By-law No. 28 (Consultation Closed)

CMRTO register & By-law No. 28 as amended by proposed By-law No. 57

The CMRTO’s register is a list of members and past members, and contains information about those members some of which is available to the public. Since June 4, 2009, the CMRTO has been required to post the information in the register which is available to the public (the public register) on its website. On September 1, 2013, additional information became available on the public register as a result of amendments to the CMRTO’s by-law. For an overview of the information currently available on the public register, please click here.

Proposed changes to the CMRTO register, By-law No. 28

The proposed changes to By-law No. 28 fall into three categories:

1. Additions from the relevant sections of the Health Professions Procedural Code, which is Schedule 2 of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, in order to provide clarity

2. Administrative edits in numbering of certain clauses

3. New information about MRTs to be posted to the public register to provide more transparency to the public.

Proposed changes and rationale:

To assist the public in making informed healthcare choices – a goal that is consistent among health regulatory colleges – Council is proposing that additional information be available on the public register, including:

• Restrictions on a member’s right to practise that result from an undertaking or agreement;

• Decisions of a Panel of the Inquires, Complaints and Reports (ICR) Committee that result in:

• An oral caution being issued to a member (to be removed from the public register two years after the member appears to be cautioned); and/or

• A Specified Continuing Education or Remediation Program (SCERP) (to be removed from the public register once the Registrar is satisfied that the member has successfully completed all requirements of the SCERP).

• A notation if a member agrees to resign to avoid a proceeding before the Discipline Committee or while a discipline proceeding was outstanding;

• The existence of a charge against the member, of which the College is aware, laid on or after January 1, 2017, which in the opinion of the Registrar is relevant to a member’s suitability to practise the profession (to be removed from the public register once the charges are no longer outstanding);

• Known registrations or licenses to practise the profession in another jurisdiction; and

• Known findings of professional misconduct or incompetence in other jurisdictions.

To see the proposed changes to By-law No. 28, please click here.

The changes to By-law No. 28 are being proposed by Council in an effort to increase transparency. In 2014, the Honourable Dr. Eric Hoskins, Minister of Health and Long Term Care, directed all health regulatory colleges in Ontario to make transparency a priority and make tangible strides to continually increase transparency in college processes and decision-making. The Minister noted that adjusting college processes and procedures may include amending existing by-laws.

In 2015, Council endorsed the transparency principles developed by the Advisory Group for Regulatory Excellence (AGRE), which guide the work at other health regulatory colleges. Endorsing the AGRE transparency principles was the first step in the CMRTO’s transparency journey. Expanding the information available on the public register is a continuation of that journey.

The proposed changes will ensure that relevant information about members is made public, enhancing public protection and safety. The greater the potential risk to the public, the more important transparency becomes. For example, members of the CMRTO only receive oral cautions or SCERPs when their conduct has been assessed as moderate or high risk – not low risk – and only after the completion of an investigation by a Panel of the ICR Committee. Alerting the public to these risks is consistent with the College’s mandate to protect the public interest.

The CMRTO Council is confident that the proposed changes to By-law No. 28 balance the principles of public protection and accountability, with fairness and privacy for CMRTO members.

Consultation and next steps

We wish to hear your comments on the proposed changes. Please add your comments and thoughts by using the form below, or by email here. The CMRTO Council will carefully review all comments before making any decisions regarding the proposed amendments. If the proposed amendments are approved by Council, notification and the finalized by-law will be posted to the CMRTO website.

The CMRTO will keep all MRTs informed of the proposed changes to the public register through its website, social media and Insights.

View the comments made to date below:

in support of proposed changes to CMRTO register, by-law 28

I am confused. I cannot tell what is being made public and what the college will keep for its files. My home address and phone number I hope is only for the files and will not be given to any one without my consent. (Or my email address) also can anyone inquire about my career without reason? Who is the public ? Anyone can request any information? Does the public need to have a reason? Right now it has my name and where I work what exactly will be added to that on the website. Be more specific. Thank you

The public register is available to anyone and is accessible from the CMRTO website under "Find an MRT." You can see the information that is currently available to the public here.

These by-law amendments propose adding the following information to the public register:

• Restrictions on a member's right to practise that result from an undertaking or agreement between the MRT and the CMRTO;
• Decisions of a Panel of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports (ICR) Committee that result in:
  • An oral caution being issued to a member (to be removed from the public register two years after the member appears to be cautioned); and/or
  • A Specified Continuing Education or Remediation Program (SCERP) (to be removed from the public register once the Registrar is satisfied that the member has successfully completed all requirements of the SCERP).
• A notation if a member agrees to resign to avoid a proceeding before the Discipline Committee or while a discipline proceeding was outstanding;
• The existence of a charge against a member, of which the College is aware, laid on or after January 1, 2017, which in the opinion of the Registrar is relevant to a member's suitability to practise the profession (to be removed from the public register once the charges are no longer outstanding);
• Known registrations or licenses to practise the profession in another jurisdiction; and
• Known findings of professional misconduct or incompetence in other jurisdictions.

