THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE PHYSICIAN REGISTER SECTION OF THE WEBSITE OF THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO (WWW.CPSO.ON.CA) AS OF THE DATE AND TIME NOTED BELOW
25/04/25 04:17:41 AM

General Information

Former Name: No Former Name
Medical School: McMaster University, 1987
Gender: Man
Languages Spoken: ENGLISH

Practice Information

Primary Business Location: Address not Available
Business Email: No Information Available
Phone: No Information Available
Fax: No Information Available

Specialties

SPECIALTY ISSUED ON CERTIFYING BODY
Psychiatry
Effective: 28 May 1992
Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
SPECIALTY: Psychiatry
ISSUED ON: Effective: May 28 1992
CERTIFYING BODY: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada

Hospital Privileges

No information available

Professional Corporation Information

Corporation Name: Dr. Michael Porter Medicine Professional Corporation
Certificate of Authorization Status: Inactive End Date: 24 Mar 2017

General Information

Former Name: No Former Name
Gender: Man
Languages Spoken: ENGLISH
Medical School: McMaster University, 1987

Practice Information

Primary Business Location: Address not Available
Business Email: No Information Available
Phone: No Information Available
Fax: No Information Available

Specialties

SPECIALTY ISSUED ON CERTIFYING BODY
Psychiatry
Effective: 28 May 1992
Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
SPECIALTY: Psychiatry
ISSUED ON: Effective: May 28 1992
CERTIFYING BODY: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada

Hospital Privileges

No information available

Professional Corporation Information

Corporation Name: Dr. Michael Porter Medicine Professional Corporation
Certificate of Authorization Status: Inactive End Date: 24 Mar 2017

Practice Conditions

This physician is inactive (Expired, Resigned, Suspended, Revoked, or Deceased) and is not permitted to practise medicine.
This physician is inactive (Expired, Resigned, Suspended, Revoked, or Deceased) and is not permitted to practise medicine.

Current Tribunal Proceedings

No information available

Past Tribunal Proceedings (3)

Date of Decision: 11 Feb 2016
Summary of Decision:
On February 11, 2016, the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario found that Dr. Paul Michael Porter committed an act of professional misconduct in that he engaged in sexual abuse of Patient A and in that he has engaged in an act or omission relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

Patient A was a patient of Dr. Porter, a psychiatrist, from April 2008 until her last visit in April 2012. Dr. Porter’s certificate of registration had been subject to certain limitations at that time, which included the following:

“Dr. Porter shall install in his office a video system which will, with the consent of each patient, tape each entire psychiatric session and which can be monitored by the office staff and preserved for inspection.”

Patient A testified that Dr. Porter first hugged her about a year and a half after started seeing him, when she was dwelling on the death of her relative. She thought Dr. Porter felt bad for her because her relative had passed away and so he said “Here, let me give you a hug.” After that, she said they would hug just before she left.

She testified that the hugs were frequent in 2011. At the end of a session she would stand up and move towards the window and he would hug her there. He said he was hugging her in that location because it was out of the camera’s view.

At first the hugs ended when she said “I have to go” and then later on as the relationship developed, they would each say “I love you.” The hugs which were captured on video were initiated by Dr. Porter by standing and holding his arms open, welcoming Patient A to the embrace. Dr. Porter would generally stand in an area or move to behind his chair where the video camera was unlikely to fully capture the hug. The hug was a full body hug with their torsos in contact. A rocking motion from side to side was also observed.All the hugs took place in the privacy of Dr. Porter’s office with the door closed in the context of a psychotherapy session.

It was clear to the Committee that the hugs that were observed went beyond purported therapeutic hugs. The Committee accepted that the hugs were tender and mutually satisfying, reflecting an enjoyable, romantic gesture. This, in the Committee’s view, accords with the meaning of “sexual nature” in the legislation. These hugs were wrong especially in a psychotherapy context and in the Committee’s view, constitute sexual abuse. The Committee found that Dr. Porter repeatedly hugged Patient A in a sexualized manner.

