Thank you to everyone who joined CNAR’s March 6th virtual Executive Director Conversation Series event in recognition of International Women’s Day. The discussion, hosted by Jennifer Bertrand, CNAR’s Executive Director, featured three accomplished regulatory leaders: Jennifer Quaglietta, CEO and Registrar of Professional Engineers Ontario; Ann Zeng, Deputy Registrar at the Ontario Energy Board; and Naakai Garnette, Director of Regulatory Affairs at the College of Registered Psychotherapists of Ontario.
–Jennifer Bertrand, CNAR Executive Director
• Leadership journeys are often shaped by purpose and pivotal moments. Each speaker described a turning point that shifted their perspective from performing technical or operational work to shaping systems and outcomes. Personal values, experiences, and mentors played an important role in that transition.
• Mentorship and sponsorship were central to leadership development. Panelists emphasized the impact of women leaders who recognized potential, created opportunities, and provided encouragement early in their careers.
• Authority in regulation comes from credibility and stewardship, not title alone. Panelists noted leadership legitimacy
is built through consistent, principled decisionmaking, transparency, and alignment with the organization’s public protection mandate.
• Procedural rigor must be balanced with human-centred leadership. While regulatory work requires careful adherence to legislation and process, leaders must also ensure that individuals feel heard and respected. Emotion and interestholder reaction can provide important signals about trust and legitimacy.
• Plain language strengthens regulatory credibility. Speakers identified communicating complex decisions in clear and accessible terms as an important leadership practice – particularly in environments where technical or legal language can create barriers to understanding.
• Women leaders often experience internal and external pressure to demonstrate competence. Panelists noted ‘imposter syndrome’ and heightened expectations can shape leadership experiences. Building trusted networks and supportive professional communities can help address these challenges.
• Decision-making in regulation rarely occurs under conditions of certainty. Leaders must often act with incomplete information while managing risk, political pressures, and public expectations. Panelists emphasized the importance of proportionality, transparency about uncertainty, and learning from decisions over time.
• Supporting teams through difficult decisions is a core leadership responsibility. Regulatory decisions can be contentious and highly visible. Leaders must ensure staff and boards feel supported while maintaining focus on mandate and public protection.
• Mentorship is reciprocal. Investing in emerging leaders provides new perspectives, strengthens emotional intelligence, and helps experienced leaders remain adaptable and reflective in their own practice.
• Creating space for new voices requires intentional design. Panelists emphasized that advancing women leaders is not only about inviting participation, but redesigning systems, structures, and opportunities to ensure inclusion and sustainability.
Join the Conversation
Join us for further discussions on this topic in the community portal discussion board.
We look forward to continuing this conversation and exploring how CNAR can support leadership development, mentorship, and collaboration across the
From Conversation to Action
New Brunswick Women in Regulatory Leadership
Inspired by CNAR’s International Women’s Day event, Women Leading in Professional Regulation, a new initiative is taking shape in New Brunswick. Building on the themes of leadership, mentorship, and community, regulatory professionals in the province are coming together to explore the creation of a Women in Regulatory Leadership network. The initiative aims to connect women across the regulatory landscape, creating space to share experience, strengthen leadership capacity, and support one another in advancing the shared mandate of public protection. By fostering mentorship and
collaboration, the network reflects the growing momentum behind supporting women leaders in regulation.
A kickoff event took place May 28 in Fredericton, bringing together regulatory professionals from across the province to begin shaping this community
For more information, contact Stephanie Taylor, NBSMLT Executive Director.
US - NBSMLT
Executive Director Conversation Highlights with Zubin Austin on AI in Professional Work: Options and Opportunities
Thank you to everyone who joined our January 21st virtual Executive Director Conversation event on Regulation of AI in Professional Work featuring Dr. Zubin Austin, Professor and Murray Koffler Research Chair at the University of Toronto’s Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy and the Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation. The discussion surfaced both the promise and the complexity of AI in professional practice and highlighted the many questions that remain for regulators.
Jennifer Bertrand, CNAR Executive Director
• Not all “human oversight” is the same. The discussion explored the practical distinctions between human-in-the-loop, human-out-of-theloop, and human-on-the-loop AI, and why these differences matter for accountability, risk, and regulatory response.
• Human-on-the-loop AI creates a gray zone for responsibility. Even when humans are nominally in control, reliance on automated systems can lead to passive oversight, making it difficult to assign responsibility when errors occur.
• AI regulation is a wicked problem shaped by power dynamics. Regulators are balancing innovation with safety, while operating in an uneven landscape dominated by large technology firms. In Canada, concrete regulatory actions on AI remain limited, contributing to uncertainty and a regulatory vacuum.
• Education and guidance are the dominant regulatory response for now. While regulatory tools such as mandatory human oversight, undertakings, or stronger conditions of use exist,
they are often seen as impractical or difficult to defend, leading many regulators to favour principles, guidance, and learning-oriented approaches. From the research conducted, nine principles emerged that regulators may apply in their approaches (see research report linked below).
• Influence and engagement may be the most realistic levers in the near term. Proactive engagement with AI developers and entrepreneurs offers a way to shape tools that are better aligned with professional values and may also help address emerging risks such as data quality and “data pool pollution.”
• De-skilling and information quality risks are already visible. AI systems trained on internetbased data can blur the line between credible evidence and misinformation, with dietetics (nutritional science vs. wellness fads) cited as a particularly vivid example. While de-skilling has accompanied past technological change, the scale and speed of AI heighten concern.
• Disclosure and AI literacy are necessary, but complex. Disclosure of AI use appears frequently in regulatory guidance, though it is rarely mandatory. In practice, professionals may not always know when AI is embedded in tools they are using, reinforcing the need for stronger AI literacy in education and professional training.
• New regulatory competencies are emerging. As AI becomes easier to use and easier to blame, regulators may need to strengthen their advocacy and communication capabilities to maintain accountability, public confidence, and trust in professional judgment.
CNAR looks forward to continuing this conversation and shaping future discussions based on the questions and experiences you are encountering in practice.
Resource Links
Austin, Z. – Regulating Artificial Intelligence in Professional Practice (CNAR-funded research referenced during the conversation) European Union – AI Act and Risk-Based Regulatory Frameworks OECD – Artificial Intelligence, Trust, and Public Institutions
Join the Conversation
Join other members and affiliates for further discussions on this topic in the community portal. CNAR also has a dedicated forum on AI for ongoing sharing and collaboration.
Access the full video replay of this session on the CNAR Community Portal
CNAR COMMUNITY PORTAL
RESEARCH REPORT
Regulation of Artificial Intelligence in Professional Work: Options and Opportunities
RESEARCH REPORT NOW AVAILABLE
Produced by CNAR’s Research Program recipient Dr. Zubin Austin, Professor and Murray Koffler Research Chair at the University of Toronto’s Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy and the Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, this comprehensive report explores regulators’ perspectives on regulation of AI in professional work.
As AI proliferates and becomes more integral to the daily work of professionals – and in some cases starts to actually replace human professionals – the regulatory implications of this evolution will require careful monitoring. Calibrated regulatory responses that do not stifle innovation but still serve and protect public and professional interests will be required.
CNAR offers the complete Research Report free of charge to CNAR members, affiliates, suppliers and Partners. Researchers are free to publish articles and findings independently.
Insights from CNAR’s UnLearn & Learn Winter Workshop Series
CNAR’s UnLearn and Learn 2026 Winter Workshop Series, Equity by Choice, Not By Chance, brought together regulatory professionals for an interactive learning experience. The series focused on advancing equity, diversity, inclusion, and belonging (EDIB) in regulatory practice.
Across three workshops, participants explored ways to build awareness, strengthen accountability, and foster more inclusive systems.
Key Insights
Micro-learning is a valuable part of your learning agenda. Small, consistent practices and “reignitions” signal equity centered expectations and help embed inclusive behaviours into daily norms.
