What may a licensed clinician in your jurisdiction actually do — and what must you disclose, document, or avoid?
MH in Brief keeps a verified reference to the rules governing behavioural-health practice in Canada — for psychologists, psychotherapists, counsellors, social workers, and marriage and family therapists. Every entry is sourced to the regulator or statute that made it and stamped with the date we last checked.
Not a law firm. Not legal advice. A monitoring and verification service — with receipts. How this works →
Latest verified changes
A THIRD INSTRUMENT CATEGORY, AND THE DOCUMENT NAMES IT ITSELF: 'ces normes ne sont pas des dispositions légales en tant que telles, mais elles ont néanmoins un caractère exécutoire'. Not law, but disciplinarily enforceable — they feed professional inspection and discipline. This sits between Quebec psychology's non-binding lignes directrices and a true regulation, and a page must not collapse the three. The corpus now holds four distinct telepractice instrument types across two provinces: a pure advisory with no force (NS psychology), web guidance (QC psychology), disciplinarily-enforceable norms (QC social work), and binding college standards or policy (NS social work, NS counselling therapy). ENCRYPTION IS AN EXPRESS, NAMED REQUIREMENT HERE (3.02, 3.10) — the only jurisdiction in the corpus so far to name it in terms rather than requiring generic 'reasonable safeguards'. NSCSW's Nova Scotia equivalent lists encryption among examples; Quebec makes it the stated measure. 3.03 IS A CLIENT-LOCATION TEST and lands OTSTCFQ alongside NSCSW and against the OPQ and NSCCT: comply with the rules where the client is, not only where you are. Note that this puts Quebec's two ordres on opposite sides of the cross-border question from each other — the OPQ hinges on the professional's physical location. Within one province. 3.10's BREACH-NOTIFICATION DUTY IS PROFESSIONAL AND SEPARATE FROM LAW 25's STATUTORY ONE. A Quebec social worker in private practice faces both: the Ordre's requirement to have published procedures for promptly notifying the client, and Law 25's obligation to notify the Commission d'accès à l'information and affected persons where there is a risk of serious injury (see ca-qc-privacy-law25). They are not the same trigger and satisfying one does not satisfy the other.
A THIRD INSTRUMENT CATEGORY, AND THE DOCUMENT NAMES IT ITSELF: 'ces normes ne sont pas des dispositions légales en tant que telles, mais elles ont néanmoins un caractère exécutoire'. Not law, but disciplinarily enforceable — they feed professional inspection and discipline. This sits between Quebec psychology's non-binding lignes directrices and a true regulation, and a page must not collapse the three. The corpus now holds four distinct telepractice instrument types across two provinces: a pure advisory with no force (NS psychology), web guidance (QC psychology), disciplinarily-enforceable norms (QC social work), and binding college standards or policy (NS social work, NS counselling therapy). ENCRYPTION IS AN EXPRESS, NAMED REQUIREMENT HERE (3.02, 3.10) — the only jurisdiction in the corpus so far to name it in terms rather than requiring generic 'reasonable safeguards'. NSCSW's Nova Scotia equivalent lists encryption among examples; Quebec makes it the stated measure. 3.03 IS A CLIENT-LOCATION TEST: comply with the rules where the client is, not only where you are. That contrasts with NSCCT, whose policy treats practice as occurring where the therapist is registered, and aligns with NSCSW. Do NOT contrast this with the OPQ as though the two ordres held opposing doctrines — an earlier version of ca-qc-telepractice-psychology said so and was corrected the same day. The OPQ's interjurisdictional material is a scenario FAQ about REGISTRATION, not a jurisdictional test, and it is a different kind of instrument from these enforceable norms. See that record's notes. Within one province. 3.10's BREACH-NOTIFICATION DUTY IS PROFESSIONAL AND SEPARATE FROM LAW 25's STATUTORY ONE. A Quebec social worker in private practice faces both: the Ordre's requirement to have published procedures for promptly notifying the client, and Law 25's obligation to notify the Commission d'accès à l'information and affected persons where there is a risk of serious injury (see ca-qc-privacy-law25). They are not the same trigger and satisfying one does not satisfy the other.
