The CAP Complaints Review Committee Did Not Read the Submissions and Falsely Stated That Ms. T’s Agent “provide[d] little substantive information” - School District No 5 Southeast Kootenay Information

By Bob Uttl (February 28, 2025)

charlatan, n. a person who pretends or claims to have more knowledge or skill than they possess; fraud; quack
dictionary.com

On March 12, 2024, the College of Alberta Psychologists” Complaint Review Committee (CRC) — Dr. Lorraine Breault, Dr. Ali Al-Asadi, and two community members, Mr. DD and Ms. BR (the names are initialized as the community members may carry lesser responsibility for the CRC’s conduct) — dismissed the Appeal of Dr. Troy Janzen’s Dismissal of Ms.T’s four complaints against Dr. John Braxton Suffield. The CRC concluded that Dr. Suffield’s conduct Ms. T complained about was at least minimally competent conduct.

The CRC decision — read the CRC decision yourself — is extraordinarily devoid of any substantive content. It repeatedly states that Dr. Troy Janzen’s decision was “reasonable”, “logical”, etc, but the CRC mentioned no facts and no law that would allow a reader to conclude that Dr Troy. Janzen’s dismissal of Ms. T’s complaints was indeed reasonable in light of the facts/evidence and the law.

Remarkably, Dr. Lorraine Breault and the CRC wrote:

The CRC noted that the request for review and written submissions of the Agent provide little substantive information and do not demonstrate that the Complaints Director’s conclusions are unreasonable…
The Dismissal of the Complaint by the CRC, Re Dr. J. Braxton Suffield, March 12, 2024

How is it possible that the CRC concluded that “the Agent” – myself – “provide[d] little substantive information”?

The CRC decision letter signed by Dr. Lorraine Breault reveals that the CRC did not review the written submissions. The problem is not that the Agent did not provide substantive information, the problem is that Dr. Lorraine Breault, Dr. Ali Al-Asadi, and the CRC ignored it to such a degree that they did not even realized it was in front of them, or they realized it but pretended it was not in front of them.

The CRC did not review the written submissions

The CRC wrote that they met “on August 14, 2023 by video conference to review the dismissal of the complaint” (p. 1, para 1). Ms. T did not file only one complaint but four four separate complaints against Dr. Suffield in a span of nearly a year. Which of these four complaints did the CRC review and which ones did the CRC decide to ignore?

The CRC also wrote: “The CRC had been provided with voluminous materials, consisting of several hundred pages of materials. (p. 3, para 2)” Which “several hundred of pages” did the CRC review out of several thousands of pages? The CRC ought to have noticed that the materials provided to it were thousands of pages rather than hundreds of pages. To illustrate:

Dr. Janzen’s Report to the CRC alone had 2,561 pages not including the 1-page cover letter dated December 7, 2022, and 1-page document listing five tabs
Dr. Janzen’s Supplementary Report to the CRC had 471 pages (provided on February 2, 2023)
The Appeal of Dr. Troy Janzen’s Dismissal of Complaints Against Dr. J. Braxton Suffield was 171 pages (which CRC stated “provided little substantive information”)

Nothing in the CRC Decision indicates which complaint they chose to review and which ones they chose to ignore, and which specific materials they reviewed and which ones they chose to ignore. Moreover, according to their own words, the CRC did the reviewing in one video conference meeting on August 14, 2023, and incidentally, the very same day they also reviewed complaints against Dr. Allan Mandel and Dr. Mary Westcott (thousands of pages each).

As per the CRC’s admissions as to what they reviewed, the CRC could not and did not do its duty under the HPA. The CRC is required to review all of the submissions rather than pick and choose what they review.