Patient A testified that she recalled three occasions when Dr. Porter kissed her. The first time occurred when they were standing by the window in his office, a second time when she was sitting on his lap and another when they were both in the secretary’s office together. Dr. Porter denies any kissing took place.

The Committee carefully reviewed the evidence available and considered the credibility of both Patient A and Dr. Porter. The Committee found that Dr. Porter kissed Patient A,that he held her hand in the hallway of his office, and that she sat on his lap in his office on one or more occasions.

Patient A testified that Dr. Porter made sexual comments to her on numerous occasions.These include telling her he loved her; telling her that they would have a future together in two years; complimenting her on her appearance; saying that he would like to hold her hands on an airplane; and telling her that they would look funny making love together because of their bad backs. Dr. Porter denied that he made any of these remarks.

The Committee again rested its decision on its assessment of their respective credibility,and found that Dr. Porter made sexual remarks to Patient A just as she testified he did.

The Committee found that Dr. Porter has engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct in sexually abusing Patient A as set out above. In addition, the Committee found that Dr. Porter also engaged in such conduct as set out below:
- Dr. Porter disclosed personal information inappropriately to Patient A when he told her details of his health, personal history, marriage and family;
- Dr. Porter disclosed sensitive and personal information inappropriately about his adopted son;
- Dr. Porter disclosed information about the mental health of another patient, Patient B, and the personal details of another patient, Patient C. In both cases this was inappropriate;
- Dr. Porter purposefully acted to undermine the safeguards put in place to protect patients by having Patient A move to an area of his office which could not be captured on video; and
- Dr. Porter failed to preserve all videos, as he was required to do under a prior College order.

For the above reasons, the Committee found that Dr. Porter engaged in conduct which would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

PENALTY

On September 28, 2016, the Discipline Committee ordered and directed that:

- The Registrar revoke Dr. Porter’s certificate of registration effective immediately;
- Dr. Porter appear before this panel to be reprimanded and that the fact of the reprimand be recorded on the register;
- Dr. Porter pay costs to the College in the amount of $36,200.00; and
- Dr. Porter provide to the College an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $16,060.00, or other security acceptable to the College, within thirty (30) days of the date this Order becomes final.
 
Reasons for Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: No Appeal
Hearing Date(s): Hearing: September 14-17 continuing September 22 continuing November 23-25, 2015 Penalty Hearing: June 29, 2016 Reprimand: January 16, 2017
Date of Decision: 16 Apr 2012
Summary of Decision:
On April 16, 2012, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Paul Michael Porter committed an act of professional misconduct, in that he has engaged in an act or omission relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional. Dr. Porter admitted the allegation of professional misconduct.

Dr. Porter's Certificate of Registration was subject to an interim suspension pursuant to section 37 of the Health Professions Procedural Code between December 13, 2000 and November 29, 2002. This was in relation to a discipline proceeding in which Dr. Porter was later found to be incompetent and to have committed professional misconduct in respect of 2 patients with complex psychiatric issues, including dissociative identity disorder (DID). Dr. Porter's practice was made subject to conditions, including retaining a practice monitor and clinical supervisor,and discontinuing treating dissociative identity disorder or borderline personality disorder patients for at least five years. Dr. Porter's Certificate of Registration continues to be subject to these conditions.

Dr. Porter's Failure to Maintain Boundaries with Patients A and B

Dr. Porter began treating Patient A in 1989. He diagnosed Patient A with dissociative identity disorder. Dr. Porter continued to treat Patient A until his Certificate of Registration was suspended, as described above.

While treating Patient A, Dr. Porter developed a close personal relationship with her and failed to maintain therapeutic boundaries. Dr. Porter was regarded by Patient A as being akin to a member of her family, and he and Patient A spent time at each other's homes and with each other's families. Dr. Porter also commenced treating Patient A's husband, Patient B. Both Patient A and Patient B felt highly dependent on Dr. Porter. The close personal relationship between Dr. Porter and Patients A and B continued during the time when Dr. Porter's Certificate of Registration was suspended, and Patient A also received counselling from Dr. Porter during that period.

