audit, a repeat measure.
• What you would do differently with the next client who presents the same way.

Certificates of completion, a supervision plan, an audit of your records, and a written reflective statement are the artefacts that turn a claim of insight into evidence of it.

This article is general information for psychologists registered with the Saskatchewan College of Psychologists and does not constitute legal advice. Regulatory processes and the law change, and every case turns on its own facts. If you are the subject of a complaint or investigation, obtain advice from a lawyer experienced in professional regulation, and notify your professional liability insurer, before you respond. Last updated July 14, 2026.