The CRC ignored substantive information before it

The Agent (myself) provided the CRC with 171 (single spaced) pages long Appeal of Dr. Troy Janzen’s Dismissal of four complaints against Dr. J. Braxton Suffield. What did the Agent provide the CRC with in those 171 pages? Here are a few examples:

The Trio’s failure to know the criterion and to use criterion-referenced testing

The Trio — Drs. Mary Westcott, Allan Mandel and J. Braxton Suffield — opined that Ms. T did not have enough IQ points to perform her elementary school teaching duties. For a psychologist to claim that an examinee does not have enough IQ points to perform her teaching duties, the psychologist ought to know the criterion – the minimum number of IQ points required to perform the teaching duties — and then apply criterion-referenced testing to determine if the examinee does or does not have the minimum number of IQ points required. Where the examinee’s IQ score lies in the distribution of some other people as determined by norm-referenced testing is completely irrelevant to the question whether the examinee had the minimum number of IQ points.

The Appeal (see pages 34-42 of the Appeal for yourself) provided very detailed substantive information rather than “little substantive information”, certainly more than enough to understand that Dr. Janzen’s conclusions were unreasonable, not based on facts and not based on applying the law to those facts. The CRC did not address these submissions.

The Trio’s misuse of norm-referenced testing

The Trio — Drs. Mary Westcott, Allan Mandel and J. Braxton Suffield’s — use of normed-referenced testing, with norms adjusted for age or even for age, sex, race, and education, measured Ms. T against people of the certain age, sex, race and education. The obvious problem with that approach is that in doing so Drs. Westcott, Mandel and Suffield set up a different standards of minimum requirements for teachers of different ages, sexes, races and education because it is well known that performance on various IQ tests varies by these factors. This is otherwise known as discrimination on the basis of age, sex, race, and education with the individuals who are members of higher scoring group (e.g., younger teachers) are held to much higher standard than individuals of some other lower scoring group (e.g., older teachers).

Again, the Appeal (see pages 34-42 of the Appeal for yourself) provided very detailed substantive information, certainly more than enough to understand that Dr. Janzen’s conclusions were unreasonable, not based on facts and not based on applying the law to those facts. Again, the CRC did not address these submissions

The Trio’s misuse of outdated, obsolete, and irrelevant psychological tests

The Trio made a variety of false statements about the average IQ of elementary school teachers based on 40 to 80 years old norms and data gathered from samples of some unknown teachers and university students in education departments, in United States rather then in Canada, in historical eras having nothing to do with today. Astonishingly, the Trio even directly compared Ms. T’s WAIS CDN (Wechsler, 2008) IQ to the mean scores of these student or teacher groups tested 40 to 80 years ago with different tests that were normed 40 to 85 years ago:

General Classification Test (GCT) (US Adjutant General, 1941) mean scores of the “AAF White Enlisted Men” in US Army tested in early 1940s, reported by Harrell and Harrell (1945) and reproduced in Schmidt and Hunter (2004).
Wonderlic (1992) WPT scores translated to WAIS (Wechsler, 1955) IQ scores in USA.
Gottfredson’s figures based on Wonderlic (1992).
USES GATB (DOL, 1970) mean scores of university students (listed in Table 9-3, p. 170) in their final year of studies in 1950s in USA. The Trio even pretended or outright falsely claimed that the Table 9-3 was from the GATB “Canadian” Manual demonstrating either their inability to comprehend which test manual they were copying the Table 9-3 from or their astonishing dishonesty (Note: In 2024, Dr. Suffield admitted, under oath and penalty of perjury, that indeed the Table 9-3 was from the USES Manual and not Canadian Manual as he falsely submitted to the College of Alberta Psychologists).

These obsolete tests use different tasks, have different content, and their scores cannot be assumed to be equivalent unless scientific evidence demonstrates them to be equivalent. The Trio referred to no scientific evidence demonstrating that the scores on these tests were equivalent and, astonishingly, the Trio ignored (a) a mountain of evidence demonstrating that the scores on these tests are NOT equivalent including the WAIS test manuals themselves, and (b) information in test manuals, in plain English, telling them that these tests used different standardized scores and were not directly comparable. It may be, however, that the Trio never even checked the test manuals.