While Dr. Porter's Certificate of Registration was suspended, Patients A and B began to provide significant sums of money to Dr. Porter which they maintain were loans. Dr. Porter maintains that the sums were gifts. The amounts included two drafts in the amounts of $4,900 and $8,000,and a cheque for $12,000. Patients A and B asked Dr. Porter for a number of years to return the money in question. Dr. Porter has returned between approximately $5000 and $7000. Dr. Porter has undertaken to the College to pay a total of $17,400 to Patient A.

The Discipline Committee ordered and directed that:

1. the Registrar suspend Dr. Porter's certificate of registration for a one month period, to commence at 11:59 p.m. on July 16, 2012.

2. Dr. Porter appear before the panel to be reprimanded.

3. Dr. Porter shall within 180 days pay the College its costs of this proceeding in the amount of $3,650.00.
 
Reasons for Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: No Appeal
Hearing Date(s): April 16, 2012
Date of Decision: 19 Sep 2002
Summary of Decision:
On September 19, 2002, the Discipline Committee found Dr. Porter committed professional misconduct in that he engaged in conduct unbecoming a physician, in that he contravened Ontario Regulations regarding his records with respect to two patients, and that he engaged in an act relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. In addition the Committee found Dr. Porter to be incompetent in that his care of the complainants as patients displayed a lack of knowledge, skill and judgment, or disregard for the welfare of his patients.

On November 29, 2002, the Discipline Committee ordered and directed the Registrar to impose a period of suspension and terms, conditions and limitations on the certificate of registration.

On December 23, 2002, Dr. Porter appealed the decision to the Divisional Court.

On February 20, 2003, the Divisional Court granted a party stay of the decision - staying the suspension but maintaining the terms, conditions and limitations on the certificate of registration.

On July 10, 2003, the Divisional Court upheld the finding of the Discipline Committee, however,allowed the appeal as to penalty and ordered that the suspension of Dr. Porter’s certificate of registration be lifted immediately subject to the following conditions:
(a) Dr. Porter shall install in his office a video system which will, with the consent of each patient, tape each entire psychiatric session and which can be monitored by the office staff and preserved for inspection.
(b) Dr. Porter will retain the services of a full-time secretary.
(c) Dr. Porter will implement a system to restrict the patients physical access to his personal office.
(d) Dr. Porter will discontinue treating dissociative identity disorder or borderline personality disorder patients for a period of five years. If after that period of time, he wishes to treat patients with the disorders referred to in this subsection, he shall undergo an assessment of competence through a SAP of the Quality Assurance Committee of the College in accordance with subsection
(d) (iii) a., b., and c. [of the Discipline Committee Order]. Anytime after the expiration of the period of five years, Dr. Porter may apply to the Discipline Committee for a variation of these conditions or any other conditions on his certificate of registration.
(e) Dr. Porter will implement a procedure to ensure that he treats a broader cross section of general psychiatric patients.
(f) Dr. Porter will implement a system that will address his problems with respect to record-keeping to avoid billings being submitted to OHIP before the appropriate notes for that patients visit have been written.
(g) Upon filing with the Registrar of the CPSO the written undertaking of a practice monitor, Dr.Porter will seek and receive from the monitor daily assistance to ensure that his practice isoperating adequately and thereafter, once that has been determined, will have his practice monitored on a bi-weekly basis. The supervision shall include the intake of referrals, new patients and mail and the management of information. To this end Dr. Porter will make available to the practice monitor such random charts and files as she might require in order to assess that appropriate notes are being prepared and that OHIP billing is appropriate.
(h) Dr. Porter will seek and obtain the assistance of a psychiatrist to monitor and supervise his psychiatric practice and to advise the Registrar of the College of any issues in it on an ongoing basis.

On July 25, 2003, Dr. Porter applied for leave to appeal the decision of the Divisional Court to the Court of Appeal.

On February 12, 2004, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal.
 