A THIRD INSTRUMENT CATEGORY, AND THE DOCUMENT NAMES IT ITSELF: 'ces normes ne sont pas des dispositions légales en tant que telles, mais elles ont néanmoins un caractère exécutoire'. Not law, but disciplinarily enforceable — they feed professional inspection and discipline. This sits between Quebec psychology's non-binding lignes directrices and a true regulation, and a page must not collapse the three. The corpus now holds four distinct telepractice instrument types across two provinces: a pure advisory with no force (NS psychology), web guidance (QC psychology), disciplinarily-enforceable norms (QC social work), and binding college standards or policy (NS social work, NS counselling therapy). ENCRYPTION IS AN EXPRESS, NAMED REQUIREMENT HERE (3.02, 3.10) — the only jurisdiction in the corpus so far to name it in terms rather than requiring generic 'reasonable safeguards'. NSCSW's Nova Scotia equivalent lists encryption among examples; Quebec makes it the stated measure. 3.03 IS A CLIENT-LOCATION TEST: comply with the rules where the client is, not only where you are. That contrasts with NSCCT, whose policy treats practice as occurring where the therapist is registered, and aligns with NSCSW. Do NOT contrast this with the OPQ as though the two ordres held opposing doctrines — an earlier version of ca-qc-telepractice-psychology said so and was corrected the same day. The OPQ's interjurisdictional material is a scenario FAQ about REGISTRATION, not a jurisdictional test, and it is a different kind of instrument from these enforceable norms. See that record's notes. Within one province. 3.10's BREACH-NOTIFICATION DUTY IS PROFESSIONAL AND SEPARATE FROM LAW 25's STATUTORY ONE. A Quebec social worker in private practice faces both: the Ordre's requirement to have published procedures for promptly notifying the client, and Law 25's obligation to notify the Commission d'accès à l'information and affected persons where there is a risk of serious injury (see ca-qc-privacy-law25). They are not the same trigger and satisfying one does not satisfy the other.
Quebec has no telepractice-specific REGULATION for psychologists. The OPQ publishes lignes directrices and points de repère, and is explicit that it does not impose particular tools or forms — 'l'Ordre ne prescrit, ne recommande, ni n'impose l'usage d'un formulaire préconçu'. The binding obligations are the ordinary ones — the Code de déontologie, the record-keeping regulation, competence — which apply whatever the medium. On INTERJURISDICTIONAL practice the OPQ does state operative positions: a psychologist serving a client located outside Quebec must check whether the regulator in the client's jurisdiction requires a permit or legal authorisation there; and a person who is PHYSICALLY IN QUEBEC offering services to Quebec clients must register with the OPQ, while the OPQ accepts that psychologists located outside Quebec may offer online services to Quebec clientele. No data-hosting, platform, or server-location requirement is specified.
Quebec sets no telepractice-specific REGULATION for psychologists. The OPQ publishes guidance — lignes directrices, points de repère, and a scenario FAQ — and is explicit that it does not impose particular tools or forms. The binding obligations are the ordinary ones: the Code de déontologie, the record-keeping regulation, and competence, which apply whatever the medium. ON INTERJURISDICTIONAL PRACTICE the OPQ's guidance takes the form of ANSWERS TO SPECIFIC POSED SCENARIOS, and must be read as such rather than as a general jurisdictional doctrine. Three of those scenarios matter: (1) A Quebec psychologist practising from outside Quebec (e.g. six months in the United States, or travelling with a sports team) must remain entered on the OPQ roll as a regular member, must check whether the regulator in the jurisdiction WHERE THEY THEMSELVES ARE requires a permit or legal authorisation, must maintain the liability coverage required by the Ordre while informing the client that the Ordre's coverage is valid only for claims within Canada, and must tell the client the Ordre can still receive and handle a complaint about services delivered remotely. (2) Asked about a psychologist or psychotherapist REGISTERED IN ONTARIO who will be in Montreal for a few months and wants to keep seeing their ONTARIO clients, the OPQ answers that to offer services to clients in Quebec OR remotely to clients outside Quebec, a person who is physically in Quebec must register with the OPQ or obtain a special authorisation to practise. Physical presence in Quebec therefore triggers the OPQ requirement even where every client is elsewhere. (3) Asked whether a psychologist or psychotherapist registered in BRITISH COLUMBIA may serve a person living in Montreal, the OPQ answers that a psychologist or psychotherapist located outside Quebec may offer online services to clients situated in Quebec. It RECOMMENDS — not requires — that such a person be legally authorised to practise the profession in their own jurisdiction; it states they must carry professional liability insurance; and it requires that clients be advised that any disciplinary proceeding must be brought before the regulatory body in the jurisdiction where the professional is located. CRITICAL LIMIT ON ALL OF THE ABOVE: this guidance addresses OPQ REGISTRATION. It does not displace the Code des professions, art. 187.1, under which PSYCHOTHERAPY IS A RESERVED ACT in Quebec — reserved to physicians, psychologists, and permit-holders who are members of seven named ordres. A person outside Quebec who is not within that class does not acquire the right to perform psychotherapy with a Quebec client by reading an FAQ about registration, and the OPQ is itself the body that prosecutes illegal practice of psychotherapy (art. 187.4.3). No data-hosting, platform, or server-location requirement is specified anywhere in this guidance.
