As we transition under the Regulated Health Professions Act (RHPA), we are updating our policies to align with new provincial standards. Under the RHPA, all regulatory colleges must enforce a strict duty-to-report obligation regarding sexual misconduct.
The NSCSW is required to implement this specific amendment within six months of the RHPA’s proclamation.
Identifying the Gap
When reviewing our current Standards of Practice, we identified a gap in our existing standards. While Guiding Principle 5.3 and its associated standards outline our broader ethical responsibilities to colleagues and the workplace, this section does not currently contain an explicit mandate requiring social workers to report known sexual misconduct. When it comes to client safety, we need to leave no room for misunderstanding.
Proposed Solution: New Standards
To address this gap and strengthen safer practice, we are proposing the addition of two new standards, 5.3.15 & 5.3.16. The proposed wording is as follows:
- 5.3.15: A registrant who has reasonable grounds to believe that another registrant has engaged in sexual misconduct must report that information to the Registrar.
- 5.3.16: A registrant who has reasonable grounds to believe that a member of another regulated health profession has engaged in sexual misconduct must report that information to the appropriate regulatory body of that profession.
Please take a few moments to review this draft and share your thoughts with us. You can comment below or email Alec directly ([email protected]) by August 30, 2026.
I agree. Sometimes I hear stories from new clients about their experiences with their previous social worker who were inappropriate and crossed professional boundaries. It’s amazing these service users have the resilience and courage to move ahead and try again with a different social worker.
Please define “reasonable grounds” in the new standards, as it would benefit everyone to have some concrete examples.
Many thanks!
Maybe clarify what enbumbuses the inappropriate sexual misconduct or inappropriate balance of power of a professional. The responsibility and limitation of reporting on another professional (personal or professional life? What type of evidences is required? Who investigated the professional? The role in ligation; as a witness or third party information, etc.
I agree with the new standards, and as others have stated in previous comments, a clear definition of “reasonable grounds” in regards to the proposed new standards will empower registrants to know when this test has been met. Because social work practice contexts are so diverse, and because these settings can vary a great deal in terms of how closely we work with our peers, social workers may not always be aware of how their peers are practicing or when misconduct is occurring. As someone who has had to report a colleague for sexual misconduct in the past, I later learned that the misconduct had been going on for a long time before I became aware and reported it. A clear and fair definition of reasonable grounds needs to be in place both to protect registrants who are unaware of misconduct by a colleague, while also giving us clear guidelines as to when we must report.
I’ve recently written this for our guidelines to the limits of confidentiality. My understanding is it’s both regulated and unregulated health professionals that we have a duty to report…
Guidelines:
We have a duty to report sexual misconduct to the appropriate regulatory body and/or
employer if we have reasonable grounds to believe that a regulated or unregulated health
professional has engaged in sexual misconduct.
In Nova Scotia Social Workers, Psychologists, Counselling Therapists, Physicians,
Nurses, Dentists, Optometrists, etc. are all regulated health professionals. For a full list of
regulated health professions please visit: https://nsrhpn.ca/member-listing
Having transferred my registration in 2024 to NSCSW from another province where both these are standards were included in Standards of Duty to Report I’ve continued adherence by including each Standard in the discussion of limits of confidentiality. I’m happy to see NSCSW move towards formalizing this, it just makes sense to me.
Thanks to the College for its work on this important matter.
The issue of defining ‘reasonable grounds’ noted in other comments here is wise and supported by the writer.
Patrick Callaghan MSW/RSW