Dismantle the “Fear Factor.” We need to build cultures that prioritize piloting, practicing, and testing over getting it “perfect”.
Loved the approach to engagement and appreciated the questions posed and topics raised for meaningful dialogue and reflection.
-Workshop Survey Respondent
CNAR RESEARCH PROGRAM
Language must serve the mission. When we define equity terminology through the lens of specific regulatory work, we deepen understanding and buy-in.
Thank you to Chanel Grenaway for leading and facilitating these learning experiences for the regulatory community.
New Round of Research Funding Awarded
Under the CNAR Research Program, a new round of funding has been awarded to Dr. Gillian Robinson (University of Alberta, Campus Saint Jean) and Dr. Rebecca Sockbeson (University of Alberta) for their project, Regulating Reconciliation? Examining Standard Setting and Evaluation for Practicing Professionals. Focused on Alberta teachers and Teaching Quality Standard #5 related to First Nations, Métis, and Inuit knowledge, the research explores how regulators are responding to the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action. Working in collaboration with Indigenous communities, the project aims to assess current approaches and support the development of evaluation tools that can help professions implement the Calls to Action in meaningful and sustainable ways.
Applications for the next round of Research Program funding are anticipated to open in 2027.
CNAR 2025 Annual
National Conference
WRAP UP
Thank you for joining CNAR in 2025 at our 18th Annual National Conference in Calgary, Alberta!
We were extremely proud to bring together over 1,000 regulatory professionals, in-person and online, from across Canada to learn from each other and exchange best practices in professional regulation.
October 5th
Master Class
A focused half-day experience for current and emerging leaders looking to strengthen impact, decision-making, and strategic confidence.
International Symposium
A forward-looking half-day forum exploring how professional regulation can adapt, respond, and thrive in a dynamic world
CNAR 2026 EARLY BIRD REGISTRATION NOW OPEN
Pre-Conference Workshops
Half-day learning sessions led by industry experts, designed to build practical skills and fresh perspective
Early access to CNAR 2026 was offered the week of May 4th exclusively to CNAR members, affiliates, suppliers, and Corporate Partners, with strong early demand once again reinforcing the importance of registering early. Early Bird registration is now open, extending access to the broader regulatory community and offering the next opportunity to secure your place.
The Program is now available, providing a first look at sessions, speakers, and key themes. CNAR 2026 takes place October 6th to 7th at the Fairmont Queen Elizabeth in Montréal, Québec. Pre-Conference programming on October 5th features the International Symposium, Master Class, and pre-Conference workshops.
LEARN MORE AND REGISTER FOR CNAR 2026
International Symposium
In conjunction with our Annual National Conference event, CNAR is very pleased to offer our first in-person International Symposium!
Scheduled to take place on October 5th at CNAR 2026’s host venue, this International Symposium will bring together regulatory leaders from Canada and around the world to examine the evolving state of professional regulation through a global lens. CNAR’s Annual National Conference has been known for engaging regulatory leaders in critical conversations for almost 20 years, and we are excited to now bring together thought leaders in professional regulation from around the world.
Rethinking Professional Regulation in a Dynamic World
The environment for professional regulation is more complex and dynamic than ever. Regulators are balancing tradition and transformation while responding to technological innovation, shifting risk landscapes, workforce change, and growing expectations for transparency and accountability.
This International Symposium will bring together regulatory leaders from Canada and around the world to examine the evolving state of professional regulation — and to chart a path forward.
Under the guiding theme rethinking and re-imagining professional regulation in a dynamic world, this International Symposium will bring presentations around topics such as:
• Analyzing emerging trends and global developments shaping regulatory practice
• Exploring how regulators can adapt governance, risk, and oversight models
• Identifying what remains foundational from established approaches
• Highlighting innovative tools, partnerships, and operational strategies
• Anticipating the capabilities regulators will need for the next decade
Join us on October 5th for a forward-looking dialogue on responding to change and leading through it.
INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM TICKETS
LEARNING RESOURCES & PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Session Brief CNAR’S ANNUAL NATIONAL CONFERENCE
NEW EBOOK AVAILABLE
Reflections on Better Regulation
Extend your learning beyond the Conference with Reflections on Better Regulation, a new eBook capturing key insights from the International Regulatory Thought Leadership Session at a previous CNAR Conference.
This session, facilitated by Kevin McCarthy, Vice President, Advisory Services at The Regulator’s Practice, and featuring perspectives from Dr. Alan Clamp, Chief Executive of the Professional Standards Authority (UK), explores what “better” regulation means in today’s evolving landscape. Themes include adaptive and outcomes-focused approaches, innovation in regulatory practice, and the importance of clear communication and engagement.
Organized around key discussion themes, the eBook combines real-world examples with guided reflection, offering practical considerations to help strengthen regulatory effectiveness, build trust, and navigate complexity with greater agility.
LEARNING RESOURCES &
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
ONLINE COURSE FIVE WEEKS
Fundamentals of Professional Regulation in Canada
FALL SESSION | OCTOBER 26–NOVEMBER 29, 2026
The next cohort of CNAR’s NEW Fundamentals of Professional Regulation in Canada online certificate course begins in October!
Building on the success of CNAR’s well established pre-Conference workshop, CNAR now offers a comprehensive five-week online course. Featuring small cohorts and asynchronous learning combined with live instruction on CNAR’s new fully customized learning platform, this course will provide a safe and supportive space to learn, reflect and ask questions about your work in professional regulation. Designed for those who want to strengthen their foundation in regulatory principles and functions, as well as those new to professional regulation, CNAR is uniquely equipped to deliver critical learning to professional regulators from all across Canada, from all professions.
Please note: As the content for CNAR’s Fundamentals of Professional Regulation course has been significantly expanded, it will no longer be offered as an in-person workshop at CNAR’s Annual National Conference.
“I truly enjoyed all the speakers and the topics which were covered. They were current and very relevant to my role.”
2025 In-Person Fundamentals of Professional Regulation Course Survey Respondent
THIS SESSION WILL BEGIN ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2026.
Enrollment Deadline:
Monday, October 12, 2026, by 5:00 PM ET
Refund Deadline: Monday, October 12, 2026, by 5:00 PM ET
REGISTRATION FEES
Member or Affiliate: $995.00 CAD
Non-member: $1,225.00 CAD
Registration is now open. Class size is limited. Register early to save your spot!
LEARN MORE AND REGISTER
Who This Course is For
• Staff and leaders working in professional regulatory organizations
• Board and committee members
• Policy, governance, and regulatory affairs professionals
• Individuals transitioning into regulatory roles
• Those seeking a foundational understanding of regulation in the Canadian context
No prior regulatory experience is required.
What Will You Learn
• Regulator’s Mandate: Serving and protecting the public interest
• Regulatory Governance
• Quality Practice: Assuring entry and continuing competence
• Professional Conduct: Complaints, investigations, discipline, and fitness to practice
• Regulator’s Voice: Communications, Relationships, and Engagement
Why take this course now?
Build a strong foundation – develop a clear understanding of regulatory principles, governance, and practice in the Canadian context.
Apply learning directly to your work – explore real-world examples and practical regulatory scenarios.
Learn in a flexible format – balance self-paced asynchronous learning with live, instructor-led sessions.
Strengthen confidence and clarity – deepen your understanding of your role and responsibilities in professional regulation.