For example, the consecutive editions of the WAIS (Wechsler, 1955, 1981, 1997, 2008) have been demonstrated NOT to be equivalent with the later editions being substantially harder than previous editions. The difference between WAIS (1955) and WAIS US (2008) is about 13.3 IQ points according to the test manuals’ data (see Table 1 in Uttl, Violo, & Gibson, 2024). In general, over many samples, and many tests, the Flynn Effect is about 0.3 IQ points per year indicating that the different between WAIS (1955) and WAIS-IV US (2008) IQ scores would be about 15.9. Similarly, if the WAIS-IV is scored using Canadian vs. US norms, examinees’ score using CDN norms is about 5 to 7 IQ points lower than using the US norms. Accordingly, when the Trio compared Ms. T’s WAIS-IV CDN (2008) IQ to WAIS (1955) US mean IQ of some samples of some teachers somewhere, the Trio artificially shaved off between 18.3 to 23.9 IQ points from Ms. T’s IQ and made Ms. T artificially appear less intelligent.

For another example, the General Classification Test (GCT) (US Adjutant General, 1941) is standardized with the mean of 100 and standard deviation (SD) of 20 whereas the WAIS editions are standardized with the man of 100 and SD of 15. Accordingly, one must at minimum transfer reported GCT mean to IQ scale mean before one can claim as Dr. Westcott did that “Schmidt and Hunter (2004) indicated that the average IQ for teachers is 122…” It is a hallmark of incompetence or dishonesty to misrepresent the GCT standard score as IQ score.

Finally, a minimally competent psychologists ought to understand that the samples reported in Harrell and Harrell (1945), Wonderlic (1992), Gottfredson figures, and USES GATB (DOL, 1970) were not representative of any particular groups decades ago and in USA, and are not representative of Ms. T’s peers today, in British Columbia, Canada.

Again, the Appeal (see pages 50-67 of the Appeal for yourself) provided very detailed substantive information, certainly more than enough to understand that Dr. Janzen’s conclusions were unreasonable, not based on facts and not based on applying the law to those facts. Again,, the CRC did not address these submissions

The Trio’s reliance on obsolete data to falsely claim that university graduates’ mean IQ was well above average

The Trio pulled up really outdated and obsolete data sets to claim that university graduates’ mean IQ was well above average, that is, 115 or more:

Gottfredson (1997, 1998, 2003) figures, based on Wonderlic (1992)/WAIS (Wechsler, 1955)
Barona Index (Barona, 1984) predicting WAIS-R (Wechsler, 1981) IQs
Kaufman et al. (1987) based on WAIS-R (Wechsler, 1981)

At the same time, the Trio ignored the most current data published for WAIS-III US and WAIS-III CDN (Wechsler, 1997) and WAIS-IV US (Wechsler, 2008). First, Longman et al. (2007) demonstrated that the average IQ of those with university degrees dropped to 108.7 by 1996 for WAIS-III CDN and to 111.6 for WAIS-III US. Second, Holdnack and Weiss (2013) demonstrated that the average IQ of the university graduates was merely 107.1 by 2007 for WAIS-IV US — a drop of 4.5 IQ points between 1996 and 2007. While WAIS-IV CDN normative sample (Wechsler, 2008) was not analyzed by education, the mean WAIS-IV CDN scores for those with 16+ years of education would be expected to be about 4.5 IQ points lower than the mean scores on WAIS-IV US, that is, about 102.6, and in any case lower than 107.1.

The Appeal (see pages 68-76 of the Appeal for yourself) provided very detailed substantive information, certainly more than enough to understand that Dr. Janzen’s conclusions were unreasonable, not based on facts and not based on applying the law to those facts. The CRC did not address these submissions

The Trio’s misuse of the GATB CDN and the Career Handbook

In using the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) Canadian Edition (Nelson, 1986) and the Aptitude Level data published in the Career Handbook, Drs. Westcott, Mandel and Suffield practiced junk science and not science because (a) GATB CDN norms were outdated, obsolete and invalid in 1995 already as shown by Yesting (1996), (b) the Career Handbook data are not based on any representative samples of any actual workers as the Career Handbook plainly informs its readers, and (c) the Career Handbook data are not the speculated “minimum required” aptitudes but the speculated most frequent aptitudes as the Career Handbook plainly states (note that the most frequent scores lie in the centre of the symmetrical bell shaped distribution and are equivalent to the mean and the median).