Home addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses are not, and will not be, part of the public register.

I urge caution in including within ones record a statement of an outstanding charge even when relevant to practice, as the assumption of innocence may be compromised. 

Perhaps a way to deal with this issue would be to state that a charge ( specifying exactly what it is ) is outstanding only when a inquiry to the college is made about a member, rather than having it noted within the open public record. 

A legal opinion on this matter would be worth obtaining .

 I have had not one but two members of the public harrass me at work as they were able to find me thru the college! I again question where the amount of info disclosed will be capped???? I need protection also.

There is a provision in the Regulated Health Professions Act, Schedule 2, that provides the Registrar with the authority to refuse to disclose to an individual or to post on the College's website certain information about a member if the Registrar has reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure may jeopardize the safety of an individual. MRTs who are concerned about their safety may contact the CMRTO for more information on this provision.

Changes seem fair.

Thank you, these seem reasonable. Great job.

As it is the job of the college to protect the public, I believe these changes are justified and in the public interest.  As an example, I would like to see such information available from the College of Physicians and Surgeons as it would allow me to make more informed decisions regarding my care when I need to see a doctor.  Therefore, I see no reason why the patients of MRTs don't deserve the same opportunity to make informed decisions regarding their own care.  

I am opposed to the amendment to include information about publicizing details concerning other jurisdictions.  Surely, it is not in the mandate of our provincial college to provide positive or negative information about other jurisdictions.

I believe CMRTO needs to be accountable to its paying members with respect to the work we are funding.  Let the other jurisdictions take care of the information they want to publicize about their current or past members.  The public can access those websites as well as ours if they so choose.

The CMRTO should not be providing a tracking device for stalkers.  I sincerely feel that the college is overstepping its' boundaries on this point... literally.

Convictions, not charges, should be made public.  I fear that this is a very slippery step being considered by the CMRTO.  It seems unconstitutional.

Who will be responsible to fund the legal fees when a member who is cleared of wrongful charges starts litigation procedures against CMRTO for unfounded defamation?  I hope this financial burden doesn't fall on it's members.

Let the court do the job of judging our member.  If the charge stands the test of trial, then it is appropriate to inform the public.

The members are not paying the CMRTO to do work which is not included in their mandate.

I don't think these changes should be listed for public to see. Especially, if the charges are "pending". Have we sought any legal advice on this ?

What about the privacy of the members of CMRTO?  This is clearly not protecting our own privacy. 

I just want to say that I agree with the comments made above (i.e. that outstanding charges should not be made public-to let the courts do the judging, and it should be left to other jurisdictions to make their information public).

I understand the CMRTO exists to protect the public but MRTs are also human beings and we have our privacy rights.  I do not agree with the propose changes in section 6(f) and (g), and 6.1 (h), (n), (p), (t) and (x).  Member's date of birth and home address and phone number have nothing to do with the safety of the public.  By publicizing these information, you are putting the safety and privacy of members at risk. 

CMRTO response for clarity: The information covered by sections 6 (f) and (g) is already on the public register as required by the Code of the Regulated Health Professions Act. Similarly, the information covered by sections 6.1 (t) and (x) (when the member’s certificate of registration is suspended for non-payment of fees, and where a matter has been referred to the Discipline Committee) is already on the public register as required by the Code. However, the information covered by sections 6.1 (h), (n), and (p) (the death of a member, the member’s home address and home telephone number, and the member’s birthdate) is NOT currently on the public register and WILL NOT be on the public register under these proposed changes (see section 7 of the proposed by-law for further clarification). Other member information which is NOT listed on the public register includes: previous names used on the register, the name of the educational institution(s) where the member successfully completed a medical radiation technology program and the year of completion, the date the member successfully completed the certification examination, the gender of the member, the member’s use of English or French, and the member’s email address. If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to call the CMRTO Registrar.

 Is the process of charging MRTs very stringent or is there the possibility that malicious charges could be brought forward.  If so, then we need to exercise caution in relaying information to the public as it may be completely unfounded.  It would be horrible for an MRT's reputation to be sullied on baseless charges.  It is also impossible to repair one's reputation after it has been maligned.  I don't believe that any checks and balances can be put in place to completely eliminate unwarranted charges.  I believe that it is fairer to relay information to the public once the charges have been substantiated rather than when they are being alleged.  If we are concerned about harm to the patient, I think it would be apparent that the MRT in question would also be facing action from their respective department, so the duty would be that of the department to determine the extent of the MRT's scope of practice until the findings have been made.

I oppose the amendment.

The publishing of Convictions that are relevant to practice is acceptable. The publishing of other material is not reasonable and is ill advised. 

Members date of birth, home address and phone number and have nothing to do with public safety.  Please do not publicize this information. 

Convictions, not charges, should be made public.

Are you not concerned about the safety and privacy of the members?