Special thanks to our Fall cohort instructors
CNAR would like to extend sincere thanks to the spring cohort instructors who contributed their time and expertise:
John Tzountzouris, MA, BSc, BHA, MLT, GSP Registrar & CEO, College of Medical Laboratory Technologists of Ontario
Beth Deazeley LL.B. Registrar and CEO, College of Early Childhood Educators of Ontario
Jacquie Messer-Lepage Executive Director, Saskatchewan College of Paramedics
Victoria Rees Counsel at Pink Larkin, General Counsel, Professional Regulation at the College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents
Melanie Therrien Head of Licensing & Education, Alberta Insurance Council
Dr. Dawn Hartfield
Deputy Registrar & Hearings Director, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta
Sarah Choudhury
Sr. Director of Regulatory Affairs and Strategic Communications, Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers
Jennifer Slabodkin Director, Registration & Education, Deputy Registrar, College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents
Shelley Ball, BA (HONS) JD. Lawyer and Founder, Shelsu Pacific Law
Ryan Pestana Director, Communications, College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario
TV
CNAR TV: New Episodes on YouTube
Stay connected to the conversations shaping professional regulation with the latest episodes of CNAR TV, now available on YouTube. These short, engaging sessions bring together regulators and subject matter experts to explore timely issues, share practical insights, and highlight emerging approaches across the sector. Subscribe to the CNAR YouTube channel to catch new releases as they drop and keep learning between events.
Discipline Costs Revisited –Who Should Pay the Price
Featuring: Clare Bilek, Legal Counsel, CPA NS
Greg Sim, Partner, Field Law, Jean-Claude Killey, Partner, Paliare Roland LLP
From Solo Acts to Supergroup: The Amalgamation Experience
Featuring: Jacquie Messer-Lepage, Saskatchewan College of Paramedics
Dianne Millette, Registrar & CEO, College of Health and Care Professionals of British Columbia
Louise Aerts, Chief Officer, Strategy, Governance & Reconciliation, British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives
Making Competence Count: Meaningful Assessments in Regulation
Featuring:
Chris Beauchamp, Vice President, Psychometrics at Meazure Learning
Greg Sadesky, Chief Psychometric Officer, For Good Measure
Jennifer Bertrand, Executive Director, CNAR
CNAR TV
UNLEARN AND LEARN SESSION:
Reconciliation in Practice: A Learning Journey to Build Commitment and Competence
In this session, Engineers and Geoscientists BC (EGBC) shared its learning journey and commitment to embedding truth and reconciliation within its operations both as a regulator and as an employer. This webinar provided an overview of EGBC’s evolving organizational journey, lessons learned, and practical tools to support applicants, registrants, and employees in building competence in this area. Participants gained insight into how EGBC, as a regulatory body, is navigating this complex and important work, with the goal of fostering shared learning and connection among other regulators who may be on similar paths.
Through the use of EGBC’s experience as an example, attendees:
• Considered the role of regulators in advancing truth and reconciliation within their own mandates and contexts.
• Gained and reflected on practical approaches and challenges in embedding reconciliation into organizational culture.
• Explored how reconciliation is considered in regulatory processes, particularly applicant and registrant competencies.
• Learned about a regulator’s resources, tools, and initiatives intended to advance reconciliation.
Presenters:
Ailene Lim, CCIP (she/her)
Associate Director, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, Engineers and Geoscientists BC
Sneha Satheendran (she/her)
Manager, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, Engineers and Geoscientists BC
TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION WEBINAR
Cultivating Safe Spaces (CSS): A Framework for Meaningful Transformation
Whether you’re navigating workplace challenges, striving for more inclusive systems, or seeking to elevate your leadership, Cultivating Safe Spaces provides the roadmap to lasting transformation –starting from within.
Cultivating Safe Spaces (CSS), developed by Elaine Alec in 2019, is a practical framework for driving systems change and improving workplace dynamics. By focusing on the Four Necessary Conditions, Four Protocols, and Four Perspectives, CSS equips individuals and teams with actionable strategies to address challenges and improve outcomes. It provides tools to rethink policies, processes, and leadership practices for lasting impact.
PRESENTED BY
ELAINE ALEC
An accomplished author, speaker, and Indigenous leader from the Syilx (Okanagan) and Secwépemc Nations, with over 25 years of experience in community planning, facilitation, leadership, and business development. A serial entrepreneur, she has built seven successful companies and is the founder of Naqsmist Storytellers Inc. Elaine has also served as the Chief of Staff for the Assembly of First Nations and as a political advisor to First Nations leadership across Canada. Her visionary work, including the globally recognized Cultivating Safe Spaces (CSS) framework, reflects her dedication to reshaping systems, fostering sustainable change, and empowering leaders to work from their best selves.
PRACTITIONER WELLNESS AND PRACTICE:
Exploring Commute Distance as a Predictor of Health Conditions and Performance
In this Regulatory Roundtable, we spotlighted regulatory research related to practitioner wellness and practice by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA).
This session briefly introduced the CPSA’s Research & Evaluation Unit (REVU), providing an overview of REVU’s evidence-based approach to medical regulation. The presenters detailed emerging evidence linking commute distance to physician health and performance outcomes. Drawing on recent retrospective cohort analyses from Alberta, the presenters explored how longer commutes are associated with:
• increased odds of prior health conditions among physicians with performance flags;
• the observed correlation between physician commute distance and incidence of patient complaints.
Attendees were encouraged to reflect on potential mechanisms underlying these associations; implications for registrants’/licensees’ well-being and patient/client safety in their own contexts and professions; and avenues for future research and regulatory initiatives.
Presenters were:
Kushagr Kumar Data Analyst, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta
Nicole Kain Program Manager, Research & Evaluation Unit, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta
Volunteer Special Feature
CNAR could not do what we do without the dedication of our volunteer community. We extend our heartfelt thanks to the many people who contribute their valuable time and expertise to CNAR’s strategy, programming, and events. From providing leadership and direction, to advising on impactful education opportunities, to helping us create an exceptional Annual National Conference, your volunteer service makes CNAR who we are.
2025–2026 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
BOARD CHAIR
Alice Kennedy, BN MBA
FCCHL FCHSRF Registrar and Chief Executive Officer, Newfoundland and Labrador Council of Health Professionals
TREASURER
Leigha Hubick Registrar, Institute of Chartered Professional Accountants of Saskatchewan
DIRECTOR
Margaret Drent Registrar and CEO, College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario
VICE-CHAIR
Denitha Breau Registrar and CEO, Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers
DIRECTOR
Amit Banerjee, P.Eng. Director, The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta
Permit to Practice, Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia
Cara Moroney Manager
Investigations & Resolutions, College of Occupational Therapists of Ontario
Jennifer Slabodkin Director
Education & Registration, Deputy Registrar, College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents
Ryan Pestana Director
Communications, College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario
Melanie Therrien Head of Licensing & Education
Alberta Insurance Council
Olamide (Ola) Lawal Registrar & Director Regulatory Affairs, CPA New Brunswick
Arzina Zaver Manager
Education, Insurance Council of British Columbia
Carrie Bru Quality Assurance & Professional Practice Director
College of Medical Radiation and Imaging Technologists in Ontario
CONFERENCE PROGRAM
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Anna Gershkovich Director of Consumer Services and Industry Standards
Vehicle Sales Authority of B.C.
Adel Mian Counsel Professional Conduct College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants
Gregory Sim Partner Field Law
Greg Hutchinson Co-CEO
Barker Hutchinson & Associates
Elyse Sunshine Partner Rosen Sunshine
Amy Block Partner WeirFoulds LLP
Rhea Belll Deputy Registrar Alberta College of Paramedics
Stuart Nash Manager Individual Audits and Practice Reviews, Engineers and Geoscientists B.C.
Claudette Marie Warren Board Chair College of Massage Therapists of Newfoundland and Labrador
Carole Reece Nursing Advisor College of Registered Nurses of Saskatchewan
Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada Appoints Richard Piticco as Chief Executive Officer
Toronto, ON – [March 9, 2026]
The Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada (PEBC) is pleased to announce the appointment of Richard Piticco as its new Chief Executive Officer, effective Monday, March 9, 2026.