Again, the Appeal (see pages 77-92 of the Appeal for yourself) provided very detailed substantive information, certainly more than enough to understand that Dr. Janzen’s conclusions were unreasonable, not based on facts and not based on applying the law to those facts. Again, the CRC did not address these submissions

Dr. J. Braxton Suffield’s numerous lies to Ms. T, the College of Alberta Psychologists, and others

Dr. J. Braxton Suffield lied on numerous occasions to Ms. T, the College of Alberta Psychologists, and others. For example:

Dr. Suffield falsely stated in Dr. Suffield’s December 30, 2011 Report that he “was not able to form an opinion as to Ms. T’s cognitive, interpersonal, and occupational functioning without having direct and substantial contact with her.” When he made this false statement, Dr. Suffield knew that on October 19, 2011, more than 2 months before, he already did form “an opinion as to Ms. T’s cognitive, interpersonal, and occupational functioning without having direct and substantial contact with her” and faxed his October 19, 20111 Report, duly signed and invoiced, to the SD5 on the same day.
On November 30, 2011, Dr. Suffield stated, falsely, that he “had not fully formed my [his] opinion, and need to spend time with her, to gain understanding of her situation, …”. When he made this statement to Ms. T, Dr. Suffield knew that he had already “fully formed” his opinion, disseminated it to the SD5 on October 19, 211, but did not give to Ms. T.
On September 4, 2018, Dr. Suffield falsely stated to Ms. T and Dr. Uttl, in front of Dr. L, that Dr. L “is from my [Dr. Suffield’s] perspective completely naive about any of this.” When Dr. Suffield made this statement, Dr. Suffield knew from Dr. L himself that Dr. L was involved with Ms. T’s matter and not naive — Dr. L informed Dr. Suffield of that fact only a day or two prior. In fact, everyone around the table knew Dr. Suffield was lying, including Dr. Suffield himself.
Dr. Suffield lied to the College of Alberta Psychologists as to what transpired during the September 4, 2018 meeting with Ms. T and Dr. Uttl. Dr. Suffield falsely stated that he brought the meeting to the end because he addressed Ms. T’s request to access the material. Dr. Suffield’s statement was false because Dr. Suffield ended the meeting because he was concerned that the meeting was recorded (see the transcript of the recording).
Dr. Suffield lied to the College of Alberta Psychologist and falsely stated that the Table 9-3 was from the “Canadian edition of the GATB”. When Dr. Suffield made the statement, Dr. Suffield knew that when he copied the Table 9-3 he copied it from the USES GATB Manual (DOL, 1970) published more than 1.5 decades before the GATB CDN Manual was published (it is extremely unlikely that Dr. Suffield did not comprehend which manual he was copying the Table 9-3, page 170 from). Furthermore, Nelson Canada informed Dr. Suffield directly in 2010 that the GATB CDN was never normed on any specific occupations, that it was used based on “the (single set of) Canadian general population norms,” and the Career Handbook data were not based on any norms.

Again, the Appeal (see pages 107-116 of the Appeal for yourself) provided very detailed substantive information, certainly more than enough to understand that Dr. Janzen’s conclusions were unreasonable, not based on facts and not based on applying the law to those facts. Again, the CRC did not address these submissions it at all.

The CRC did not address the issues and its decision is patently unreasonable

The CRC descision letter reasons for dismissal never mentioned even a single time any of the following terms: “criterion”, “General Aptitude Test Battery”, “GATB”, “Career Handbook”, “WAIS”, “Wonderlic”, “General Classification Test”, “GCT”, “IQ”, “Intelligence”, “outdated”, “obsolete”, “lie”, and “dishonesty”. The CRC decision letter reasons did not mention a single Standard of Practice or single principle of the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists.

