The legal database CanLII recently published an article about the College’s Discipline Committee taking the serious step of issuing an interim suspension on an RCIC’s licence.
The article explains how the Discipline Committee took the step because it believed the serious nature of the allegations meant allowing the RCIC to keep practising in the interim would expose the public to harm or undermine confidence in the profession.
It highlights “how quickly the Discipline Committee will act where repeated allegations point to systemic dishonesty and job selling,” and adds that the Committee took the step because it had reasonable grounds to believe that allegations, including job selling, against the licensee made it a risk to allow them to continue practising while awaiting the completion of the investigation.
Describing the case as a cautionary reminder that “interim suspension isn’t about strict proof of misconduct, it’s about perceived risk to the public,” the article goes on to offer practical lessons for licensees:
- No Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) promises in retainers (service agreements). Framing your service as “securing a job” almost guarantees regulatory jeopardy.
- Don’t touch ghost consultants. Accepting referrals from unauthorized actors can itself amount to misconduct, even before considering what went wrong on the client file.
- Full documentation protects you. Missing retainers, receipts, and ledgers create the appearance of dishonesty, even if work was done.
- Refund timing matters.
- Cooperate completely and early. Excuses (email glitches, landlord disputes, power outages) will not carry weight unless paired with prompt, verifiable document production.
As outlined in the article, this case highlights how the College will impose interim measures when there is a perceived risk of harm to the public.