What could possibly go wrong when incompetent investigate incompetent? Dr. Bob Acton’s investigations of Ms. T’s complaints against Dr. Mary Westcott, Dr. Braxton Suffield, and Dr. Allan Mandel

By Dr. Bob Uttl (December 20, 2024)

incompetent, adj.
lacking the qualities for effective action, unable to function properly, inadequate to or unsuitable for a particular purpose

Merriam-Webster Dictionary (merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incompetent)

Dr. Troy Janzen, Deputy Registrar and Complaints Director, assigned Dr. Bob Acton and his colleagues in Falcongate Ltd. to investigate Ms. T’s complaints against Dr. Mary Westcott, Dr.Allan Mandel and Dr. John Braxton Suffield. Here, I examine Dr. Acton’s Investigation Report dated February 15, 2022, titled “On a complaint by Ms. T. against Dr. Allan Mandel.”

Dr. Bob Acton’s Investigation Report is an astonishing piece of investigative work for many reasons including Dr. Acton’s admission that he was incompetent to investigate Ms. T’s allegations of Dr. Westcott’s and Dr. Mandel’s incompetence in using tests and interpreting test scores.

Dr. Acton admitted he was not competent to investigate many of Ms. T’s allegations

Remarkably, in the middle of his Investigation Report, Dr. Bob Acton admitted that he and his colleagues in Falcongate Ltd. lacked the necessary expertise to investigate many of Ms. T’s allegations. Dr. Acton wrote:

This investigation did not acquire any new information pertaining to Dr. Westcott’s use of the WAIS-R, the GATB, or the MMPI-R.

These statistic and psychometric arguments along with the appropriateness of the test usage and interpretation is a highly complex and divisive issue that has been in both the academic literature and before the courts. An analysis of this complex issue is beyond the expertise of this investigation.

Dr. Bob Acton, Investigation Report, February 15, 2021

Ergo, by his own admission, Dr. Bob Acton was incompetent to evaluate “the appropriateness of the test usage and interpretation” as well as “statistic and psychometric arguments” raised in Ms. T’s complaint as it was “beyond the expertise of this [Dr. Acton’s] investigation.”

Interestingly, the College of Alberta Psychologists makes it clear that psychologists who engage in formal assessments must be proficient in appropriate test usage, test score interpretation, statistics, psychometrics, psychometric theory, etc.. The CAP Assessment and Testing Guidelines include the following required knowledge and skills (and many more) for anyone conducting formal assessments:

• Test and measurement theory
• Assessment methods which include standardized administration and scoring of a wide range of psychological measures (i.e., tests) …
• Knowledge of a wide range of psychological measures…
• Psychometric theory and concepts
• Factors that affect test performance
• Psychometric theory and concepts
• Interpretive consideration for a wide variety of measure
• Standardized administration and accurate scoring of tests

Clearly, an investigator tasked with investigating whether or not Dr. Westcott’s and Dr. Mandel’s assessment of Ms. T was competent or not ought to be competent in formal assessments themselves. If the investigator is not competent in formal assessment, the investigator is obviously prevented from investigating the competence of others by their very incompetence.

Yet, the investigator, Dr. Bob Acton — described as “a Psychologist for over 40 years”, with “considerable experience with assessments and investigations working as a Psychologist, Practice Review Adviser, Acting Complaints Director [for the College of Alberta Psychologists] over the last 30 years” (see www.falcongate.ca/about) – admitted to not having sufficient competence to evaluate “the appropriateness of the test usage and interpretation” and to evaluate “statistic and psychometric arguments” laid out in Ms. T’s complaint.

Dr. Acton’s incompetence prevented him from evaluating the competence of Drs. Westcott & Mandel

Being incompetent in evaluating “the appropriateness of the test usage”, test scores interpretation, statistics and psychometric arguments in general, Dr. Acton was clearly unable to and did not evaluate Ms. T’s complaints about Dr. Westcott and Dr. Mandel’s incompetence, that is, their misuse, misinterpretation and misrepresentations of the GATB CDN and other test scores. In effect, Dr. Westcott’s and Dr. Mandel’s incompetence was swept under the rug by Dr. Acton’s own incompetence, that is, his inability to investigate the incompetence. It is not inconceivable that Dr. Troy Janzen intended exactly this result by assigning the investigation to Dr. Acton rather than to some other psychologists with declared competence in formal assessments.

Remarkably, Dr. Acton also stated that he “did not acquire any new information pertaining to Dr. Westcott’s use of the WAIS-R, the GATB, or the MMPI-R.” Dr. Acton does not say why he did not acquire any new information but, presumably, Dr. Acton “did not acquire any new information pertaining to Dr. Westcott’s use of the WAIS-R, the GATB, or the MMPI-R” because he concluded he was incompetent to evaluate the appropriateness of the usage and interpretation of these tests in any case. It is also possible that Dr. Acton did not acquire any new information about these tests because these tests were not used by Drs. Westcott and Mandel: (a) Ms. T was assessed using WAIS-IV CDN (2008) and not using WAIS-R (1981), (b) Ms. T was assessed with MMPI-2-RF and not with MMPI-R (the test that does not appear to exist), and (c) Ms. T was assessed with the GATB CDN (Nelson, 1986) and not with the USES GATB (1947, 1970).

Dr. Acton made almost no findings of facts and failed to fully consider the Standards of Practice and the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists

Reading Dr. Bob Acton’s Investigation Report, it is difficult to find any facts that his investigation established. Instead, Dr. Acton summarized what Ms. T alleged, often incorrectly, and then he summarized what Dr. Mandel said about Ms. T’s allegations.

For example, in her complaint, Ms. T stated that Ms. Cynthia Stuart from the SD5 emailed Dr. Mary Westcott on February 4, 2011, and explained that she was “struggling” with Dr. K’s Report (the assessment obtained by Ms. T as a second opinion) that contradicted Dr. Westcott’s September 15, 2010 Report (with Dr. Allan Mandel a silent and secret co-author, collaborator, supervisor, and quality controller). About one hour later, Dr. Allan Mandel responded to Ms. Stuart via email, invited Ms. Stuart to send him Dr. K’s Report for a review and a critique, opined that Dr. Westcott’s findings were “very well reasoned and based on objective findings”, and opined that “There is obvious concern here that Ms. T is ‘shopping around’ for an opinion that she likes.” Sometimes later, Dr. Mandel and Ms. Stuart discussed Dr. K’s Report and what to do about the conflicting reports on the phone — neither one kept any records of this secret exparte conversation that took place without Ms. T’s consent, and without her knowledge. At some point, Dr. Mandel recommended to Ms. Stuart Dr. Braxton Suffield as an “independent” reviewer of the conflicting reports.