The terms “criterion-referenced”, “Flynn Effect”, and “Gottfredson” were each mentioned only once in the decision letter reasons, in the following paragraph:

The CRC considered the many technical arguments (for example, the Flynn Effect, Gottfredson’s figures, and norm- vs criterion-referenced) advanced by the Agent as a cause and effect. The Agent takes the position that things are black or white. That is, the Agent argues that if the assessment is not done in a certain manner and interpreted in a certain way, then it is wrong. These technical arguments are presented and debated in academic settings and journal articles for consideration by professionals. In practice, professionals are called on to exercise their professional judgment. So long as this is done in a manner that meets the minimum standards, then that is sufficient for the purposes of the regulatory context and the legislation, including the HPA
The Dismissal of the Complaint by the CRC, Re Dr. J. Braxton Suffield, March 12, 2024

Dr. Breault, Dr. Al-Asadi, and the CRC ought to know that all of the following and much more is established current science:

The Flynn Effect on WAIS tests exists (see Uttl, Violo, & Gibson, 2024, for review); the newer WAIS editions are harder than older editions making the IQ scores obtained using different WAIS editions incomparable. As detailed in the WAIS manuals themselves, the same group of people given two different editions of the WAIS score lower on the most recent edition than on the previous edition. This is indeed “black and white”, current science, demonstrating that comparing directly comparing IQ scores across editions is inappropriate, wrong, and incompetent conduct.
Gottfredson figures were outdated the day Gottfredson first time published them because they were based on the outdated Wonderlic (1992) “Interpretive Guide”. More critically, Holdnack and Weiss (2013) analyses of WAIS-IV US normative sample show that university students were no longer as smart as Gottfredson erroneously stated but that their IQ (using US norms) was on average only 107.1 back in 2007. Again, this was current science in 2010. The current science as of today, 2024, is that the average IQ of undergraduate students on WAIS tests is merely 102. Psychologists who ignore current data in favor of 40 to 80 years old data are not relying on current science but on obsolete or junk science. They are junk science practioners; they appear to rely on science when in fact they rely on junk, rotten out science that used to be science 40 to 80 years ago.
The differences between norm- vs. criterion-referenced testing has been known for decades, centuries, and millennia. The science, logic, and common sense say that in order to know whether a person X meets a criterion Y, one must know the criterion Y and have some test/measurement tool to see if the person X meets the criterion Y. This is again “black and white”. For example, one more time for extra clarity, to pass the driver test in Alberta one has to get 25 out of 30 questions correct. It is black and white, as black and white as it can be. You get 25 or more correct, you passed the test. You get 24 or less, you failed the test. Similarly, to be allowed to ride a ride in a park, a prospective rider’s head must meet the height bar. If the head does not touch the bar, the prospective rider is denied the ride. Maybe as part of the College of Alberta Psychologists Continuing Competence Program, Dr. Breault, Dr. Al-Asadi and the CRC can take an educational trip to Callaway Park or West Edmonton Mall and observe this black and white application of the criterion-referenced height testing in action.

Dr. Breault, Dr. Al-Asadi, and the CRC fail to understand or pretend not to understand the following:

The public expects clinical psychologists to be science practitioners and not junk science, pseudoscience, or witchcraft practitioners, or charlatans.
The CAP Standards of Practice (2022) requires clinical psychologists to base their opinions on “scientific knowledge base of the discipline” and ought to remain “current in the knowledge”:
- “Standard 10 A psychologist shall base an opinion on, and limit an opinion to, reasonable and generally accepted practice standards and the theoretical and scientific knowledge base of the discipline”
- “Standard 6.1 Regulated members on the general register or provisional register must successfully participate in the Continuing Competence Program approved by Council to enhance the provision of professional psychological services by remaining current in the knowledge [emphasis added}, skills, diligence and judgment required to serve the public interest.”
The Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (2017) requires psychologists to “keep themselves up to date with a broad range of relevant knowledge”:
- “Principle II.9 Keep themselves up to date with a broad range of relevant knowledge, research methods, techniques, and technologies, and their impact on individuals and groups (e.g., couples, families, organizations, communities, and peoples), through the reading of relevant literature, peer consultation, and continuing education activities, in order that their practice, teaching, supervision, and research activities will benefit and not harm others.”

In relying on 40-85 years old norms and data, ignoring far more current data, misrepresenting the Career Handbook’s non-experimental data as norms, etc., the Trio failed to keep themselves current on the relevant knowledge. This is “black and white.” No amount of obfuscation by references to exercise of “professional judgment” will make 40-80 years old norms and data magically “current” and meeting “the minimum standards” expected of science practitioners and the members of the regulated profession. In fact, psychologists who do not have the current scientific knowledge and merely pretend to have one are charlatans.

