Telepractice — social work (Quebec): notes changed
Last verified 2026-08-17
· source: Normes, section 3 (protection de la vie privée et confidentialité), aa. 3.01-3.10
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.
“Ces normes décrivent les obligations auxquelles sont tenus de se conformer les membres de l’Ordre […] Ces normes ne sont pas des dispositions légales en tant que telles, mais elles ont néanmoins un caractère exécutoire, car elles définissent les responsabilités professionnelles et servent de cadre de référence à la formation continue, à l’inspection professionnelle et aux fins disciplinaires” … “3.02. Avoir recours à des mesures de protection adéquates, dont le cryptage, lors de la communication de renseignements confidentiels au moyen des technologies numériques et électroniques.” — OTSTCFQ, Normes de télépratique pour les travailleurs sociaux et les thérapeutes conjugaux et familiaux
Not legal advice. This page states a rule and quotes its
source; it does not apply that rule to your situation. Confirm anything
that matters with your college or regulator, your accountant, or your
insurer before acting on it.