Following a deliberate, board-led recruitment process, the PEBC Board of Directors is confident that Mr. Piticco’s extensive leadership experience and executive expertise will enable the organization to build on its strong legacy, ensuring continuity, stability, and stewardship of its national mandate.
“PEBC has a long history of delivering excellence in the assessment and certification of pharmacy professionals,” said Gabriella Wong, Chair of the PEBC Board of Directors. “Richard brings the leadership, judgment, and experience needed to guide the organization forward, and we are confident in his ability to support staff and stakeholders alike as PEBC continues its critical work for Canadians.”
Mr. Piticco holds more than 20 years of senior executive leadership experience in regulated and national organizations, including expertise in professional certification and assessment systems, governance, and stakeholder engagement across complex environments.
“I am honoured to step into this role,” said Mr. Piticco. “PEBC has a strong foundation and a talented team, and my priority is to listen, collaborate, and support the organization in delivering its mandate with integrity, fairness, and professionalism.”
PEBC remains committed to its core responsibility of ensuring fair, rigorous, and nationally consistent assessment and certification for pharmacists and
pharmacy technicians. The organization’s operations will continue without interruption during this leadership transition.
About Richard Piticco Chief Executive Officer, Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada
Mr. Piticco brings senior executive experience leading complex, regulated organizations, with a strong background in governance, operational oversight, and public-interest stewardship.
About The Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada (PEBC)
Established by an Act of Parliament in 1963, the Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada is the national certification body for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. PEBC evaluates candidate qualifications, develops and administers examinations, and issues Certificates of Qualification, ensuring Canadians can trust that pharmacy professionals meet the highest standards of competence, professionalism, and public safety.
Media Contact: Adam Smith
Between Planning and Crisis Management: The Case for Strategic Agility
April 2026
Jordan Max, President, Upstream Management Solutions
Most regulatory organizations have a strategic plan. Considerable effort goes into developing it, aligning with mandate, consulting stakeholders, and setting clear priorities. These plans provide direction, structure, and accountability.
But they are not designed for what happens next. Once approved, strategic plans tend to become reference documents and reporting frameworks. Progress is tracked, updates are provided, and activities continue. What is much less clear is how those plans adapt once conditions begin to change.
The issue is not the quality of planning. It is the limited capacity to adjust strategy while it is still in motion.
This reflects a broader tension many organizations face: balancing planning with improvisation. At one extreme is rigidity, with multi-year plans that are difficult to adjust mid-cycle. At the other is reactivity, where decisions are made without clear direction or only in response to crisis.
The challenge is not choosing between these extremes. It is building the capacity to operate on both poles at the same time.
That challenge is becoming more pronounced. Regulators are operating in an environment shaped by accelerating change: technological shifts such
as AI, rising expectations around transparency and accountability, and increasing government oversight.
In Ontario, changes to registration practices and timelines have required significant operational adjustments within compressed timeframes. The environment in which regulators fulfill their mandate is evolving more quickly, and less predictably, than the strategic planning models many organizations still rely on.
In this context, a consistent pattern is emerging. Many regulators are getting stronger at reporting on strategy through dashboards, metrics, and structured updates.
Far fewer have clear mechanisms for how strategy itself is adjusted as conditions evolve. Reporting is improving. Adaptation is not keeping pace.
WHERE STRATEGIC PLANS BREAK DOWN IN PRACTICE
Across regulators, three constraints appear repeatedly:
• Strategy cannot easily be changed once approved.
• Decision-making processes are too slow.
• Even when decisions are made, the ability to shift work operationally remains limited.
These are not planning issues. They are system-level constraints.
The result is a subtle but important dynamic. Organizations appear stable and aligned, plans remain in place, reporting continues, and progress is demonstrated. Beneath that surface, priorities begin to shift informally. New issues are absorbed without explicit strategic adjustment, and resources are reallocated incrementally.
Over time, a gap emerges between stated strategy and actual activity. This gap is rarely visible in formal reporting, but it shapes decision-making and effectiveness.
The COVID-19 pandemic provides a useful contrast. During the crisis, regulators demonstrated a high degree of agility. Requirements were adjusted, temporary measures were introduced, and timesensitive decisions were made often outside formal strategic plans and governance rhythms.
Organizations responded because they had to. If regulators can operate with this level of responsiveness in a crisis, why is it so difficult to sustain in normal conditions?
The answer lies in how agility is understood. Strategic agility is not simply flexibility within a plan. It is an organizational capability, the ability to detect change, interpret its significance, make decisions, and adjust work in a timely and coherent way.
Stronger regulators tend to perform consistently across these areas. They invest in environmental intelligence to detect emerging risks, create governance structures that allow for timely decisions, and maintain operational flexibility so priorities can shift without a full reset. They also use data not just to report on performance, but to adjust direction. Most organizations, however, are still operating in the middle of this spectrum. Strategic planning is well established. Reporting practices are maturing, however, the integration between sensing, decisionmaking, and execution – what ultimately enables adaptation– remains less developed.
BETWEEN PLANNING AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT
This is where the challenge sits; not in planning, and not in crisis response, but in the space between them.
It is the moment when assumptions begin to shift, when new risks emerge, and when priorities start to compete. At that point, the question changes from “What is our strategy?” to “How well can it evolve?”
WHAT THIS REQUIRES IN PRACTICE
Addressing this does not require more frequent planning cycles. It requires strengthening the systems that support adaptation:
• Clearer triggers for reassessment.
• Governance practices that enable timely decisions.
• Stronger links between performance information and strategic direction.
• Operational structures that allow work to change when needed.
Strategic planning remains essential, but in a dynamic environment it is no longer sufficient on its own. The more fundamental question is not whether an organization has a clear strategy; it is whether it has the capacity to adapt it in real time.
Strategic agility is not about constant change. It is about anticipating change, responding with clarity when needed, and learning from that response over time. It is a capability, and a mindset that must be deliberately built.
Jordan Max is President of Upstream Management Solutions, a regulator-focused management consulting and training firm offering services in Policy Research, Development & Analysis, User Experience/Human Centered Design, Learning & Development, Strategy/ Strategic Planning, and Engaging Stakeholders & Partners. He has worked for the Ontario Government and Professional Engineers Ontario for over 25 years in policy, strategy, and governance.
For more information, visit our website (www. upstreammanagesolutions.com) call (416-880-0353) or email jordan@upstreammanagesolutions.com
Best in Class Partners
CNAR’s partners are a vital part of our community. As trusted leaders in their fields, they share their knowledge and expertise across our events, publications, and online, helping to strengthen and advance professional regulation in Canada.
Thank you for your continued and invaluable support of CNAR and our regulatory community.
Law Society of Ontario v AA, 2026 ONCA 47: Restoring Public Trust in Licensing Decisions
By Natasha Novac, Associate, WeirFoulds LLP
Warning: the following article includes reference to child sexual abuse.
In Law Society of Ontario v AA, 2026 ONCA 47 (“AA”), released on January 26, 2026, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a strong reminder to regulators that the assessment of character in licensing decisions is inseparably tied to trust and public confidence not only in the applicant, but also in the profession and its ability to regulate itself in the public interest.
The Court’s decision overturned the lowerlevel decisions that found that AA, a candidate for a lawyer’s licence, was of “good character” notwithstanding he had sexually abused three children and failed to disclose it.
In granting the LSO’s appeal and remitting the matter to Law Society Tribunal’s Hearing Division, the Court held that a tribunal must assess the good character requirement in light of the overarching objectives of the statutory scheme and mandate, which include safeguarding the public’s trust in licensees and in the profession as a whole. While individual considerations such as rehabilitation or remorse for past misdeeds have their place in a good character analysis, the Court cautioned, these considerations should not be approached as a “mere score card”.1 Rather these factors must be considered alongside and reconciled with the broader animating concepts of public trust and confidence in the profession and self-regulation.