The CRC lacked competence to or decided not to click, scroll and read

Dr. Breault, Dr. Al-Asadi and the CRC may also not know how to click on the internet link, how to scroll and how to read, or alternatively chose not to click, scroll and read to avoid learning about Dr. Suffield’s lies to the College of Alberta Psychologists. The Appeal submission — possibly the part they did not read — pointed out to Dr. Breault, Dr. Al-Asadi and the CRC that Dr. Suffield outright lied to the College of Alberta Psychologist when he stated that the Table 9-3, and page 170, were from the “Canadian Edition” of the GATB Manual. Dr. Suffield wrote to the CAP:

Third, Ms. T also alleges that I lacked competence when I “failed to criticize” Dr. Westcott’s “patently false statement” that an examinee’s GATB scores can be compared to those of actual workers in specific occupations. She further alleges that I then knew that no such comparisons were possible because, “no one actually administered GATB to any such actual workers in Ms. T’s occupation,” and that Nelson Canada [the publisher of the GATB CDN] had told me so.

This is incorrect, and disingenuous. As detailed in Sections III and IV of the Canadian edition of the GATB [emphasis added], many occupations – including elementary and secondary school teachers – were studied extensively when the GATB was developed. Table 9-3 (below) shows data from the 234 elementary and secondary school teachers who participated in an initial validation, and another 263 teachers who participated in a cross-validation study. Thus, GATB scores for teachers are based on a total sample of 497 teachers.

Ms. T’s agent, Dr. Uttl, was aware that GATB norms are available for many specific occupations, because I sent him some of my email correspondence with Nelson Canada in March 2017.
Dr. Suffield’s Response to Ms. T’s Complaint #1, May 24, 2021, p. 39-40

Dr. Suffield’s submission to the CAP were bold faced lies that Dr. Troy Janzen swallowed hook, line and sinker:

#3 Misuse and misinterpretation of the GATB and Career Handbook

My main reason to dismiss this allegation is that Dr. Suffield was able, in my view, to provide an adequate response to the technical issues you raised. Dr. Suffield disputed your suggestion that he misused or misrepresented information from either the GATB and Career Handbook. He was able to provide specific references from the test manual that supported his interpretation and that of the other psychologist’s reported data. This included an excerpt from the GATB Manual (p.170) which clearly indicates that a sample of both elementary and secondary teachers were included and there was available data for comparison to your results…
Dr. Troy Janzen’s Dismissal of Complaints Against Dr. Suffield, p. 15-16

Dr. Breault and Dr. Al-Asadi and the CRC knew the following (if the relevant submissions made it into the several hundred of pages they reviewed):

Dr. Suffield submitted to the CAP the Table 9-3 and page 170 were from the Canadian Edition of the GATB Manual.
Dr. Janzen dismissed Ms. T’s allegation on the ground that Dr. Suffield pointed to the page 170 of the GATB manual to show that the norms for teachers were available “for comparision to your results”.
The Appeal submission informed the CRC that Dr. Suffield lied and that the page 170 was from the manual for different test, the USES GATB rather than the GATB CDN, and that Ms. T’s GATB CDN scores could not be compared to the USES GATB data from 1950s.
The Appeal submissions also informed the CRC that the GATB CDN (Nelson, 1986) General Working Population norms were outdated and wrong by 1995 already (as demonstrated by Yeasting, 1996)

The CRC only had to click on the provided link to the USES GATB Section III Manual which included the page 170 and which clearly stated it was the USES GATB Section III Manual published in 1970, about 15 years prior to the publication of the GATB CDN (Nelson, 1986). If the CRC did click on the link, did scroll to the page 170, and read what was there, the CRC would know that Dr. Suffield lied to the CAP, that the page 170 was from the USES GATB Manual (and not the GATB CDN Manual), and that Dr. Janzen’s decision was not reasonable as it was based on Dr. Suffield lies to the CAP.