Reasons for Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: Decision Altered
Appeal Decision Date: 2003-07-10
Hearing Date(s): Apr 16, 2001

Current Tribunal Proceedings

No information available

Past Tribunal Proceedings (3)

Date of Decision: 11 Feb 2016
Summary of Decision:
On February 11, 2016, the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario found that Dr. Paul Michael Porter committed an act of professional misconduct in that he engaged in sexual abuse of Patient A and in that he has engaged in an act or omission relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

Patient A was a patient of Dr. Porter, a psychiatrist, from April 2008 until her last visit in April 2012. Dr. Porter’s certificate of registration had been subject to certain limitations at that time, which included the following:

“Dr. Porter shall install in his office a video system which will, with the consent of each patient, tape each entire psychiatric session and which can be monitored by the office staff and preserved for inspection.”

Patient A testified that Dr. Porter first hugged her about a year and a half after started seeing him, when she was dwelling on the death of her relative. She thought Dr. Porter felt bad for her because her relative had passed away and so he said “Here, let me give you a hug.” After that, she said they would hug just before she left.

She testified that the hugs were frequent in 2011. At the end of a session she would stand up and move towards the window and he would hug her there. He said he was hugging her in that location because it was out of the camera’s view.

At first the hugs ended when she said “I have to go” and then later on as the relationship developed, they would each say “I love you.” The hugs which were captured on video were initiated by Dr. Porter by standing and holding his arms open, welcoming Patient A to the embrace. Dr. Porter would generally stand in an area or move to behind his chair where the video camera was unlikely to fully capture the hug. The hug was a full body hug with their torsos in contact. A rocking motion from side to side was also observed.All the hugs took place in the privacy of Dr. Porter’s office with the door closed in the context of a psychotherapy session.

It was clear to the Committee that the hugs that were observed went beyond purported therapeutic hugs. The Committee accepted that the hugs were tender and mutually satisfying, reflecting an enjoyable, romantic gesture. This, in the Committee’s view, accords with the meaning of “sexual nature” in the legislation. These hugs were wrong especially in a psychotherapy context and in the Committee’s view, constitute sexual abuse. The Committee found that Dr. Porter repeatedly hugged Patient A in a sexualized manner.

Patient A testified that she recalled three occasions when Dr. Porter kissed her. The first time occurred when they were standing by the window in his office, a second time when she was sitting on his lap and another when they were both in the secretary’s office together. Dr. Porter denies any kissing took place.

The Committee carefully reviewed the evidence available and considered the credibility of both Patient A and Dr. Porter. The Committee found that Dr. Porter kissed Patient A,that he held her hand in the hallway of his office, and that she sat on his lap in his office on one or more occasions.

Patient A testified that Dr. Porter made sexual comments to her on numerous occasions.These include telling her he loved her; telling her that they would have a future together in two years; complimenting her on her appearance; saying that he would like to hold her hands on an airplane; and telling her that they would look funny making love together because of their bad backs. Dr. Porter denied that he made any of these remarks.

The Committee again rested its decision on its assessment of their respective credibility,and found that Dr. Porter made sexual remarks to Patient A just as she testified he did.

The Committee found that Dr. Porter has engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct in sexually abusing Patient A as set out above. In addition, the Committee found that Dr. Porter also engaged in such conduct as set out below:
- Dr. Porter disclosed personal information inappropriately to Patient A when he told her details of his health, personal history, marriage and family;
- Dr. Porter disclosed sensitive and personal information inappropriately about his adopted son;
- Dr. Porter disclosed information about the mental health of another patient, Patient B, and the personal details of another patient, Patient C. In both cases this was inappropriate;
- Dr. Porter purposefully acted to undermine the safeguards put in place to protect patients by having Patient A move to an area of his office which could not be captured on video; and
- Dr. Porter failed to preserve all videos, as he was required to do under a prior College order.