THE BACKDROP
In 2009, AA sexually abused three children on three occasions over a two-month span, including his eldest child. The abuse involved touching the children and being touched by them while clothed. At the time, AA was living abroad with his family in a close-knit religious community. Upon being confronted by the parent of one of the children, AA disclosed the abuse to various individuals, including his then-spouse, a religious leader, and a child protection agency. AA was not criminally charged. He began taking medication for his sexual disfunction. He was later diagnosed with pedophilic disorder, assessed to be in remission. None of AA’s children know of their father’s past conduct.
AA and his family eventually returned to Canada. In Canada, AA continued to seek medical treatment for his condition but was not open with his medical practitioners about the nature and extent of his past actions or condition, instead choosing to disclose lesser issues. He also misrepresented the nature and scope of his past behaviour to Canadian child protection authorities and disclosed only one instance of sexual abuse rather than three.
During this time, AA pursued a legal education, and in 2012 he applied to be licensed as a lawyer in Ontario. He did not disclose the events of 2009 in his initial application to the LSO. After receiving an anonymous note on the eve of his call to the bar regarding the sexual abuse,2 the LSO launched an investigation. AA was uncooperative with the LSO during the investigation and continued to withhold medical records and information about his sexual misconduct. He withdrew his licensing application in 2017.
In 2019, AA submitted a new application for licensure. The LSO referred the matter to a “good character” hearing before the Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division under s. 27(4) of the Law Society Act (Act). 3 This section requires all applicants be of “good character” as a condition of the issuance of a licence.
THE DECISIONS BELOW
In determining whether AA was of “good character” as required under s. 27 of the Act, the Hearing Division structured its analysis around its oft-cited test derived from Armstrong v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2009 ONLSHP 29. Armstrong identifies the following factors for consideration (known in Law Society Tribunal cases as the Armstrong factors):
• The nature and duration of the misconduct;
• Whether the applicant is remorseful;
• What rehabilitative efforts have been taken and their success;
• The applicant’s conduct since the misconduct; and
• The passage of time since the misconduct.
Applying the Armstrong factors, the Hearing Division found that AA’s misconduct was serious. However, it also found that AA was deeply remorseful and that evidence established significant and successful rehabilitative efforts. It held that AA’s post-2017 conduct was free from dishonesty and his risk of reoffending against minors was low. Furthermore, the Hearing Division held that a significant amount of time had passed since AA sexual abused children without him reoffending.
The Hearing Division then went on to impose a licensing condition that required that AA be supervised when meeting with “minor children”. This condition had been proposed by AA during the hearing, and that offer was accepted by the panel when it made its licensing decision.
Prior to the hearing, AA successfully moved for confidentiality orders before the Hearing Division, anonymizing his name and those of his children, victims, and ex-spouse, sealing the Tribunal’s file, and imposing a publication ban on any information that would identify him and his family members. In making its confidentiality orders, the Hearing Division considered the test set out by the Supreme Court in Sherman Estate. 4
The net result of the Hearing Division’s decision was that AA was of “good character” and was to be licensed with a condition that he cannot be with children unsupervised. Because of the confidentiality order, the
Tribunal’s decision finding him of “good character” would be anonymized (and therefore, would be unlinked to AA as a licensee).5
The LSO appealed the decision of the Hearing Division to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division. The Appeal Division denied the appeal and continued the confidentiality orders that had been imposed by the Hearing Division.
The LSO then applied for judicial review. The Divisional Court unanimously dismissed the LSO’s application, finding that the Appeal Division’s analysis was reasonable. It rejected the LSO’s argument that the Tribunal’s decision was unreasonable because it failed to consider the public interest in granting AA’s licence. The Divisional Court reasoned that the Hearing Division’s analysis of the Armstrong factors adequately considered the public interest in granting AA’s licence. The Court also rejected the LSO’s contention that the Hearing Division’s licensing condition was inconsistent with its good character finding which rendered the decision unintelligible as a whole.
Prior to the Divisional Court hearing, AA obtained a temporary order for anonymization and nonpublication pending the disposition of the application. Before the Divisional Court, AA sought a continuation of the Tribunal’s orders and the Court’s temporary order. The Divisional Court concluded, in three brief paragraphs and without conducting a fresh Sherman Estate analysis, that the Appeal Division’s continuation of the Hearing Division’s order was reasonable and that the temporary confidentiality orders made by the Divisional Court should be continued.
Accordingly, at the conclusion of the Divisional Court proceedings, AA’s (anonymized) “good character” finding and the order that he be licensed with a condition not to see minor children unsupervised remained intact.
THE COURT OF APPEAL’S DECISION: GOOD CHARACTER IS TIED TO THE BROAD OBJECTIVES OF THE LSO ACT
The LSO sought and obtained leave to appeal the decision of the Divisional Court to the Court of Appeal. In a lengthy decision, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the question of AA’s good character back to the Tribunal’s Hearing Division. The Court found the Appeal Division’s decision unreasonable both with respect to its good character assessment and its conclusion that the licensing condition was not inconsistent with the finding of good character.
Justice Sossin (writing for a unanimous panel) found that the Tribunal’s decision was unreasonable because the Tribunal failed to consider the overarching public interest in the good character assessment, which it was required to do in view of the text, context and purpose of the “good character” requirement set out in s. 27 of the Act. While the Hearing Division identified the importance both of AA’s trustworthiness and the public’s trust and confidence in the legal professions, it failed to grapple with these questions in light of its findings on each of the Armstrong factors. Moreover, while the Hearing Division acknowledged the seriousness of AA’s sexual assault of children, it did not address how the seriousness of this conduct affected its analysis and weighing of the other Armstrong factors in light of the LSO’s public interest mandate embedded in the Act.
In essence, the Court found that Hearing Division summarily stated its conclusion that AA was of good character but failed to “step back” and explain how it had balanced and assessed the Armstrong factors to reach this conclusion. Its reasoning did not reflect any consideration of whether granting AA a licence would be consistent with public trust and confidence in the legal professions. In this way, the Hearing Division’s reasons were entirely unmoored from the key legal constraints that govern the good character requirement, rendering the decision unreasonable. In the Court’s view, it was far from clear that the Hearing Division would have reached the same outcome with respect to good character had it grappled with these questions.
The Court then went on to consider the LSO’s argument that the licensing condition (that AA could not be alone with children) was inconsistent with the finding of good character rendering the decision unreasonable. The Court found the condition could not be justified in relation to the text, context, and purpose of the good character requirement, which inform the parameters of reasonable conditions. It introduced incoherence into the Tribunal’s underlying good character decision, as the Tribunal failed to recognize that public trust is eroded by imposing a demographic condition (i.e. requiring that he be supervised in any meeting with “minor children”) that suggests that AA cannot be trusted with all the responsibilities of licensure.
THE COURT OF APPEAL ON CONFIDENTIALITY ORDERS
The Court also considered and granted AA’s request for continued confidentiality orders. The Court reasoned that while AA remains merely an applicant seeking to be licensed as a lawyer, the benefits of the anonymization and non-publication order in protecting the identity of AA’s eldest child, as a victim of his sexual assault, outweigh the negative effects of the lack of openness. The Court noted, however, that this balancing exercise may well lead to a different result if AA were licensed as a lawyer in the future. Were that to be the case, the benefits of an anonymization and non-publication order may be outweighed by its negative effects, including the harm to public confidence in the administration of justice by concealing AA’s identity.
The Court also clarified two points with respect to the confidentiality orders made by successive decisionmaking bodies. First, anonymization and sealing decisions of a lower court do not bind a higher court because each court controls its own record, and the higher court must therefore conduct its own Sherman Estate analysis. However, even if the balancing weighs in favour of dismissing the applicant’s motion at a higher court, a publication ban imposed by a lower court or tribunal still operates broadly unless it is set aside, varied, stayed or overturned. This means the original tribunal order may continue to restrain publication even where subsequent courts decline to make an order.6
TAKEAWAYS FOR REGISTERING APPLICANTS IN REGULATED PROFESSIONS
AA is a powerful reminder that the assessment of an individual applicant’s good character is inseparable from the broader and overarching statutory purpose that governs self-regulated professions: to protect the public interest. The decision lays out in considerable detail that protecting the public interest entails maintaining the public trust and confidence in the legal profession and its ability to regulate itself.