Dr. Allan Mandel (a) did not keep any records of his conversations with Ms. Cynthia Stuart, (b) did not met Ms. T until 2018, (c) did not have any consent from Ms. T whatsoever much less the consent to discuss her personal information with Ms. Stuart, and (d) did not even have any consent to access Ms. T confidential personal information. In addition, Dr. Acton knew but Ms. T did not at the time, that Dr. Westcott shared Ms. T’s confidential information with Dr. Mandel from the very beginning, as early as June 2010, without any consent from Ms. T, and that Dr. Mandel was closely involved in Ms. T’s assessment by Dr. Westcott and even provided “quality control” and approved Dr. Westcott’s September 15, 2010 Report.

In his Investigation Report, Dr. Acton summarized the issue of informed consent as follows:

Ms. T alleged that Dr. Mandel failed to obtain consent to discuss his findings with School Division #5 (the Client).

Dr. Mandel provided a copy of the Mandel and Associates consent form signed on July 29, 2010 by Ms. T allowing Dr. Westcott to conduct a vocational and psychological/disability assessment and to give the report to her employer.

Dr. Mandel did not engage in a patient relationship with Ms. T as he did not assess Ms. T but assigned the case in his office to Dr. Westcott. As Dr. Wescott was away on maternity leave at the time SD5 requested assistance concerning his willingness to suggest an independent psychologist to review three assessments, he spoke with Ms. Cynthia Stuart, based on Ms. T’s signed consent to release information to SD5.

Dr. Acton Investigation Report, Feb. 22, 2022, p.7

The first paragraph states what Ms. T alleged. More precisely, neither Dr. Westcott nor Dr. Mandel obtain any informed consent whatsoever from Ms. T — see College of Alberta Psychologists: An informed consent, hallucinations of an informed consent, and/or sweeping things under the rug. Accordingly, Dr. Westcott never obtained Ms. T’s consent to share her confidential information with Dr. Mandel and did not even disclose to Ms. T that she would be sharing Ms. T’s confidential information with Dr. Mandel. The second paragraph states that Dr. Mandel provided the July 29, 2010 consent “allowing Dr. Westcott” to do something. The third paragraph says something but it is not clear if this is Dr. Acton’s finding or if it is Dr. Acton’s summary of what Dr. Mandel told him. In any case, it mischaracterizes what happened, what was clearly documented in the emails submitted by Ms. T, and what is plainly stated in the July 29, 2010 consent (e.g., the July 29, 2010 consent was not consent for Dr. Mandel to do anything at all).

The facts are:

• Dr. Mary Westcott’s client was Ms. T, not the SD5 (Dr. Westcott already testified under oath and penalty of perjury that Ms. T was referred to her by Ms. T’s perconal physician, and not by the SD5).
• No informed consent whatsoever was obtained from Ms. T by any psychologist, neither by Dr. Westcott nor by Dr. Mandel, prior to July 29, 2010.
• A consent obtained on July 29, 2010 was invalid as (a) it was obtained by Dr. Westcott’s technician, Ms. DN, who was not a registered psychologist, could not obtain informed consent, and did not have relevant information even to obtain informed consent, and (b) it was five lines long and it was obtained in less than 5 minutes, and thus, could not have been informed simply due to severe time limits.
• The July 29, 2010 consent did not authorize Dr. Westcott to share Ms. T’s confidential information with anyone, not with Dr. Mandel and not with anyone else.
• The July 29, 2010 consent could not be informed because no one disclosed to Ms. T that Dr. Westcott and Dr. Mandel were already sharing Ms. T’s personal confidential information for weeks if not longer before July 29, 2010, and that at least Dr. Mandel discussed Ms. Tuson with Ms. Stuart from the SD5 (again, without any consent).
• In February 2011, Dr. Mandel still had no consent to even look at Ms. T’s confidential information much less to talk to someone else about it.
• Dr. Allan Mandel never met Ms. T until 2018, and thus, could not pronounce any opinions about her, much less whether or not she was shopping around for opinions she liked.
• Dr. Allan Mandel did not keep any notes of his conversations with Ms. Stuart in February 2011. He did not keep even minimally required information, that is the date and the substance of the service.

Dr. Allan Mandel’s secret involvement with Ms. T’s assessment from the very beginning obviously violated numerous Standards of Practice (2005) (“SOP/2005”) as well as the numerous principles of the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (2000) (“CCEP/2000”). Here are a few obvious examples:

• SOP/2005 Standard 38 requires that psychologists “shall treat an assessment results or interpretation regarding individual as confidential information.” Dr. Mandel had no consent to look at Ms. T’s confidential information, had no consent to share it with the SD5, and Dr. Mary Westcott never got any consent to share it with Dr. Mandel.
• SOP/2005 Standard 29(2) requires that psychologists “must inform a client that confidential information about the client is to be shared with other professionals…” Dr. Westcott failed to inform Ms. T that her confidential information was and would be shared with Dr. Mandel.
• SOP/2005 Standard 43 requires that psychologists “shall not delegate professional responsibilities to a person who does not have the appropriate credentials…” Ms. DN, the technician, did not have the appropriate credentials to obtain July 29, 2010 consent — only a psychologist can obtain informed consent.
• SOP/2005 Standard 8(2) that prohibits psychologists from rendering professional opinions about a person “without direct and substantial professional contact with or a formal assessment of that person.” Dr. Mandel had zero contact with Ms. T and did not conduct a formal assessment of Ms. T. Accordingly, he was not entitled to pronounce his opinions about Ms. T.
• SOP/2005 Standard 11(1)(d) requires psychologists to maintain records including the date and substance of each professional service. Dr. Mandel failed to maintain the record of the date and substance of his February 2011 conversations with Ms. Stuart.

Dr. Bob Acton made no findings of facts with respect to the informed consent and failed to apply the Standards of Practice and the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists to those facts.

Conclusions

When an investigator is incompetent to investigate allegations of incompetence, by his own admission, the investigator ought to say so and ought to refuse the assignment at the outset (and ought to forfeit thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in consulting fees). In accepting the assignment knowing he was incompetent, Dr. Bob Acton all but determined the outcome of his investigation: he was unable to see the incompetence because he himself was incompetent to see incompetence in plain sight in front of him, marked by metaphorical red flags — see, for example, Are psychologists able to correctly classify test scores? Can they create a reasoanbly accurate frequency table? Some can, some cannot, and some do not want to. and Errors, falsehoods, and plagiarism in scoring and interpreting psychological tests: Minimally competent conduct?