For the above reasons, the Committee found that Dr. Porter engaged in conduct which would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

PENALTY

On September 28, 2016, the Discipline Committee ordered and directed that:

- The Registrar revoke Dr. Porter’s certificate of registration effective immediately;
- Dr. Porter appear before this panel to be reprimanded and that the fact of the reprimand be recorded on the register;
- Dr. Porter pay costs to the College in the amount of $36,200.00; and
- Dr. Porter provide to the College an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $16,060.00, or other security acceptable to the College, within thirty (30) days of the date this Order becomes final.
 
Reasons for Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: No Appeal
Hearing Date(s): Hearing: September 14-17 continuing September 22 continuing November 23-25, 2015 Penalty Hearing: June 29, 2016 Reprimand: January 16, 2017
Date of Decision: 16 Apr 2012
Summary of Decision:
On April 16, 2012, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Paul Michael Porter committed an act of professional misconduct, in that he has engaged in an act or omission relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional. Dr. Porter admitted the allegation of professional misconduct.

Dr. Porter's Certificate of Registration was subject to an interim suspension pursuant to section 37 of the Health Professions Procedural Code between December 13, 2000 and November 29, 2002. This was in relation to a discipline proceeding in which Dr. Porter was later found to be incompetent and to have committed professional misconduct in respect of 2 patients with complex psychiatric issues, including dissociative identity disorder (DID). Dr. Porter's practice was made subject to conditions, including retaining a practice monitor and clinical supervisor,and discontinuing treating dissociative identity disorder or borderline personality disorder patients for at least five years. Dr. Porter's Certificate of Registration continues to be subject to these conditions.

Dr. Porter's Failure to Maintain Boundaries with Patients A and B

Dr. Porter began treating Patient A in 1989. He diagnosed Patient A with dissociative identity disorder. Dr. Porter continued to treat Patient A until his Certificate of Registration was suspended, as described above.

While treating Patient A, Dr. Porter developed a close personal relationship with her and failed to maintain therapeutic boundaries. Dr. Porter was regarded by Patient A as being akin to a member of her family, and he and Patient A spent time at each other's homes and with each other's families. Dr. Porter also commenced treating Patient A's husband, Patient B. Both Patient A and Patient B felt highly dependent on Dr. Porter. The close personal relationship between Dr. Porter and Patients A and B continued during the time when Dr. Porter's Certificate of Registration was suspended, and Patient A also received counselling from Dr. Porter during that period.

While Dr. Porter's Certificate of Registration was suspended, Patients A and B began to provide significant sums of money to Dr. Porter which they maintain were loans. Dr. Porter maintains that the sums were gifts. The amounts included two drafts in the amounts of $4,900 and $8,000,and a cheque for $12,000. Patients A and B asked Dr. Porter for a number of years to return the money in question. Dr. Porter has returned between approximately $5000 and $7000. Dr. Porter has undertaken to the College to pay a total of $17,400 to Patient A.

The Discipline Committee ordered and directed that:

1. the Registrar suspend Dr. Porter's certificate of registration for a one month period, to commence at 11:59 p.m. on July 16, 2012.

2. Dr. Porter appear before the panel to be reprimanded.

3. Dr. Porter shall within 180 days pay the College its costs of this proceeding in the amount of $3,650.00.
 
Reasons for Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: No Appeal
Hearing Date(s): April 16, 2012
Date of Decision: 19 Sep 2002
Summary of Decision:
On September 19, 2002, the Discipline Committee found Dr. Porter committed professional misconduct in that he engaged in conduct unbecoming a physician, in that he contravened Ontario Regulations regarding his records with respect to two patients, and that he engaged in an act relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. In addition the Committee found Dr. Porter to be incompetent in that his care of the complainants as patients displayed a lack of knowledge, skill and judgment, or disregard for the welfare of his patients.

On November 29, 2002, the Discipline Committee ordered and directed the Registrar to impose a period of suspension and terms, conditions and limitations on the certificate of registration.

On December 23, 2002, Dr. Porter appealed the decision to the Divisional Court.

On February 20, 2003, the Divisional Court granted a party stay of the decision - staying the suspension but maintaining the terms, conditions and limitations on the certificate of registration.