This translates directly to the task of other regulators when making decisions on licensing or registration. While AA focuses on lawyers and public confidence in the legal profession, courts recognize the gatekeeping function of the registration process for other regulated health professionals as an important element of maintaining public trust in the profession.7 While factors such as the applicant’s remorse, rehabilitative efforts, conduct following the misconduct and passage of time are and remain relevant considerations, they are not to be considered myopically or mechanically, like a scorecard, without regard to the overall statutory purpose to safeguard the public and public trust in the profession.
The information and comments herein are for the general information of the reader and are not intended as advice or opinion to be relied upon in relation to any particular circumstances. For particular application of the law to specific situations, the reader should seek professional advice.
1 Law Society of Ontario v AA, 2026 ONCA 47 at para 82
2 AA v Law Society of Ontario, 2024 ONLSTA 6 (CanLII)
3 R S O 1990, c L 8
4 2021 SCC 25
5 Throughout the proceedings, the Law Society was successful at staying the orders of the lower court or tribunal, meaning the Hearing Division’s order was never in effect and AA never held a licence to practise law
6 The Court of Appeal explains why the potential for inconsistent results between different levels of court or administrative tribunals does not offend the open court principle at paragraph 187 of its reasons
7 Chauhan v. Health Professions Appeal and Review Board and The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2013 ONSC 1621
Late-Career Practice Considerations in Regulated Professions
By Duncan Cameron + Chelsey L Bailey, KC, Field Law
INTRODUCTION
Alberta’s regulated professionals are aging along with the general population. A growing proportion of practitioners are choosing to practise well beyond traditional retirement ages. This trend reflects increased longevity, professional identity, workforce shortages, and the value of accumulated experience. For regulators, however, it also raises questions about fitness to practise, maintenance of competence, and public protection as their members move into later stages of their careers.
It is well established that aging is not a uniform process. Many late-career professionals practise safely and effectively, often bringing deep expertise, judgment, and mentorship capacity. At the same time, normal or pathological age-related changes— particularly in cognition, sensory function, or physical stamina—can affect some individuals’ ability to stay on top of contemporary standards of practice. The existing literature consistently emphasizes the importance of functional capacity rather than chronological age. Cognitive and physical changes
vary widely between individuals, and age alone is a poor predictor of competence. For regulators, this variability underscores the need for individualized, evidence-based approaches, rather than blunt agebased assumptions.
SCOPE AND PURPOSE
In this article, we explore some of the potential concerns that regulators should be cognizant of in the coming years. We then provide an overview of some common approaches regulators can consider to support an aging membership to fulfil their statutory mandate of protecting the public interest and maintaining confidence in their respective professions.
LATE-CAREER PRACTICE IN CANADA
While this topic is a live issue in many fields, it has perhaps understandably received greatest attention in medical practice. We nevertheless view these findings as broadly applicable to regulated professions overall.
In a recent assessment of this topic, researchers examined closed civil and regulatory matters between 2012 and 2021, and identified 65 cases in which a physician’s cognitive ability to practise medicine was a contributing factor. While such cases were uncommon overall, their prevalence increased markedly with age. The proportion of cases associated with cognitive concerns rose from 0.2% among physicians aged 55–60 to 7.7% among physicians over 80, with an average physician age of approximately 71 in these cases.1
Unfortunately, competence concerns may only come to the attention of regulators via complaints processes—a reactive rather than proactive mechanism.
ALBERTA’S CURRENT REGULATORY APPROACH
In Alberta, Part 3 of the Health Professions Act (“HPA”) requires every health profession college to establish and maintain a continuing competence program applicable to all regulated members.2 These programs typically emphasize self-assessment,
continuing professional development, reflective learning, and periodic audits or assessments. Comparable competence and professional development frameworks exist in many other Alberta regulatory regimes, though they vary in form, intensity, and statutory specificity.3
Notably, Alberta regulators have generally not adopted age-based screening or assessment thresholds. Instead, fitness to practise concerns are addressed through universal competence frameworks under, for example, Part 3 of the HPA or in Rules or Standards for members, and case-specific interventions when concerns arise. This approach may reflect a latent effort to avoid age discrimination and to treat competence as an individual, practice-based issue.
While this approach has strengths, it also raises the policy question of whether self-directed competence mechanisms alone are sufficient to identify emerging functional decline in late-career professionals, particularly where insight may be limited or where concerns are first noticed by third parties.
APPROACHES IN OTHER PROVINCES
Other Canadian jurisdictions have taken differing approaches, particularly in medicine. For example, Ontario requires physicians to undergo a mandatory peer and practice assessment at age 70, with reassessments every five years thereafter.4 Québec uses targeted questionnaires for physicians aged 60 and over to identify risk factors that may warrant further review.5 British Columbia relies on a comprehensive, career-long peer assessment program that eventually encompasses all medical practitioners, including those in late career.6
These models differ in design, but they share a common objective: introducing structured oversight at later career stages, without presuming incompetence or mandating retirement. Importantly, in each case, age functions as a trigger for review, not as a conclusion about fitness-to-practise.
FUTURE REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
As Alberta’s regulated workforce continues to age, regulatory colleges may wish to reflect on the following considerations:
1. Whether current competence programs detect/address issues early enough
Evidence suggests that some cognitive-related concerns surface late, through complaints or legal processes. Regulators may wish to assess whether existing competence frameworks adequately identify and/or address early signals of declining performance in late-career professionals.
2. The role of practice-based and peerinformed assessment
Competence issues associated with aging in professionals often relate to documentation, currency of knowledge, or practice organization. These are areas well suited to peer review, chart audits (in health fields), or practice/site visits, rather than mandatory self-attestation alone.
3. The potential value of proportionate, latecareer triggers
Without adopting rigid age cutoffs, regulators could consider whether certain milestones (e.g., extended duration of independent practice, practice isolation, or high-risk fields) warrant additional structured review later in career.
4. Supporting dignity, insight, and transition
As noted by Dr. Casey and colleagues, research has indicated that there is reluctance or even unawareness on how to address concerns about fitness to practice.7 Effective regulation should therefore include clear, respectful pathways for remediation, scope adjustment, or transition from practice, where appropriate. Normalizing conversations about late-career planning may reduce stigma and encourage earlier engagement with regulatory supports.
Regulators can consider advertising CPD opportunities for late-career practitioners based on the types of practise issues that are brought to their attention.
CONCLUSION
The aging of Alberta’s regulated professions is neither a crisis nor a problem to be solved, but a demographic reality requiring thoughtful consideration by regulators. Evidence from research and other jurisdictions suggests that while most late-career professionals practise competently, age-associated risks do exist and may be identified too late under purely complaint-driven systems.
For regulators, the challenge is to design oversight mechanisms that are evidence-based, proportionate, and respectful, emphasizing functional competence over age, and support over sanction. We also note the potential for age discrimination to result in increased, unfounded complaints being filed with regulators as their membership ages, and colleges should remain aware of potential bias in reviewing and investigating complaints. With appropriate attention, colleges can protect the public interest while honouring the contributions and dignity of experienced professionals who continue to serve Albertans.
To discuss how your regulatory framework can proactively address late-career practice considerations, please contact Chelsey Bailey, KC, Duncan Cameron, or any member of Field Law’s Professional Regulatory Group.
This article has been published with the permission of Field Law, and may be republished only with the consent of Field Law. “Field Law” is a registered trademark of Field LLP.