If Dr. Troy Janzen had no idea that Dr. Acton was incompetent to investigate the allegations, Dr. Janzen learned about Dr. Acton’s incompetence when he read Dr. Acton’s Investigation Report and read his admission of being incompetent on page 10 of Dr. Acton’s Investigation Report. At that time, Dr. Janzen should have assigned someone else to investigate, someone with sufficient competence to investigate the allegations, that is, someone with required competence in assessment, including someone competent enough to locate a correct test manual and to be able to read and understand what the correct test manual says (see: How many licensed psychologists does it take to locate a correct test manual?).

A more detailed commentary on Dr. Bob Acton’s Investigation Report

Read the actual investigation report wiht a few redactions here.

Dr. Acton’s Investigation Report (Feb 15, 2011)	A commentary on Dr. Action’s Investigation Report
ENGAGEMENT
On July 16, 2021, Dr. Troy Janzen, Complaints Director and Deputy Registrar, College of Alberta Psychologists (College), assigned Dr. Acton and his colleagues with Falcongate Ltd. to investigate complaints brought against Dr. Allan Mandel. Falcongate received a copy of the entire investigation file shortly thereafter.	If Dr. Acton is correct, it took nearly six months for Dr. Janzen to “assign” Ms.T’s complaint against Dr. Mandel to an investigator, Dr. Acton from Falcongate Ltd. A plain English reading of the Alberta Health Profession Act requires that Dr. Janzen proceeds far more expeditioiusly.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION:
In preparing this report, this investigator has reviewed: – The complaints from Ms. T dated January 27, 2021, received by the college via email January 28, 2021. – The March 30, 2021, response via legal counsel from Dr. Allan Mandel, including: – Dr. Mandel’s curriculum vitae – Communication from Ms. Cynthia Stuart, School District 5 (SD5), to Mandel & Associates Ltd., containing scanned documents including: – Letter of engagement with Dr. Kettner and a corresponding letter to Ms. T – A psychological report on Ms. T by Dr. Kettner – Various communications to Ms. T from Mandel & Associates – Ms. T’s clinical file including a signed consent form dated July 29, 2010, file notes, test results, a psychological report by Dr. Mary Westcott dated September 15, 2010, – Communication from Ms. Stuart requesting assistance in understanding and interpreting three reports from three separate psychologists – An email from Dr. Mandel indicating he would assist Ms. Stuart as Dr. Westcott was on maternity leave. – A letter from Ms. Stuart asking Dr. Mandel to release the clinical file to Dr. Suffield for a review of the three assessments accompanying Ms. T’s consent to release the information. – A letter from Ms. T requesting Dr. Westcott to release her entire file to Dr. B, Psychologist and subsequent notes and communications with Dr. B – Various communications from Ms. T to Mandel & Associates about her request to review and copy her clinical file. – Note of August 27, 2018, about Ms. T’s review of her file when accompanied by Dr. U – Various file notes by Dr. Mandel & Dr. Westcott – A letter to Ms. Tuson from Dr. Westcott dated September 11, 2018 – The November 15, 2021, joint response from Dr. Allan Mandel, Dr. Mary Westcott, and Dr. Braxton Suffield.-	Dr. Acton’s summary of “sources of information” appears, at minimum, biased. Specifically, Dr. Action does not list attachments to Ms. T’s complaint but lists attachments to Dr. Mandel’s response to he complaint. The question arises: Did Dr. Action even receive them from Dr. Janzen? Did Dr. Action choose not to mention them? Dr. Action does not provide sufficient details (date, author of the document) for many of the listed items for anyone to be able to identify them, and to determine what Dr. Acton actually received.
INTERVIEWEES
The following people were interviewed during this investigation: – Ms. T, the complainant, refused an in person or zoom interview. Email correspondence attached as Appendix C. – Dr. Allan Mandel in person on December 15, 2021, accompanied by Ms. Shayla Stein, legal counsel. The interview with Dr. Mandel was recorded and a transcript is available if required. – Dr. Suffield, in person on December 13, 2021, accompanied by Ms. Shayla Stein, legal counsel. The interview was recorded, and a transcript is available if required.	Dr. Acton’s summary misleads readers: Ms. T agreed to be interviewed via email Q&A but Dr. Acton refused the email Q&A interview. In contrast to Drs. Mandel and Suffield, Ms. T did not have the financial resources to pay lawyers and to pay for transcripts. Dr. Acton does not explain why he interviewed Dr. Suffield in a complaint about Dr. Mandel. If anything, Dr. Acton ought to have interviewed Dr. Westcott who was supervised by Dr. Mandel. Why did Dr. Acton not mention that Dr. Mandel was Dr. Suffield’s practicum supervisor, that Dr. Mandel hired Dr. Suffield for his first job in Ontario, that Dr. Mandel recruited Dr. Suffield to come to Calgary, Alberta, for another job, and that Dr. Mandel trained both Dr. Westcott and Dr. Suffield? Did Dr. Acton fail to mention this because reasonable people would conclude that Dr. Suffield’s likely allegiances were to assist Dr. Mandel in defeating Ms. T’s complaint? Why were other Drs. who reviewed Dr. Westcott’s September 15, 2010 Report – Drs. U, G, and L – not interviewed? Was Dr. Acton deliberately avoiding interviewing those experts who were critical of Dr. Westcott’s September 15, 20110 Report, and therefore, Dr. Mandel’s supervision and Dr. Mandel’s false claims that Dr. Westcott’s September 15, 2010 Report was accurate?
SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES:
Background: Ms. T, the complainant, was employed as a teacher in Cranbrook B.C. by School Division #5 in 2010. Questions pertaining to Ms. T’s ability as an effective teacher were brought forward by her employer to which Ms. T disagreed. She was subsequently requested to have an independent psychological assessment to help resolve the questions. The focus of this investigation is on the several allegations Ms. T has made against Dr. Mandel including that Dr. Mandel: – failed to obtain informed consent. – lacked sufficient professional knowledge and lacks competence. – failed to maintain client records and release information to client. – engaged in dual/multiple relationships. – failed to provide adequate supervision. – failed to report a colleague. – failed to demonstrate diversity and cultural competence.	Dr. Acton’s background is incorrect. Ms. T was not “requested to have an independent psychological assessment”; Ms. T was walked out of the classroom, threatened with Section 92 of BC School Act, and never allowed to return. Walking the teacher out of the classroom at the end of the day and threatening them with Section 92 of BC School Act is not “a request” for “an independent psychological assessment”. Dr. Acton’s summary of allegations is rather vague, incomplete, and only marginally corresponding to numerous specific dated allegations Ms. T made against Dr. Mandel.
APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE
The psychological assessment conducted under the auspices of Mandel & Associates occurred in 2010 and the College of Alberta Psychologists’ Standards of Practice (2005) were in effect at that time. The College of Alberta Psychologists’ Standards of Practice (2013) are applicable to psychological services rendered from 2013 to 2019 when another version of the standards took effect and any services rendered after 2019 are subject to the 2019 standards. Moreover, the Canadian Code of Ethics (Third Edition-2000) is applicable to the assessment time whereas Canadian Code of Ethics (Fourth Edition-2017) is applicable to any professional service rendered from January 2017 onward.
The following are components of the applicable standards and ethics guidelines in effect for the issues arising from Ms. T’s complaint.	Dr. Acton apparently was not familiar with the Standards of Practice nor the Code of Ethics. He left out numerous applicable standards and ethical principles from his consideration.
Canadian Code of Ethics (2000) Responsibility of the Individual Psychologist 5. To bring concerns about possible unethical actions by a psychologist directly to the psychologist when the action appears to be primarily a lack of sensitivity, knowledge, or experience, and attempt to reach an agreement on the issue and, if needed, on the appropriate action to be taken. 6. To bring concerns about possible unethical actions of a more serious nature (e.g., actions that have caused or could cause serious harm, or actions that are considered misconduct in the jurisdiction) to the person(s) or body(ies) best suited to investigating the situation and to stopping or offsetting the harm.	Dr. Acton cites only two subparagraphs from Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (2000) (“CCEP/2000”), thus, appears not to have considered numerous principles applicable to Ms. T’s complaint. For example, the following principles were obviously relevant: – Informed Consent: I.16, I.17, I.21, I.23, I.24, I.25, I.26 – Confidentiality: I.45 General caring: II.1, II.2, II.3, II.4, II.5 – Competence and self-knowledge: II.6, II.7, II.9, – Minimize harm: II.30 – Offset/correct harm: II.40, II.41, II.50 – Accuracy/dishonesty: III.1, III.4, III.6, III.7, III.8, III.9 And so on…
Informed Consent Standards of Practice (2005): 2(1) Psychologists shall obtain the informed consent of all persons who are competent to give such consent for psychological services provided to them except in circumstances of urgent need (e.g., disaster or other crisis). In urgent circumstances, psychologists may proceed in accordance with the expressed preferences of such persons and obtain informed consent as soon as possible. 2(2) Psychologists shall carry out informed consent processes with those persons who are legally responsible or appointed to give informed consent on behalf of persons not competent to consent on their own behalf, seeking to ensure respect for any expressed preferences of persons not competent to consent. 2(3) Psychologists shall provide, in obtaining informed consent, such information as a reasonable person would want to know to make a decision to consent to the service. The psychologist must relay this information in language that the persons understand (including providing translation into another language, if necessary) and will take whatever reasonable steps are needed to ensure that the information is understood. 2(4) Psychologists shall provide new information in a timely manner, whenever such information becomes available and is significant enough that it reasonably could be seen as relevant to the original or ongoing informed consent. 2(5) Psychologists shall take all reasonable steps to obtain consent that is not given under conditions of coercion or undue pressure. 2(6) Psychologists shall document the discussion held with their clients and whether informed consent was obtained. Records Maintenance Standards of Practice (2005): 10 Psychologists will afford their clients the right to request the correction of factual inaccuracies in their records. Such requests will be reviewed by the psychologist who will: a) correct the factual inaccuracies and, to the extent possible, notify all parties to the information; or b) write an amending letter or attachment to the record and, to the extent possible, notify all parties to the information; or c) notify the client if the psychologist is not in agreement that there were factual inaccuracies, or if the inaccuracies were trivial and correction would entail more effort than is justified by the error. In such cases, the psychologist will document his/her reasons for refusing to make the requested corrections. 11(1) Psychologists rendering professional services to a client or billing a third party for professional services shall maintain records that include the following: (a) appropriate identifying information; (b) the presenting problem or problems or the purpose of the consultation; (c) the fee arrangement; (d) the date and substance of each professional service, including relevant information on interventions from which the results were derived; (e) any test results… (f) notations and any results of formal consults with other service providers; (g) a copy of all test or other evaluative reports prepared as part of the professional relationship. (2) Psychologists shall ensure that all data entries in their professional records are maintained for a period of not less than 10 years after the last date on which a professional service was rendered. 25 Psychologists shall limit access to their professional records to preserve confidentiality and shall ensure that all persons working under their authority comply with the requirement to keep information about clients confidential. 26 The duty of psychologists to maintain confidentiality under these Standards does not relieve any psychologist of the obligation to release confidential information in accordance with a court order or federal or provincial laws, rules or regulations. 27(1) When a Psychologist has control of a client’s file, he/she shall provide access to, and shall, within 30 days of a request, permit the reproduction and release of confidential information about a client to the client unless there is a significant likelihood that disclosure of the information would cause (a) a substantial adverse effect on the client’s physical, mental or emotional health, or (b) harm to a third party. (2) When a psychologist provides access to, or reproduction and release of confidential information about a client to the client, he/she shall take necessary measures to ensure that no confidential information is divulged about a third party. Dual Relationships Standards of Practice (2005): 15(1) Psychologists shall not undertake or continue a professional relationship when they are aware or should be aware that they face a potentially harmful conflict of interest as a result of a current or previous professional, familial, social, sexual, emotional, financial, supervisory, political, administrative or legal relationship with the client or a relevant person associated with or related to the client. Supervision Standards of Practice (2005): 16 Psychologists shall exercise appropriate supervision over supervisees, as set forth in the guidelines, rules and regulations of the College. Reporting a Colleague Standards of Practice (2005): 44 In the event of awareness of an illegal practice or an apparent violation of these standards, psychologists are obligated to take action, including, if necessary, formal reporting to address or remedy the practice or violation, and any action must be undertaken within the bounds of confidentiality and respect, to the extent possible.	Dr. Acton again missed numerous relevant Standarsd of Practice (2005)…
THE INTERVIEWS:
Ms. T was offered a meeting via online video (e.g., Zoom) or a face-to-face meeting. She replied by email and declined indicating that her written submissions were adequate. While she offered to answer any questions via email, this investigation declined to engage in an email exchange as it could not be determined that Ms. T was author of her email communications. Ms. T was asked via email if she had written the complaint and she indicated that she was the author. When asked about whether she had obtained help from a mental health professional in writing the complaint she indicated she had assistance from several individuals including: Dr. U Dr. L Dr. K Dr. Joana Dabrowski Dr. G Dr. Mandel was interviewed at his office on December 15, 2021, accompanied by Ms. Shayla Stein, legal counsel. Dr. Mandel answered all questions without difficulty and appeared to be cooperative.	As acknowledged here, Ms. T offered to conduct an interview via email, and explained why: Ms. T was lied to by multiple psychologists, did not trust any psychologists, and needed to have her answers to questions recorded to ensure that they are not misinterpreted, and not fabricated, etc.. In contrast to Drs. Mandel and Suffield, Ms. T did not have the financial resources to be accompanied by a lawyer and pay for the resulting transcripts of any online interviews. Dr. Acton declined on the grounds that “it could not be determined that Ms. T was author of her email communications.” At the same time, Dr. Acton was accepting communications on behalf of Drs. Westcott, Mandel, and Suffield knowing that they were not written by them but by their lawyer. The critical importance of having a record of what was said has been demonstrated by Dr. Acton’s own conduct. Dr. Acton’s summary of what Ms. T indicated “When asked about whether she had obtained help from a mental health professional in writing the complaint” is patently false and grossly misleading. For example, Ms. T never indicated that Dr. Joana Dabrowski helped her to write the complaint. Ms. T stated: “The mental health professionals who substantively assisted me and/or provided opinions (or guidance to Dr. Suffield) and who you may wish to talk to include: 1. Dr. K 2. Dr. Joana Dabrowski (CAP Deputy Registrar at the time) 3. Dr. L 4. Prof. Dr. U 5. Prof. Dr. G” Furthermore, Ms. T detailed what each of the individuals listed did. If Dr. Acton truly believed that, for example, Dr. Dabrowki was assisting Ms. T in “writing the complaint”, Dr. Acton was hallucinating. Or perhaps Dr. Acton does not understand the meaning of English words “either… or …” as in “assisted me and/or provided opinions (or guidance to Dr. Suffield)…” or perhaps has much greater difficulties with understanding plain English. For the record, Dr. Joanna Dabrowski “provided guidance” to Dr. Suffield and did not assist Ms. T with the complaint. Oddly enough, Dr. Action chose not to interview Dr. Joanna Dabrowski. Similarly, Dr. Acton’s statement that Ms. T was assisted in writing the complaint by Dr. K was equally and patently false. Dr. Acton needs to brush up on his understanding of plain English or stop intentionally misleading the readers of his report (if Dr. Action was making his claims intentionally rather than merely hallucinating or confabulating.)
THE PSYCHOLOGIST AND THE CLIENT
Dr. Allan Mandel is a Registered Psychologist #1881. The third-party client is Southeast Kootenay School District #5. Ms. T was initially assessed at “Mandel and Associates”, by Dr. Mary Westcott, at the request of her employer, Southeast School District #5	Dr. Acton’s summary is at minimum misleading and/or false. Ms. T was a client, she was referred by her family physician, and the SD5 merely paid for the assessment. First, Dr. Westcott stated that the client was Ms. T and that she was referred by her physician. Second, Dr. Westcott has since confirmed in cross-examination under oath and penalty of perjury that Ms. T was the client. Notably, the consent form, as insufficient as it was, never even identified any “third-party”, never detailed any role of the “third-party”, and the Standards of Practice (2005) do not even define the term “third party”.
FINDINGS
ALLEGATION #1 – DR. MANDEL FAILED TO OBTAIN INFORMED CONSENT
Pertinent Standards: Consent
Ms. Tuson alleged that Dr. Mandel failed to obtain consent to discuss his findings with School Division #5 (the Client).
Dr. Mandel provided a copy of the Mandel and Associates consent form signed on July 29, 2010 by Ms. Tuson allowing Dr. Westcott to conduct a vocational and psychological/disability assessment and to give the report to her employer.	Dr. Action failed to mention that the consent form he referred to was not consent given to Dr. Mandel. Dr. Acton failed to mention that the July 29, 2010 Consent Form (a) was invalid as it was obtained by Dr. Westcott’s technician rather than by a psychologist (only a psychologist can obtain an informed consent as per the Standards of Practice 2005), and (b) was not informed as it was a few lines long, obtained in less than 5 minutes, and obtained by the technician who did not even know the basic information herself, for example, which tests would be administered and why. Moreover, Dr. Westcott never obtained any consent to share Ms. T’s personal confidential information with any other psychologists or any other person. Dr. Mandel never obtained any consent from Ms. T ever.
Dr. Mandel did not engage in a patient relationship with Ms. T as he did not assess Ms. T but assigned the case in his office to Dr. Westcott. As Dr. Wescott was away on maternity leave at the time SD5 requested assistance concerning his willingness to suggest an independent psychologist to review three assessments, he spoke with Ms. Cynthia Stuart, based on Ms. T’s signed consent to release information to SD5.	Dr. Mandel acted as eminence grise: taking intake from Ms. Stuart/SD5 (secretly, without any consent), sharing the intake with Dr. Mary Westcott, discussing Ms. T with Dr. Mary Westott, and advising Dr. Mary Westcott along the way. Dr. Mandel also provided a “quality control” over Dr. Westcott September 15, 2010 Report. Months later, Dr. Mandel chose to discuss Ms. T with Ms. Cynthia Stuart, again having no consent to be involved with Ms. T’s matters whatsoever. Was Dr. Mandel secret deep involvement wiht Ms. T’s matter “a patient relationship”? Perhpas not, perhaps so. Was Dr. Mandel deeply involved in the assessment? Absolutely. Was that inolvement without Ms. T’s informed consent and knowledge unethical? Absolutely.
ALLEGATION #2 – DR. MANDEL LACKS SUFFICIENT PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND LACKS COMPETENCE.
Pertinent Standards: Competence