On July 10, 2003, the Divisional Court upheld the finding of the Discipline Committee, however,allowed the appeal as to penalty and ordered that the suspension of Dr. Porter’s certificate of registration be lifted immediately subject to the following conditions:
(a) Dr. Porter shall install in his office a video system which will, with the consent of each patient, tape each entire psychiatric session and which can be monitored by the office staff and preserved for inspection.
(b) Dr. Porter will retain the services of a full-time secretary.
(c) Dr. Porter will implement a system to restrict the patients physical access to his personal office.
(d) Dr. Porter will discontinue treating dissociative identity disorder or borderline personality disorder patients for a period of five years. If after that period of time, he wishes to treat patients with the disorders referred to in this subsection, he shall undergo an assessment of competence through a SAP of the Quality Assurance Committee of the College in accordance with subsection
(d) (iii) a., b., and c. [of the Discipline Committee Order]. Anytime after the expiration of the period of five years, Dr. Porter may apply to the Discipline Committee for a variation of these conditions or any other conditions on his certificate of registration.
(e) Dr. Porter will implement a procedure to ensure that he treats a broader cross section of general psychiatric patients.
(f) Dr. Porter will implement a system that will address his problems with respect to record-keeping to avoid billings being submitted to OHIP before the appropriate notes for that patients visit have been written.
(g) Upon filing with the Registrar of the CPSO the written undertaking of a practice monitor, Dr.Porter will seek and receive from the monitor daily assistance to ensure that his practice isoperating adequately and thereafter, once that has been determined, will have his practice monitored on a bi-weekly basis. The supervision shall include the intake of referrals, new patients and mail and the management of information. To this end Dr. Porter will make available to the practice monitor such random charts and files as she might require in order to assess that appropriate notes are being prepared and that OHIP billing is appropriate.
(h) Dr. Porter will seek and obtain the assistance of a psychiatrist to monitor and supervise his psychiatric practice and to advise the Registrar of the College of any issues in it on an ongoing basis.

On July 25, 2003, Dr. Porter applied for leave to appeal the decision of the Divisional Court to the Court of Appeal.

On February 12, 2004, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal.
 
Reasons for Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: Decision Altered
Appeal Decision Date: 2003-07-10
Hearing Date(s): Apr 16, 2001

Training

Medical School: McMaster University, 1987

Registration History

DETAILS DATE
Revoked: Discipline Committee. Effective: 28 Sep 2016
Terms and conditions amended by Member. Effective: 04 Nov 2014
Suspension of registration removed. Effective: 16 Aug 2012
Suspension of registration imposed: Discipline Committee Effective: 16 Jul 2012
Terms and conditions amended by Discipline Committee. Effective: 10 Jul 2003
Suspension of registration removed. Effective: 19 Feb 2003
Suspension of registration imposed: Discipline Committee Effective: 29 Nov 2002
Suspension of registration imposed: Executive Committee Effective: 13 Dec 2000
Transfer of class of registration to: Independent Practice Certificate Effective: 30 Sep 1991
First certificate of registration issued: Postgraduate Education Certificate Effective: 01 Jul 1987
DETAILS: Revoked: Discipline Committee.
Date: Effective: 28 Sep 2016
DETAILS: Terms and conditions amended by Member.
Date: Effective: 04 Nov 2014
DETAILS: Suspension of registration removed.
Date: Effective: 16 Aug 2012
DETAILS: Suspension of registration imposed: Discipline Committee
Date: Effective: 16 Jul 2012
DETAILS: Terms and conditions amended by Discipline Committee.
Date: Effective: 10 Jul 2003
DETAILS: Suspension of registration removed.
Date: Effective: 19 Feb 2003
DETAILS: Suspension of registration imposed: Discipline Committee
Date: Effective: 29 Nov 2002
DETAILS: Suspension of registration imposed: Executive Committee
Date: Effective: 13 Dec 2000
DETAILS: Transfer of class of registration to: Independent Practice Certificate
Date: Effective: 30 Sep 1991
DETAILS: First certificate of registration issued: Postgraduate Education Certificate
Date: Effective: 01 Jul 1987