Quebec sets no telepractice-specific REGULATION for psychologists. The OPQ publishes guidance — lignes directrices, points de repère, and a scenario FAQ — and is explicit that it does not impose particular tools or forms. The binding obligations are the ordinary ones: the Code de déontologie, the record-keeping regulation, and competence, which apply whatever the medium. ON INTERJURISDICTIONAL PRACTICE the OPQ's guidance takes the form of ANSWERS TO SPECIFIC POSED SCENARIOS, and must be read as such rather than as a general jurisdictional doctrine. Three of those scenarios matter: (1) A Quebec psychologist practising from outside Quebec (e.g. six months in the United States, or travelling with a sports team) must remain entered on the OPQ roll as a regular member, must check whether the regulator in the jurisdiction WHERE THEY THEMSELVES ARE requires a permit or legal authorisation, must maintain the liability coverage required by the Ordre while informing the client that the Ordre's coverage is valid only for claims within Canada, and must tell the client the Ordre can still receive and handle a complaint about services delivered remotely. (2) Asked about a psychologist or psychotherapist REGISTERED IN ONTARIO who will be in Montreal for a few months and wants to keep seeing their ONTARIO clients, the OPQ answers that to offer services to clients in Quebec OR remotely to clients outside Quebec, a person who is physically in Quebec must register with the OPQ or obtain a special authorisation to practise. Physical presence in Quebec therefore triggers the OPQ requirement even where every client is elsewhere. (3) Asked whether a psychologist or psychotherapist registered in BRITISH COLUMBIA may serve a person living in Montreal, the OPQ answers that a psychologist or psychotherapist located outside Quebec may offer online services to clients situated in Quebec. It RECOMMENDS — not requires — that such a person be legally authorised to practise the profession in their own jurisdiction; it states they must carry professional liability insurance; and it requires that clients be advised that any disciplinary proceeding must be brought before the regulatory body in the jurisdiction where the professional is located. CRITICAL LIMIT ON ALL OF THE ABOVE: this guidance addresses OPQ REGISTRATION. It does not displace the Code des professions, art. 187.1, under which PSYCHOTHERAPY IS A RESERVED ACT in Quebec — reserved to physicians, psychologists, and permit-holders who are members of seven named ordres. A person outside Quebec who is not within that class does not acquire the right to perform psychotherapy with a Quebec client by reading an FAQ about registration, and the OPQ is itself the body that prosecutes illegal practice of psychotherapy (art. 187.4.3). No data-hosting, platform, or server-location requirement is specified anywhere in this guidance.
The reference
Jurisdictions
Province-by-province hubs — regulators, controlled acts, title protection, telepractice, privacy, retention, insurance, tax.
Topics
Cross-provincial matrices: telepractice & cross-border work, GST/HST, privacy & data residency, records retention, liability insurance, AI in practice.
Changelog
Every verified change to every entry — dated, sourced, and append-only. The weekly rollup is the newsletter.
Method
How claims get verified, what the last-verified stamp means, and exactly what this site is not.
The Bulletin
The weekly Bulletin is the changelog: what changed, where, since when, with the source attached. Signup opens with the first issue →