Ms. T alleges Dr. Mandel lacked sufficient professional knowledge, citing Standard of Practice 5.5, which does not exist in the 2005 Standards in place at the time. The 2019 Standards of Practice is apparently the document referenced and Section 5.5 reads “A psychologist shall not render an opinion about a person that has, or could have, implications for that person’s rights or personal interests without having direct and substantial professional contact with that person, including and informed consent process and formal or general assessment.”	Dr. Acton claims that the Standard 5.5 “does not exist in the 2005 Standards. Dr. Acton’s claim is at minimum misleading. The 2005 Standard 8(2) is nearly verbatim identical and has identical meaning: “Psychologists rendering a professional opinion about a person that has or could have implication for that person’s legal or civil rights (for example, about the fitness of a parent in a custody hearing) shall not do so without direct and substantial professional contact with or a formal assessment of that person.” Moreover, Code of Ethics for Psychologists (2000) make it clear the psychologist must have informed consent: “Informed consent I.16 Seeks as full and active participation as possible from individuals and groups… in decisions that affect them,…” A complainant does not have a duty to be an expert in the Standards of Practice nor in the Code of Ethics. It is the College of Alberta Psychologists’ duty to enforce the Standards of Practice and Code of Ethics. Dr. Acton ought to be able to locate Standard of Practice (2005) and find the nearly identical standard himself. Similarly, it ought not to be a surprising to any psychologist, not only to Dr. Acton, that the requirement for “direct and substantial professional contact” has been in the standards for decades.
The complaint refers to Dr. Mandel providing a remark to School Division #5 that Ms. Tuson appears to be “shopping around” for a favourable assessment. Dr. Mandel acknowledged that he made that remark and that was his opinion at the time. This occurred after Ms. T sought another professional opinion, and subsequently sought opinions of others.	Obviously, Dr. Mandel’s opinion was a professional opinion given to the third party while engaged in practice of psychology, without Ms. T’s consent, without Ms. T’s knowledge, and without Dr. Mandel having a substantial professional contact with Ms. T., ever.
During this investigation’s interview with Dr. Mandel, he acknowledged that clients may seek other professionals’ opinions (i.e., shopping around) if an original opinion isn’t shared by the client. He noted that he has seen this happen frequently, and it is far from unusual to have two or more “experts” on opposite sides of findings.	Dr. Acton notes that Dr. Mandel apparently acknowledged that seeking second opinion is common. Excellent! However, Dr. Acton failed to mention that Dr. Westcott herself, with quality approval of Dr. Mandel, recommended that Ms. T seeks the second opinion in Dr. Westcott’s September 15, 2010 Report itself; Dr. Westcott wrote: “The writer [Dr. Westcott] recommended that she [Ms. T] seek a second opinion regarding her cognitive status as deemed appropriate.” (p. 21) So Dr. Westcott and Dr. Mandel recommended to Ms. T to seek the second opinion. When Ms. T obtained the second opinion as recommended, and the second opinion disagreed with Drs. Westcott and Mandel’s opinions, Dr. Mandel went into a full attack mode and accused Ms. T of “shopping around” for the opinion she likes. Really? Since when is attacking one’s client for following one’s recommendation something to criticize and attack the client for?
Regarding competence, Ms. Tuson relies on Standard 5.1 and 5.2 of the Standards of Practice (2013 and/or 2019) which were not in effect at the time of the assessment.	Dr. Acton’s statement is at minimum misleading. The Standard 5.1 (2013 and/or 2019) corresponds to the Standard 6 (2005). Therefore, the substantially the same standard was in effect at the time of the assessment. Again, it is not Ms. T’s job to identify the specific standards Dr. Mandel violated; it is the College’s job to pull out the standards applicable at the time and determine if Dr. Mandel’s conduct violated those standards.
Regardless, Dr. Mandel provided a copy of his 21-page Curriculum Vitae which provides evidence of his training and experience in this area.	Dr. Acton does not seem to understand that the issue was not Dr. Mandel’s credentials but his competence. Quite obviously, Dr. Mandel’s credentials and the content of his CV are not evidence of his competence, for example, his ability to obtain informed consent, his ability to create and maintain records, or his ability to check scoring of psychological tests for accuracy. As an example, one may once upon a time obtain a driver’s licence but years later loose the competence to drive. Dr. Acton seems unable to see the difference betwen credentials vs. competence.
ALLEGATIONS #3 – DR. MANDEL FAILED TO MAINTAIN RECORDS AND PROVIDE THOSE TO THIS CLIENT
Pertinent Standards: Records Maintenance
Ms. Tuson alleged that Dr. Mandel failed to properly maintain records and then failed to release those records to her, upon request. In particular, he “failed to maintain and to preserve a record of his ex-parte, without consent, communication with Ms. Stuart about Ms. Tuson and about what to do with Dr. Kincade’s Report.”	Dr. Action failed to mention that indeed Dr. Mandel did not maintain records of his ex-parte, without consent, communication with Ms. Stuart as required by the Standards of Practice (2005) 11(1)(d).
Dr. Mandel communicated with Ms. Stuart given his belief that he had consent to do so (see Allegation #1).	Dr. Mandel’s belief is irrelevant. The relevant question is: Did Dr. Mandel have informed consent from Ms. T to (a) examine her private confidential information and (b) talk to the SD5 about Ms. T. The fact is that Dr. Mandel had never obtained any consent from Ms. T, ever.
Dr. Mandel addresses these allegations on page 6 and 7 of his response, and cites Standard 11(1) of the 2005 edition, in effect at the time, which does not require documentation of every detail into a file. He also indicates “When Dr. U attended with Ms. T on August 27, 2018 and requested a copy of her file, I did not withhold any information from Ms. Tuson that she was entitled to.”	Although the Standard 11(1) does not require “documentation of every detail into a file”, the Standard 11(1)(d) requires all psychologists to maintain records of “the date and substance of each professional service, including relevant information on interventions, progress, any issues of informed consent or issues related to termination.” For clarity, the Standards of Practice (2005) define “professional services” as “all actions of psychologists [emphasis added] in the context of their professional relationships.” There is no question that Dr. Mandel was providing “professional services” to the SD5 and that the Standard 11(1)(d) required him to create and maintain a record of “the date and substance of each professional service”. Accordingly, at the minimum, the date and substance of the conversation with Ms. Stuart had to be recorded. Dr. Mandel did record the date and did not record anything at all about the “substance of each professional service.” Dr. Action appears not to have consulted the Standards, made no determination of facts, and merely summarized what Dr. Mandel told him.
Some of the concerns of Ms. T was that Dr. Mandel would not provide copyrighted test protocols to her and her agent, Dr. U, as per College guidelines. Other than restricting Ms. T’s access to test protocols, he provided all other information.	Dr. Acton’s statement are patently false. Dr. Mandel himself stated that he withheld documents sent to him by the SD5/Ms. Stuart as well as by others (these are not copyrighted), accordingly he did not provide “all other information” except “copyrighted test protocols.”
ALLEGATION #4 – DR. MANDEL ENGAGED IN DUAL/MULTIPLE RELATIONSHIPS
Pertinent Standards: Dual Relationships
