The College of Alberta Psychologists’ “Accurate” Public Register, the Myth of Wet-Ink Signatures, and a Cartel-Like Focus on Protecting Members
By Dr. Bob Uttl.
The Trigger: A “Lapse” Confirmed in Tribunal
On June 5, 2026, I formally notified the College of Alberta Psychologists (CAP) of a critical compliance issue. Just one day prior, on June 4, legal counsel for School District No. 5 had submitted a written statement to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. They revealed that their own litigation consultant and expert witness, Dr. John Braxton Suffield, could not testify because his professional liability insurance had vanished:
“Dr. Suffield has advised us that his professional liability coverage was up for renewal on June 1, 2026 and that his renewal is under additional review by the insurer and his coverage has lapsed in the interim. Dr. Suffield has informed us that he will not be in a position to testify [on June 18 and 19, 2026] without such coverage…”
SD5 Counsel Submission To the Tribunal, June 4, 2026
Despite this explicit admission that Dr. Suffield lacked the mandatory statutory insurance required to practice, CAP’s live public register continued to broadcast a blatant misrepresentation to the public: “In good standing—No restrictions.”
I alerted the College to ensure the register was corrected to accurately reflect the practitioner’s current legal incapacity to practice. What followed was a masterclass in bureaucratic obstruction.
The Gatekeeping and the “Limbo” Defense
On Monday, June 8, 2026, I called CAP to request basic public register information under Section 34(1) of the Health Professions Act (HPA). The receptionist flatly refused to provide it over the phone, demanding an email. I complied, pasting the exact legislation for their convenience.
Shortly after, I received an email from CAP’s Deputy Registrar, Dr. Troy Janzen. He bypassed my public information request to address the insurance notification, claiming CAP had received evidence of coverage back at the March 31 renewal deadline. He added:
…I intend to seek individual confirmation and evidence from Dr. Suffield… I will seek to determine if his liability insurance lapsed at any time… The College will take appropriate steps in response to what I am able to learn.”
Dr. Troy Janzen, June 8, 2026
Dr. Troy Janzen’s response heavily implied that Dr. Suffield had hidden the lapse from his own regulator. I responded immediately, posing a simple, direct factual question: Did Dr. Suffield notify the College at any time that his insurance had lapsed or was under review?
Dr. Janzen’s reply was stunning. He ignored the question and instead asserted that psychologists have no duty to tell the College when their insurance expires:
“Bylaws require members to maintain current and active professional liability insurance… Bylaws are silent as to notification to the College as to a possible lapse in insurance coverage. I find nothing in the HPA or in regulations that indicate a notification requirement of a lapse of insurance.”
Dr. Troy Janzen, June 8, 2026
The Logic Overboard: A License to Mislead
On June 8, I challenged Dr. Troy Janzen’s position as both administratively and logically untenable. If a psychologist’s insurance lapses, they are legally barred from practicing. By remaining silent and allowing the CAP website to falsely advertise them as active and unrestricted, the practitioner actively violates CAP’s own Standards of Practice:
- Standard 13.3: Mandates that a psychologist shall not “permit others [including the College] to provide false or misleading information concerning professional services.”
- Standard 13.7: Strictly prohibits engaging in “deception, misrepresentation or fraud in any professionally related activity.”
On June 9, Dr. Troy Janzen dug in, doubling down on the loophole: “There is no duty to notify, but there is a duty to cease practice if he has no liability coverage.”
He still refused to answer whether Dr. Suffield had notified them.
Escalation to a Formal Complaint
Because the Deputy Registrar refused to answer basic factual questions or enforce the Standards of Practice, I formally escalated the matter on June 25, 2026, transforming my “concern” into a Formal Complaint under Section 54 of the HPA.
The core of the complaint was ironclad: If the statement to the Tribunal was true, Dr. Suffield breached his ethical duties by hiding his legal incapacity to practice. If CAP was notified and left the register unchanged, then the College itself was actively disseminating lies to protect a member. Furthermore, the investigation needed to determine if Dr. Suffield had engaged in practice or acted as a litigation consultant without coverage between June 1 and June 19.
On June 26, Dr. Troy Janzen fired back with a remarkable two-page letter. In it, he asserted that:
- No formal complaint existed because CAP requires a “signed written complaint” (ignoring standard electronic signatures).
- Dr. Suffield’s insurance wasn’t actually lapsed, but rather “intact but in limbo.” He claimed it was “more accurate to state that Suffield’s insurance was past its expiry date and is pending review.”
- The public register is perfectly “accurate” because even if a member completely lacks the required $5 million in liability insurance, CAP maintains them as “in good standing” until a formal, months- or years-long Hearing Tribunal orders otherwise.
(For a deep dive into this magical regulatory fiction, see my companion piece: “Abracadabra: The College of Alberta Psychologists’ Magical ‘Limbo’ Insurance Loophole“).
Feather Pens and Cartels
I responded the same day, shredding the “limbo” defense. In the real world of underwriting, if professional liability insurance passes its expiry date without a renewal certificate, it has legally and factually lapsed. There is no magical “limbo” safety net. Furthermore, if CAP’s register reflects slow months or years long procedural status rather than daily legal compliance, the register is functionally useless to the public it is mandated to protect.
Ask yourself: Who is going to pay the malpractice judgment arising from a psychologist’s conduct while their insurance was “intact but in limbo”? Will Dr. Troy Janzen step in and graciously pay the judgment out of his own pocket?
Of course not. In the real world, “limbo” means uninsured.
On July 5, having received no acknowledgment, I sent an urgent follow-up, adding a note on their bureaucratic pedantry regarding signatures:
If you insist and force me to, I will print my prior correspondence… pull out my old-fashioned feather ink pen, dip it in liquid ink, sign it, and forward it to you by Canada Post.
Dr. Bob Uttl, July 5, 2026
The next day, on July 6, Dr. Troy Janzen sent a brief, evasive reply:
I am taking steps to determine what action we will take in response to your indication that you wish to escalate the matter to a formal complaint… We will let you know our next steps shortly.
Dr. Troy Janzen, July 6, 2026
The Bottom Line
Let’s be entirely clear: I did not “indicate a wish” to escalate. Under Section 54(1) of the HPA, I did escalate it.
When a formal complaint is received, Section 55 of the Health Professions Act dictates exactly what the Complaints Director must do. It does not grant them a grace period to “determine what action they wish to take.”
By treating a factual insurance lapse as an “unverified allegation,” inventing an imaginary “limbo” insurance status, and pretending electronic communications lack the validity of a wet-ink quill signature, CAP operates less like a public safeguard and more like a protective cartel. The public register doesn’t protect you; it protects them.