Health Ombudsman v McDonald - [2025] QCAT 170

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v McDonald [2025] QCAT 170

PARTIES:

DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF THE HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

FAITH ELIZABETH MCDONALD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR037-23

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

25 July 2025

HEARING DATE:

31 March 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Dann, Deputy President
Assisted by:
Ms D Anderson
Mr S Brimstone
Mr K Murphy

ORDERS:
IT IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT:

1. Pursuant to section 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (‘HO Act’), the Tribunal decides that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

2. Pursuant to section 107(3)(a) of the HO Act, the Tribunal reprimands the respondent.

3. Pursuant to section 107(4)(a) of the HO Act, the Tribunal disqualifies the respondent from applying for registration for a period of four (4) years from the date of this order.

4. Pursuant to section 107(4)(b) of the HO Act, the Tribunal prohibits the practitioner from providing any mental health, psychological or counselling services until she obtains registration as a registered health practitioner under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) or a corresponding law of a State or Territory of Australia.

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1.   The interim non-publication order made on 4 October 2024 is discharged.

2. Pursuant to s 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), publication of:

(a)     the contents of a document or other thing filed in or produced to the Tribunal;

(b)     evidence given before the Tribunal;

(c)     any order made or reasons given by the Tribunal;

is prohibited to the extent that it could identify or lead to the identification of:

(d)     a party to a proceeding under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) (‘DFVP Act’);

(e) a witness in a proceeding under the DFVP Act; or

(f) a child concerned in a proceeding under the DFVP Act;

save as provided for by the terms of this order and save as is necessary for the parties to engage in and progress these proceedings, or any appeal or review arising from these proceedings, and for the Applicant to perform its statutory functions under the HO Act.

3.     Any material affected by the non-publication order shall not be copied or inspected without an order of the Tribunal, except by:

(a)     a judicial member;

(b)     a tribunal member;

(c)     an associate to a judicial officer or tribunal member appointed under relevant legislation;

(d)     any assessor appointed to assist the Tribunal;

(e)     the staff of the Tribunal registry;

(f)      any judicial officer, court staff or associate dealing with any appeal or review arising from these proceedings; or

(g)     the parties to this proceeding or any appeal or review arising from these proceedings.

4.     The Tribunal directs that the second sentence of [101] of these reasons be redacted from the published decision.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – PSYCHOLOGISTS – where the respondent was a registered psychologist – whether…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Health Ombudsman v McDonald and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QCAT 170
Decision Date: 25 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Health Ombudsman brought proceedings against Ms McDonald, a registered psychologist, alleging that she engaged in a personal and/or sexual relationship with a vulnerable individual, AXB, after providing mental health services to AXB’s foster children. The respondent denied that AXB was ever her patient or client. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Health Ombudsman had proven its case and whether Ms McDonald’s conduct constituted professional misconduct. Additionally, the Tribunal had to decide if Ms McDonald should be reprimanded, disqualified from applying for registration, and prohibited from providing mental health, psychological, or counselling services for a specified period.

The Tribunal considered the evidence presented by both parties and concluded that the Health Ombudsman had proven its case. The Tribunal found that Ms McDonald’s conduct constituted professional misconduct due to the inappropriate nature of the relationship with AXB. The Tribunal noted that Ms McDonald, as a psychologist, held a position of trust and authority, and her relationship with AXB, who was in a vulnerable position, breached professional boundaries. The Tribunal further determined that a reprimand and disqualification from applying for registration for four years were appropriate sanctions. Additionally, the Tribunal imposed a prohibition on Ms McDonald providing mental health, psychological, or counselling services until she obtained registration under the relevant national law.

The Tribunal found that the respondent’s actions warranted disciplinary measures to protect the public and maintain professional standards within the health care sector. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the inherent power of the Tribunal to protect vulnerable individuals and to ensure that health practitioners uphold the standards expected of them. The Tribunal emphasised the importance of maintaining professional boundaries, particularly in therapeutic relationships where the client may be vulnerable.

The Tribunal made several orders in this matter. Firstly, it determined that Ms McDonald had engaged in professional misconduct. Secondly, the Tribunal reprimanded Ms McDonald. Thirdly, it disqualified her from applying for registration for a period of four years. Fourthly, it prohibited her from providing any mental health, psychological, or counselling services until she obtained the necessary registration. Additionally, the Tribunal discharged the interim non-publication order and imposed restrictions on the publication of certain materials to protect the identities of parties involved in domestic and family violence proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

IT IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT:

1. Pursuant to section 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (‘HO Act’), the Tribunal decides that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

2. Pursuant to section 107(3)(a) of the HO Act, the Tribunal reprimands the respondent.

3. Pursuant to section 107(4)(a) of the HO Act, the Tribunal disqualifies the respondent from applying for registration for a period of four (4) years from the date of this order.

4. Pursuant to section 107(4)(b) of the HO Act, the Tribunal prohibits the practitioner from providing any mental health, psychological or counselling services until she obtains registration as a registered health practitioner under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) or a corresponding law of a State or Territory of Australia.

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The interim non-publication order made on 4 October 2024 is discharged.

2. Pursuant to s 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), publication of:

(a) the contents of a document or other thing filed in or produced to the Tribunal;

(b) evidence given before the Tribunal;

is prohibited to the extent that it could identify or lead to the identification of:

(d) a party to a proceeding under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) (‘DFVP Act’);

(e) a witness in a proceeding under the DFVP Act; or

(f) a child concerned in a proceeding under the DFVP Act;

save as provided for by the terms of this order and save as is necessary for the parties to engage in and progress these proceedings, or any appeal or review arising from these proceedings, and for the Applicant to perform its statutory functions under the HO Act.

3. Any material affected by the non-publication order shall not be copied or inspected without an order of the Tribunal, except by:

(a) a judicial member;

(b) a tribunal member;

(d) any assessor appointed to assist the Tribunal;

(e) the staff of the Tribunal registry;

(f) any judicial officer, court staff or associate dealing with any appeal or review arising from these proceedings; or

(g) the parties to this proceeding or any appeal or review arising from these proceedings.

4. The Tribunal directs that the second sentence of [101] of these reasons be redacted from the published decision.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.