Dr. Westcott at the time was on maternity leave, and as her supervisor, Dr. Mandel did the review, in which Ms. T claims bias. Dr. Mandel was Dr. Westcott’s supervisor and responsible for her work. Dr. Mandel was also the “President and owner of Mandel & Associates Ltd. with a number of staff psychologists and neuropsychologists and, thus, had both reputational and financial interests in discrediting Dr. K Report and upholding the findings of Dr. Westcott’s Report.”	At the time Ms. T filed her complaint against Dr. Mandel, Ms. T did not know that Dr. Mandel was personally involved with Dr. Westcott’s September 15, 2010 Report and prior assessment. It is now obvious that Dr. Mandel had reputational and financial interests in discrediting Dr. K’s Report and that Dr. Mandel also had personal interest in discrediting Dr. K’s Report and protecting his own reputation as he was a secret co-author/collaborator/adviser/quality controller of Dr. Westcott’s September 15, 2010 Report.
She also claimed there was a friendship with Dr. Suffield, and that is why he suggested Dr. Suffield to conduct a review of the entire matter.	Unknown to Ms. T, Dr. Mandel and Dr. Suffield were not only friends, Dr. Mandel supervised Dr. Suffield’s practicum, Dr. Mandel hired Dr. Suffield into his first job, and Dr. Mandel later recruited Dr. Suffield to come to Calgary from Ontario and hired Dr. Suffield to his next and last employment with Columbia Health (later acquired by Lifemark Inc.).
Dr. Mandel replied to these allegations on pages 7 and 8 of his response documents, and he reported that he recommended three psychologists who he felt could conduct this review. Ms. Stuart’s note confirmed the name of three psychologists, one of whom was Dr. Suffield. Dr. Mandel reported that he left it to SD5 to make their own choice.	Dr. Action failed to mention that Dr. Suffield was the first name on the list, that Dr. Suffield was Dr. Mandel’s practicum student, that Dr. Mandel trained Dr. Suffield, that Dr. Mandel hired Dr. Suffield twice into two different positions, and that Dr. Suffield was likely to follow Dr. Mandel’s ways of assessing clients. Dr. Acton’s statement about Ms. Stuart’s note is false. The note in question was not “Ms. Stuart’s note”. It was an email between Ms. Stuart and Dr. Mandel on which Dr. Mandel, in his own handwriting, scribbled the name of the three psychologists.
Dr. Mandel confirmed that he had previously socialized, and on a number of occasions, worked with Dr. Suffield, but their friendship ended in the late 1990’s. Both Dr. Mandel and Dr. Suffield confirmed this timeline. Dr. Mandel confirmed he has no personal or business relationships with any of the three psychologists, although he noted that Dr. Suffield used an office in the same building complex as Mandel & Associates.	Dr. Acton failed to mention that Dr. Mandel did supervise Dr. Suffield’s practicum, that Dr. Mandel did hire Dr. Suffield for his first job, that Dr. Mandel hired Dr. Suffield for his next and final job in Calgary, that Dr. Mandel co-authored several academic pieces with Dr. Suffield. Dr. Action further failed to mention that Drs. Mandel, Westcott and Suffield hired the same lawyer, and that they even wrote “a joint response” and “united response” to Ms. T’s separate complaints against them. Of note, Dr. Acton improperly and falsely uses the term “building complex”. The “building complex” refers to a cluster of buildings. A single building is not a “building complex”. “One Executive Place, 1816 Crowchild Trail N. W.” is a single building although it has several floors.
ALLEGATION #5 – DR. MANDEL FAILED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SUPERVISION
Pertinent Standards: Supervision
Ms. Tuson’s alleged that Dr. Mandel failed to provide adequate supervision of Dr. Westcott.
Dr. Mandel replied to the allegation by Ms. Tuson of failure to provide adequate supervision to Dr. Westcott and staff at pages 8 and 9 of his response. In his response he listed several strategies employed, and still does, to supervise his staff and employees. He also provided information as to his training methods used with Dr. Westcott, and indicated she was promoted to a supervisory position within the firm a few years ago due to her expertise.	Ms. T did not complain about Dr. Allan Mandel’s strategies and training methods. Ms. T complaint was about Dr. Westcott’s September 15, 2010 Report being full of obvious errors, plagiarism, and falsehoods invalidating the report, and about Dr. Mandel himself approving the report full of obvious errors, plagiarism, and falsehoods.
This matter has been extensively reviewed by three psychologists and two academics who have been both involved in this matter and been involved in Ms. Tuson’s British Columbia Human Rights case. Dr. Braxton Suffield, Psychologist, was hired by SD5 to review Dr. Kettner’s psychological assessment report, Dr. Westcott’s psychological assessment report and Dr. K’s report. Dr. K was hired by Ms. T to conduct an assessment after she was assessed by Dr. Westcott and Dr. Kettner. Dr. L, Psychologist, was hired by Dr. U, Professor, Mount Royal University and Ms. T’s advocate, to conduct another review of the reports of Dr. Westcott , Dr. Suffield and Dr. Kettner. Dr. U, Ms. T’s Advocate, also produced a report reviewing Dr. Westcott’s report (This PDF was provided to the College under a separate upload as it was too large to add to his report). Dr. G, Professor, University of British Columbia, also provided a comment on the work of Drs. Westcott and Suffield (Appendix A). Dr. Mandel, in his written response to his complaint by Ms. T, responded to the allegations of inappropriate use of psychological tests.	Dr. Acton says that a number of Drs. reviewed various reports. Dr. Acton does not mention anything as to what those reviews stated; Dr. Action did not mention that the reviews by Drs. U, L, and G were severely critical of Dr. Westcott’s work (and Dr. Mandel’s work).
This investigation did not acquire any new information pertaining to Dr. Westcott’s use of the WAIS-R, the GATB, or the MMPI-R.	Dr. Acton says he did not acquire any new information, for example, he did not determine for himself whether Drs. Westcott, Mandel, and Suffield were using wrong USES GATB Manual or correct GATB CDN Manual. Notably, Dr. Acton did not even manage to correctly name the relevant tests: (a) there is no MMPI-R and no MMPI-R was used (MMPI-2-RF and MMPI-2 were used), (b) WAIS-R (1981) was not used — Ms. T was asssessed with WAIS-IV CDN (2008), and (c) the GATB used was the GATB CDN (Nelson, 1986), not the original USES GATB (1947, 1970).
These statistic and psychometric arguments along with the appropriateness of the test usage and interpretation is a highly complex and divisive issue that has been in both the academic literature and before the courts. An analysis of this complex issue is beyond the expertise of this investigation.	Here, Dr. Acton, to his credit, admitted that he and his colleagues in Falcongate Inc. did not have expertise to investigate key issues in the complaint, that is, they lacked competence or were incompetent. Dr. Acton’s investigation was “beyond the expertise of this investigation.” Dr. Acton further admitted that “statistics and psychometric”, “appropriateness of the test usage and interpretation”, and “An analysis of this complex issue is beyond the expertise of this investigation.” I note here that a competent (and ethical) registered psychologist has a duty to refuse an assignments beyond that psychologist’s expertise and competence. Oddly enough, Dr. Action did not recuse himself from the assignment he, by his own admission, was incompetent to perform.
ALLEGATION #6 – DR. MANDEL FAILED TO REPORT A COLLEAGUE TO THE COLLEGE OF ALBERTA PSYCHOLOGISTS