1 Genevieve Casey et al, “Medico-legal cases associated with older physicians’ cognitive ability to practice medicine” (22 November 2023) 43 J Healthc Risk Manag 3, online (pdf)
2 Health Professions Act, RSA 2000 c H-7, Part 3
3 We note that Bill 40 expressly aims to place a greater emphasis on professional competency
5 CMPA, “The aging physician: Maintaining competence and practising safely” (August 2022), online
6 CPSBC, “Physician Practice Enhancement Program (PPEP)”, online
7 Casey et al, supra note 1 at 16
Future-Proofing High-Stakes Testing
Securing Trust in the Age of Remote Exams and AI
In early 2020, as the pandemic shuttered in-person test centers worldwide, many licensing and credentialing programs raced to adopt remote testing. For some, that change kept licensing pipelines open and allowed new agents to enter the workforce when they were most needed.
The quick shift preserved opportunity and economic
continuity, but it also revealed how fast fraudsters can adapt. One high-profile case in Florida exposed an 800-candidate proxy-testing ring that used mirrored devices to let an off-site accomplice answer questions in real time while the legitimate candidate merely sat in view of the webcam.
The episode served as a wake-up call: cheating itself isn’t new, but the tools and reach of organized exam fraud have evolved dramatically. For leaders of any high-stakes program—finance, healthcare, IT certification, professional licensure—the lesson is universal: yesterday’s safeguards are no longer enough to protect tomorrow’s workforce.
THE INTEGRITY IMPERATIVE: WHY IT MATTERS MORE THAN EVER
High-stakes testing is not just about passing a test; it is about protecting the public and preserving trust in professional standards. When an exam is compromised, every credential issued under that program is called into question.
For governments and regulators, exam integrity means consumer protection—knowing that the people who sell insurance, administer medicine, or teach in classrooms have proven their competence under secure conditions. For employers, it means confidence in workforce quality. And for candidates, it is about fairness, a level playing field where honest effort is rewarded.
The pandemic also highlighted a second imperative: equitable access. Remote delivery helped candidates in rural or mobility-restricted situations test without expensive travel or lost wages.
Finally, program owners face brand and compliance risk. A single breach, especially one amplified on social media, can erode candidate confidence, trigger regulatory scrutiny, and damage a credential’s long-built reputation.
NEW ERA, NEW THREATS: HOW FRAUDSTERS EVOLVE
For decades, security threats in testing centers were largely physical, including cheat-sheets hidden in clothing, “peepers” signaling answers, or early spy-camera glasses. Those still exist, but today’s most damaging schemes exploit remote delivery, inexpensive technology, and social media.
Organized fraud rings now advertise “guaranteedpass” services on LinkedIn, Facebook, and even YouTube, claiming they can defeat lockdown browsers and impersonate candidates for a fee that can reach several thousand dollars.
In the Florida case, conspirators mirrored the candidate’s screen to an accomplice next door; the proctor saw the mouse move and assumed the candidate was responding, but the real test-taker was out of sight. Similar tactics have appeared in healthcare and finance exams worldwide.
Adding to the challenge, generative-AI tools and deep-fake face-swap apps are lowering the bar for identity fraud. According to the Conference on Test Security (CTS 2024), proxy-testing and collusion schemes now represent a multimillion-dollar underground market spanning professional licensure, academic admissions, and workforce credentials.
These developments make clear that cheating is no longer a series of isolated incidents. It has become a sophisticated, technology-enabled business model.
BALANCING ACCESS WITH SECURITY: A SHARED CHALLENGE
Remote testing has proven its value as an equity driver, expanding reach to rural communities, career-changers, and candidates with limited mobility or caregiving duties. Eliminating it would rebuild barriers and slow the flow of talent into critical fields.
The challenge is to keep that access without sacrificing exam integrity. That requires a new partnership mindset: vendors, regulators, and program owners working together to close security gaps before they are exploited.
Prometric—whose secure in-center delivery spans more than three decades—adapted those same principles to remote testing by centering on three pillars of protection:
1. Prevention: hardening the test environment with lockdown browsers, secure ID verification, 360-degree room scans, and proctor-guided check-ins.
2. Detection: layered AI-powered monitoring plus vigilant human proctors who watch for behavioural anomalies in real time.
3. Response: an immediate escalation path to trained Security Agents who review video, validate suspicious activity, and terminate compromised sessions when necessary. This blend of technology and human oversight aims to deliver both the reach of remote testing and the rigor historically associated with secure testcenter environments—something every industry can adapt as remote modalities grow.
LAYERED DEFENSE IN ACTION: HUMAN + AI PARTNERSHIP
Securing modern assessments requires layers that complement rather than compete with each other. A single tool or rule is never enough. Effective programs blend automated detection, welltrained human vigilance, continuous quality checks, and candidate-friendly design.
Prometric’s framework illustrates this interplay:
“AI flags behaviour, but humans make the call. No candidate is penalized by an algorithm.”
Real-time flags such as No-Face, DifferentFace, Multiple-Faces; object-detection that spots a phone corner or crib sheet; facialrecognition that blocks proxy swaps.
Live proctors typically monitor four or five candidates each; when AI flags risk, they escalate instantly to a dedicated security agent for one-to-one review.
Value to Program Owners & Candidates
Extends the proctor’s reach to spot subtle or momentary violations that human eyes alone might miss.
Ensures every action is verified by a human, avoiding falsepositive terminations and keeping sessions fair.
Continuous Training & QA
Candidate-Centric Design
LMS-delivered global training updated with each new threat (for example, Ray-Ban Meta smart-glasses); monthly “secretshopper” exams intentionally at-tempt breaches—pass-rates have im-proved from ≈ 60-70% to > 90% in the last two years.
Remote workflows mirror 30 years of incenter protocols; UX testing, post-exam surveys, and prototype pilots help reduce false flags and keep the process predicta-ble.
This layered approach underscores a key lesson: technology alone cannot guarantee fairness, and humans alone cannot keep pace with modern threats.
By weaving the two together—and reinforcing them with constant QA and candidate-experience safeguards—programs can adapt quickly to new attack methods without creating new barriers or anxiety for honest test-takers.
Creates a learning feedback loop so front-line proctors stay alert to emerging tactics.
Preserves the legitimate testtaker’s experience, allowing equity and integrity to advance together.
COLLABORATION THAT WORKS: REGULATORS, VENDORS & PEERS
Security threats do not respect state lines or industry borders; therefore, information-sharing is crucial.
Regulator coalitions: groups such as the NAIC Producer Licensing Task Force coordinate investigations and policy alignment across U.S. states.
Industry forums: conferences including SILA
2025 and the Conference on Test Security (Amherst MA) bring together credentialing bodies, psychometricians, vendors, and regulators to exchange intelligence on emerging threats.
Data-driven investigations: suspicious patterns— like clusters of applications using the same address, credit-card, or IP—can flag collusion rings earlier than individual complaints ever could.
For programs outside insurance—think healthcare boards, global IT certifications, or language-proficiency tests—these cooperative models demonstrate that community defense is stronger than isolated effort.
LOOKING FORWARD: AI AS BOTH RISK AND ALLY
The same wave of innovation that enables deep-fakes and stealth devices is also equipping test sponsors with new defensive tools:
• AI-assisted surveillance in test centers: camera analytics that flag suspicious gestures, hidden-object retrieval, or unauthorized device use without waiting for a human to notice.
• AI-driven data-forensics: anomaly-detection engines scanning for irregular score patterns, improbable pass-fail clusters, or shared response behaviours that can indicate collusion.
• Linear-On-The-Fly Testing (LOFT): dynamically generated unique exam forms that reduce item-exposure and make harvesteditem banks useless.
• Ethical AI governance: internal review committees, privacy officers, and transparent policies to ensure that automation supports— but never replaces—human decision-making.
