7.2 Complaints and Disciplinary Procedures

Complaints and Disciplinary Procedures

When someone believes an OACETT member has acted improperly, the matter moves through a defined path: the Registrar, the RPPC Complaints Subcommittee, and, for serious cases, an ad hoc Discipline Subcommittee. The rules come from three sources: By-law 20, s. 2.5 (the power), the RPPC Terms of Reference for each subcommittee (the procedure), and OACETT's published complaints process (the intake steps). The OACETT Act itself only lists "to maintain discipline among its members" as an object. It contains no hearing procedure and no appeal section.

---

1. Who Does What

This separation means the people who screen a complaint are not the people who decide it. TOR102.6 states that no one who sat on the Complaints Subcommittee for a complaint may sit on the Discipline Subcommittee for that complaint.

---

2. Step 1: Making a Complaint

• Grounds: professional misconduct, incompetence, or a breach of the Code of Ethics.
• Who may complain: any member of the public, any OACETT member, or the OACETT Registrar.
• Try to resolve it first: OACETT encourages complainants to try to resolve the issue by speaking with the member before filing.
• How: contact the Registrar (registrar@oacett.org). A complaint must follow OACETT's documented process. A complaint that does not can be refused.

---

3. Step 2: Registrar Review and the Member's Response

OACETT publishes these intake timelines:

1. The Registrar reviews the complaint and sends a copy to the member within 15 days.
2. The member has 30 days to respond.
3. After the 30 days, the complaint goes to the Complaints Subcommittee.

The response period is a basic fairness protection. The member learns the allegations early and can explain the technical or contractual context before anyone decides whether to proceed.

---

4. Step 3: The Complaints Subcommittee

Composition (TOR102.1)

• At least three Certified Members, who should have at least five years of work experience in their discipline.
• The chair is a member of the RPPC. The mandate describes it as an elected Board member selected jointly by the RPPC Chair and the Registrar.
• Decisions are made by consensus where possible. Otherwise quorum is 50% plus one, a majority carries, and the Chair breaks ties. Members cannot abstain unless they have a conflict of interest.

What It Must Refuse

The subcommittee will refuse to consider and investigate a complaint if, in its opinion:

• the complaint does not relate to professional misconduct or incompetence;
• the complaint is not a breach of the Code of Ethics;
• the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process; or
• the complaint did not follow the documented process.

What It Can Do

After reviewing the complaint, it may take one or more of these actions:

1. Refer the matter, in whole or in part, to the Discipline Subcommittee;
2. Not refer the matter to the Discipline Subcommittee;
3. Direct the Registrar to provide advice in writing to the member;
4. Require that the member be cautioned or admonished; or
5. Take other action appropriate in the circumstances that is not inconsistent with the Act or the By-law.

It must give its decision and rationale in writing to the Registrar. OACETT's public summary of the process puts the outcomes simply: dismiss the complaint if no misconduct is found; find it justified and indicate the need for probationary action to the Registrar; or, for more serious infractions, refer the member to discipline.

---

5. Step 4: The Discipline Subcommittee

Formation and Timelines (TOR102.6)

The recruitment schedule in Appendix A runs six weeks: notice in week 1, applications in weeks 2 and 3, Nominating Committee review in weeks 4 and 5, and a Board email vote in week 6.

Composition and Independence

• At least three certified members who cannot be members of the RPPC.
• The Registrar is not a member of the panel but may attend.
• Anyone who sat on the Complaints Subcommittee for that complaint is excluded.
• The panel exists for a specific complaint or complaints and is dissolved afterwards.
• Members receive no honorarium, only reasonable expenses.
• Voting: quorum is 50% plus one, a majority carries, the Chair votes only to break a tie, and members cannot abstain.

The Hearing

The panel holds a hearing to determine whether the member "is guilty of misconduct or a breach of the Code of Ethics and/or the Rules of Professional Conduct." By-law 20 requires notice and an opportunity to be heard in accordance with ONCA and the RPPC rules, and TOR102.6 states that OACETT will obtain an opinion on the procedure for holding the hearing. Under general administrative law principles of procedural fairness, the member should know the allegations and evidence, have a real chance to respond, and be judged by an impartial panel.

---

6. Orders the Discipline Subcommittee Can Make

If the Allegation Is Substantiated

The panel may make an order doing one or more of the following:

• Revoke membership for a period it fixes;
• Suspend membership for a period it fixes;
• Impose terms, conditions or limitations on the member's certification and membership. These may include completing specified courses of study, periodic inspections by the subcommittee or its delegate, or reporting to the Registrar or a committee on professional responsibilities, for a specified or indefinite period;
• Require that the member be reprimanded, admonished or counselled, and, if warranted, record that discipline in the Register for a specified or unlimited period;
• Publish the finding and order, in detail or in summary, in the Association's official publication and other appropriate media; and
• Fix fines to be paid by the member to the Association.

If the Allegation Is Unfounded

The panel may:

• publish the finding and order in the official publication when the member requests it; and
• direct the Association to reimburse the member's costs, in whole or in part.

Publication is a discretionary order, not automatic. The Terms of Reference set no dollar limit for fines.

---

7. After the Decision: Court Oversight

Neither the OACETT Act nor By-law 20 creates a statutory right of appeal from a Discipline Subcommittee decision to a court. A member who believes a decision was made without jurisdiction, unfairly, or unreasonably would generally have to seek judicial review. In Ontario, applications for judicial review are ordinarily heard by the Divisional Court (Chapter 1). On judicial review, courts usually apply the Vavilov reasonableness standard to the decision itself and ask whether the procedure was fair.

---

8. Common Exam Traps