Pertinent Standards: Reporting a Colleague Pertinent Ethics: Responsibility of the Individual Psychologist
Ms. T asserted that Dr. Mandel was obliged to report Dr. Westcott for a breach of the 2019 Standard 17.1, which was not in effect at the time of the assessment. Ms. T asserts that since she believes that Dr. Westcott was acting inappropriately, Dr. Mandel should have noted this and reported Dr. Westcott to the College.	Dr. Acton at minimum misleads a reader when he claims that the standard was not in effect. While 2019 Standard 17.1 was not in effect, the equivalent 2005 Standard 44 was in effect. The 2005 Standard 44 reads: “In the event of awareness of an illegal practice or an apparent violation of these Standards, psychologists are obligated to take action, including, if necessary, formal reporting to address or remedy the practice or violation…” Dr. Action is again incorrect. Ms. T did not say that Dr. Mandel ought to take action and report Dr. Westcott because she, Ms. T, believed Dr. Westcott was acting inappropriately. Ms. T stated that Dr. Mandel was required to take action and to report Dr. Westcott because of her multiple failures to comply with the Standards of Practice and the Code of Ethics — the failures that are now documented even by Dr. Westcott’s under oath admissions, for example, Dr. Westcott’s numerous errors summarizing Ms. T’s GATB scores.
Dr. Mandel maintained he had no obligation or responsibility to report Dr. Westcott, (see page 9 of his response), in which he asserted “there was nothing to suggest that Dr. Westcott had breached any Standards of Practice in conducting her assessment. I maintain that he report was completed in keeping with the Standards of Practice, and I deny that she had to be reported to the College.	Dr. Acton states what Dr. Mandel stated but ignored the evidence proving Dr. Mandel wrong. For example, Dr. Acton knew that Dr. Westcott nor Dr. Mandel obtained any informed consent from Ms. T to share her confidential personal information among them.
Moreover, neither Dr. Suffield nor Dr. L believed that Dr. Westcott had engaged in misconduct that would require a report to the College.	Dr. Suffield is a wrong person to ask given that he also failed to report Dr. Westcott to the College of Alberta Psychologists. Dr. Acton’s summary of what Dr. L believed is inconsistent with what Dr. L wrote in his criticism of Drs. Westcott September 15, 2010 Report – created by Dr. Westcott with assistance and quality control from Dr. Mandel, a secret co-author.
ALLEGATION #7 – DR. MANDEL FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE DIVERSITY AND CULTURAL COMPETENCE
Ms. T relies on Standard 19.1 of the 2019 Standards of Practice as the basis for this allegation, which were not in effect at the time. She alleged that “Dr. Mandel engaged in a conduct that promoted unjust discrimination that was prejudicial to Ms. T because of her average mental ability relative to the same aged Canadians.[“] Moreover, she alleged that Dr. Mandel assisted SD5 to pursue their attempt to keep Ms. Tuson from continuing her chosen career of elementary school teacher and did so with full knowledge that Ms. Tuson intelligence and cognitive abilities were in average range relative to the same aged Canadians.	Dr. Acton has some difficulties with using quotation marks. Dr. Acton did not use them correctly, namely, Dr. Action failed to place the end quotation mark in its proper place.
Ms. T further alleged that by claiming that Dr. Westcott’s findings were ‘very well reasoned and based on objective findings’, Dr. Mandel endorsed Dr. Westcott’s opinions that Ms. T, a Canadian woman of average intelligence and cognitive abilities, was mentally disabled, was to pursue long-term disability, and was to pursue Canadian Pension Plan Disability Benefits.	Indeed. Dr. Mandel’s statement that Dr. Westcott’s findings were “very well-reasoned and based on objective findings” is indeed an endorsement of Dr. Westcott’s opinions that Canadian women of average intelligence and cognitive abilities are mentally disabled and ought to pursue Canadian Pension Plan Disability Benefits. Dr. Acton failed to disclose that Dr. Mandel was secretly endorsing his own work as he was involved with Dr. Westcott’s assessment, discussed it with Dr. Westcott and provided “quality control.”
Dr. Mandel replied on page 9 of his response and denied that he discriminated against Ms. Tuson in any capacity. He replied that he acted ethically and in accordance with the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychology by advising Ms. Stuart to seek an independent assessment of both Dr. Westcott’s and Dr. Kincade’s reports.”	Dr. Action failed to mention that Dr. Mandel asked Ms. Stuart to send him Dr. K’s Report for criticism. Dr. Mandel wrote: “I think you should get Ms. T’s permission to send me a copy of the K report, which I can review and, if appropriate, critique.” Dr. Mandel effectively asked Ms. Stuart to send him Dr. K’s work critiquing (indirectly) Dr. Mandel’s work so that he can critique Dr. K’s criticque of Dr. Mandel’s work while pretending it was not his work but Dr. Westcott’s. Conflict of interest, perhaps?
It should be noted that Dr. Westcott’s report which Dr. Mandel supported makes no reference to Ms. T being “mentally disabled” and Dr. Westcott stated “It is recommended that Ms. T explore financial supports available to individuals with disabilities as deemed appropriate. It is thought that she may qualify for long-term disability through her employers given the chronic and likely progressive nature of her underlying medical condition. She may also wish to explore her eligibility for Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefits. It is likely that she may qualify for such support given the chronic nature of MS and her inability to return to work. More information about this program can be found on the Services Canada website (www.servicecanada.gc.ca).”	Dr. Acton says that Dr. Westcott “makes no reference to Ms. T being ‘mentally disabled’”. Yet, Dr. Action quotes Dr. Westcott’s recommendation that “Ms. T explore financial support available to individuals with disabilities”. Why would Dr. Westcott recommend that Ms. T seeks support for “individuals with disabilities” if Dr. Westcott believed Ms. T was not disabled, was not an individual with disability? Not surprisingly, Dr. Westcott’s language was understood, for example, by Ms. Stuart and the BC Teacher Regulation Branch, as stating that Ms. T was mentally disabled.
ALLEGATION #8 – DR. MANDEL VIOLATED NUMEROUS ARTICLES OF THE CANADIAN CODE OF ETHICS (FOURTH EDITION) FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS.
Ms. T alleged that Dr. Mandel violated other articles of the Canadian Code of Ethics and provided no additional evidence pertinent to this allegation.	Dr. Acton must have failed to read Ms. T’s complaints if he concluded that Ms. T “provided no additional evidence pertinent to this allegation.”
The Canadian Code of Ethics (third edition) was active at time of Dr. Westcott’s assessment and the fourth edition active during subsequent interactions with Dr. U and Ms. T.
No other evidence was apparent to this investigation concerning other areas of potential misconduct.	Dr. Acton must have failed to read Ms. T’s complaints if “no other evidence was apparent to” him “concerning other areas of potential misconduct.”
End
Thank you for the opportunity to review this matter. I hope this assists you in your deliberations about Ms. T’s allegations against Dr. Mandel.
Bob Acton, Ph.D., R.Psych.