BUILDING RESILIENT EXAM PROGRAMS FOR A TRUST-DRIVEN FUTURE
High-stakes credentials underpin public trust, workforce readiness, and social mobility. As exam programs diversify their delivery models—mixing in-center, hybrid, and remote—security strategies must be just as agile and multi-layered as the threats they face.
“AI will be the game-changer. While deep-fake IDs and generative-AI tools pose real risks, the same AI can strengthen surveillance, speed up forensics, and help keep exams fair— provided we keep humans in the loop.”
Roddy Mead, Director of Global Security Operations, Prometric.
Key actions for credentialing leaders in every sector:
• Invest in layered security: combine preventive technology with trained human oversight.
• Adopt continuous QA and threat-intel sharing: from secret-shopper audits to regulator partnerships.
• Balance equity with integrity: remote delivery can stay inclusive without being vulnerable.
• Plan now for ethical AI adoption: harness its benefits for detection and forensics while protecting candidate privacy and due process.
Let’s Ensure the Integrity of Your Program
Visit Prometric.com/security to learn more, or scan the QR code to connect with a Prometric expert.
Prometric is more than just a testing organization—we are your trusted partner. As a global leader with more than 30+ years of expertise, we empower districts and educators with best-in-class, AI-enhanced solutions and microcredentials that set new benchmarks for education, evolve standards for learning, and measure performance with innovation.
PARTNER WITH PROMETRIC
Exam development with AI: what it means for regulators
By Isabelle Gonthier, PhD, ICE-CCP, Chief Assessment Officer, PSI and ETS
AI has quickly moved from concept to capability. Across many sectors, it is reshaping how complex, expert-led processes are designed and delivered. But while much of the conversation has focused on automation, the more important opportunity lies elsewhere: in how expertise itself is captured, preserved, and applied.
For Canadian regulators responsible for protecting the public through fair and defensible licensing exams, this is particularly significant. As candidate volumes grow and professional practice evolves, regulators confront increasing pressure to maintain rigorous examinations while ensuring development processes are sustainable.
In this context, AI is beginning to play a role not just in speeding up processes, but in reimagining how exam development works.
RETHINKING HOW ASSESSMENT KNOWLEDGE IS MANAGED
Traditional exam development has long relied on the expertise of subject matter experts, psychometricians, and regulatory stakeholders working together to build and maintain item banks. This model has served the profession well, but it is also resource intensive.
Over time, the knowledge that underpins an exam –interpretations of standards, rationales for item decisions, psychometric insights, and feedback from subject matter experts – often becomes scattered across documents, meetings, and individual contributors. When programs need to scale, update exams, or respond to changes in professional practice, that institutional knowledge can be difficult to access and reuse consistently.
The result is a familiar challenge for many regulatory organizations. How to maintain rigorous, defensible examinations while avoiding excessive demands on subject matter experts and development teams.
In response, some organizations have explored generative AI tools to accelerate item writing. However, many commercial tools are designed for general language generation rather than the level of psychometric precision needed in high-stakes assessments. Simply layering these tools onto existing workflows can introduce risks related to quality, traceability, and defensibility.
The question regulators increasingly face is not whether AI can generate text. It is whether it can generate exam content that meets the standards required for professional licensing.
FROM AUTOMATION TO COLLABORATION
A new generation of AI systems, often described as agentic AI, is beginning to address this challenge.
Rather than focusing on isolated automation tasks, agentic systems coordinate multiple specialized AI agents that work together within a governed framework. Each agent performs a specific role, such as generating items, refining language, evaluating alignment with blueprints, or analyzing psychometric characteristics, while sharing context across the development process.
Crucially, these systems operate under structured human oversight. Subject matter experts are still responsible for reviewing, refining, and approving content. Their decisions are captured within the system and applied to future development cycles.
In effect, the system becomes a form of institutional memory for the assessment program. Standards, decisions, and expert feedback are captured, preserved, and consistently applied across development cycles, ensuring critical program knowledge is retained rather than lost over time.
When applied to exam development, this model enables several important advances:
• Aligned content generation. AI agents generate draft items grounded in approved references and blueprint requirements.
• Expert review embedded in the workflow. Subject matter experts stay central to the process, with their feedback strengthening future outputs.
• Traceable decisions. Each item can be linked back to its source materials, supporting defensibility and auditability.
• Secure development environments. Reference materials, blueprints, and itemwriting guidelines remain protected within closed, tenant-isolated systems.
• Continuous improvement. The system improves over time as additional review cycles refine quality and clarity.
The goal is not merely to write items faster, but to transform exam development into a more transparent and scalable process –while maintaining psychometric integrity.
EARLY RESULTS FROM PILOT IMPLEMENTATIONS
Several projects have already shown how this approach can support large-scale exam development without compromising quality or defensibility.
In one recent insurance licensing project conducted by PSI, AI was used to support item development within a structured human review process. The results were encouraging:
• 77.4% of AI-generated items met psychometric thresholds, compared to 75.5% of humanauthored items.
• 65.6% of AI-generated items were approved for pretesting following SME review.
• Subject matter experts retained 10% more items across review batches, reflecting improvements as the system learned from feedback.
The project also produced thousands of additional items beyond the original target, demonstrating how AI and psychometric design can scale together when implemented responsibly.
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE OF EXAM DEVELOPMENT
For regulators, the promise of AI in assessment lies not in replacing expertise, but in supporting it.
Subject matter experts will remain essential to defining professional standards, validating content, and ensuring fairness. What AI can offer is a way to preserve and apply that expertise more consistently over time, while reducing repetitive development work.
As regulatory organizations consider the role of AI in licensing and credentialing, the priority becomes how to adopt it in ways that uphold the principles regulators care about most: transparency, defensibility, fairness, and public protection.
If implemented thoughtfully, AI can ultimately help regulators strengthen the integrity of professional assessment systems. By capturing institutional knowledge and applying it consistently, the next generation of assessment technology could support a future where innovation and regulatory responsibility evolve together.
Tofindoutmore aboutPSI,visit:
LEARN MORE
Network News features diverse perspectives from the professional regulatory community. Views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of CNAR.
CNAR Community Portal: New FAQ Section
The CNAR Community Portal now features a dedicated FAQ section designed to help you find what you need, faster. Whether you are registering for an event, posting to the Job Bank, exploring membership and affiliation benefits, accessing resources, or troubleshooting your login, this new hub brings the most common questions together in one place. It is a
simple way to save time, reduce back and forth, and get back to what matters most: making the most of your CNAR membership.
As someone with a strong interest in the Canadian regulatory landscape – whether you are looking to advance your knowledge or expand your network – joining CNAR provides you with access to a wealth of benefits, including professional development, diverse learning opportunities, cost savings, and networking throughout the year. APPLY TODAY WELCOME
Join the Canadian Network of Agencies for Regulation
CNAR PORTAL FAQ
Job Bank
Investigator, College of Health and Care
Professionals of BC
Closing Date: Until filled
Complaints Specialist
Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority (RHRA)
Hiring in 2026? Start here.
Post your role to a community that understands professional regulation.
View job postings from organizations across Canada’s regulatory community. Check back regularly to explore new opportunities and stay connected to workforce trends in professional regulation.
Your posting can be viewed by thousands of regulatory professionals each month.
CNAR members, affiliates, and Partners can post jobs free of charge.
Non-members: $150/post
Have questions? Visit our FAQ
The CNAR Team is Growing!
CNAR continues to grow in step with the needs of our community. As demand for connection, learning, and shared insight increases across the regulatory landscape, we are expanding our team to better support the work of our members. Over the last year, we have been proud to welcome three new staff members whose contributions are helping strengthen our programs, enhance the member experience, and support CNAR’s ongoing commitment to advancing regulatory excellence across Canada.
JacquelineStark Learning Specialist, Education and Research
AmberinePetersen Administrator, Board, Executive, and Human Resources
AinsleyBateman Events Specialist, Marketing and Communications