As a reader you can try it yourself. If you click on either of the two links below, you will be able to see and download the USES GATB Section III Manual published in 1970 by the Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., USA:

On the very first page, it says it is the “Manual for the USES General Aptitude Test Battery Section III Development”, published by Manpower Administration (DOL), Washington, D.C, in 1970.

Ergo, Dr. Suffield lied to the CAP when he stated that “As detailed in Sections III and IV of the Canadian edition of the GATB [the emphasis added] many occupations – including elementary and secondary school teachers – were studied extensively when the GATB was developed. Table 9-3 (below) shows data…” The Sections III and IV of the Canadian edition of the GATB do not exist and Dr. Suffield copied the Table 9-3 from the USES GATB Section III Manual for a different test.

Notably, in 2024, testifying under oath and the penalty for perjury (up to 14 years in prison), Dr. J. Braxton Suffield admitted that the Table 9-3 was copied from the USES GATB Manual, the manual for a different test, with partially different content than the GATB CDN, and normed in 1940s on US working population sample rather than in 1985 on the Canadian working population sample.

Why did the CRC not consider the Appeal submissions? Why did the CRC not click on the provided link, scroll and read (and comprehend)? Were they not competent enough to click, scroll, and/or read? Were they not clicking to make sure they assist the College of Alberta Psychologists to sweep the complaints under the rug? Surely at least Dr. Lorraine Brault and Dr. Al-Asadi, PhD, registered psychologists, can click, scroll and read (and comprehend).

Conclusion

The CRC, Chaired by Dr. Lorraine Breault, complained that I provided a “little substantive information.” Unfortunately, by its own admissions, the CRC did not read the submissions, did not address the submissions, did not review all the materials but only “several hundreds” of pages out of thousands, and did not even bother to review all four complaints but decided to review only one, only “a complaint”. They also did not click, scroll, and read (or perhaps did so secretly).

The level of “substantive information” I provided ought to have been more than enough for a PhD level registered psychologist such as Dr. Lorraine Breault and Dr. Ali Al-Asadi. Obviously, Dr. Breault and Dr. Al-Asadi ought to be competent in formal assessment and ethics (in addition to being able to click, scroll, and read English) to be able to evaluate other psychologists incompetence in these areas and to be able to determine whether Dr. Troy Janzen decisions were reasonable and flow from the facts and the application of the law — the HPA, the Standards of Practice, and the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists — to the facts. The CRC’s Decision gives no insight into how the CRC arrived to its decision, which facts it considered, and which law — the HPA, Standards of Practice, Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists — it considered, if any.

The CRC’s decision letter merely repeatedly claimed that Dr. Troy Janzen’s dismissal was reasonable, etc., without ever mentioning evidence before Dr. Janzen and whether that evidence could support Dr. Janzen’s decisions.

To be clear, there is no pathway for science practitioner to conclude that Ms. T did not have enough IQ points to be a teacher without knowing the minimum number of IQ points required for performing her teaching duties and without assessing Ms. T while she was not ill and not vomiting to determine whether or not her number of IQ points exceeded the minimum required number of IQ points for performing her elementary teacher duties. The Trio (Drs. Mary Westcott, Allan Mandel and J. Braxton Suffield) does not understand this, Dr. Troy Janzen does not understand this, and now we know that Dr. Lorraine Breault and Dr. Ali Al-Asadi also do not understand this simple everyday, widely understood concept. Comparing Ms. T’s WAIS-IV CDN (2008) IQ to some mean scores of some individuals tested 40 to 80 years ago with 40 to 80 years outdated, obsolete tests is a tell tale sign of junk science practitioners and charlatans at work.

If the College of Alberta Psychologists is unable or unwilling to enforce the HPA, the Standards of Practice and the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists, the Alberta Government may have to deregulate clinical psychology in Alberta, abolish the College of Alberta Psychologists (CAP), and strip the CAP members of their professional status. An alternative would be to rename the College of Alberta Psychologists to the College of Alberta Psychologists and Charlatans (CAPS) and required the registrants to identify themselves not only with “R. Psych.” but with “R. Psych. or R. Charlatan” to make it clear to the public that a psychologist they may see may be (a) a science practitioner, or (b) a charlatan.