Rethinking the Licensure Process in Canadian Psychology
Reforms could reduce bias and strengthen the psychology profession nationally.
Updated October 17, 2025 | Reviewed by Monica Vilhauer Ph.D.
Across Canada, the profession of psychology is undergoing a necessary reckoning. As the country faces an escalating mental health crisis , there is growing recognition that outdated regulatory practices may be restricting access to qualified care. Provincial colleges are now under increasing pressure to ensure that their licensure processes are fair, evidence-based, and consistent with modern standards of professional regulation.
Ontario, as the largest and most influential jurisdiction in Canada, has become a critical testing ground for these reforms. The College of Psychologists and Behaviour Analysts of Ontario (CPBAO) has introduced proposed amendments to its registration regulation that could meaningfully reshape how the profession evaluates competence. These changes are already attracting national attention from professional bodies such as the Canadian Psychological Association, positioning Ontario’s actions as a potential model for others to follow.
The Case for Examination Reform
Psychology as a discipline is grounded in science, fairness, and the ethical imperative to do no harm. Yet for many years, the path to registration (licensure) in Ontario has included examinations that lag behind contemporary best practices in North America and invite unnecessary subjectivity.
The CPBAO’s proposal to eliminate the Oral Examination and to remove the lifetime maximum on attempts for the Jurisprudence and Ethics Examination represents a critical step toward modernization. These reforms are not radical departures from rigour, but they are practical measures that align Ontario with other jurisdictions that have already recognized the limitations of such assessments.
Redundant Testing for Accredited Graduates
Graduates of accredited doctoral programs in psychology have already undergone exhaustive evaluation before reaching the licensure stage. Over an average of seven to eight years, these individuals complete hundreds of examinations, defend a master’s thesis and doctoral dissertation, and undertake thousands of hours of supervised clinical training. Licensed professionals and academic committees formally review each of these components to ensure competence and ethical practice.
Subjecting these candidates to additional high-stakes licensing exams, particularly oral examinations, adds little demonstrable value. Instead, it delays workforce entry and limits the availability of mental health services at a time when the public can least afford it.
An Outdated and Biased Practice
Oral examinations have long been criticized for their inherent subjectivity and susceptibility to bias . Most Canadian and American jurisdictions have already phased them out for this reason. Candidates’ success can hinge not solely on their clinical knowledge but on factors such as accent, communication style, or examiner preference.
Racialized and internationally trained applicants are particularly vulnerable to these biases. As I have observed in multiple jurisdictions, oral exams can inadvertently penalize candidates for cultural or stylistic differences that have no bearing on professional competence. For example, one Hispanic psychologist I know failed for recommending the use of validated scales for the assessment of PTSD instead of the examiner’s preferred informal method—a difference of approach, not of competence.
Eliminating the oral examination acknowledges these systemic inequities and takes a necessary step toward a more objective and defensible licensure process.
Financial and Systemic Costs
Beyond their subjectivity, oral exams impose substantial financial and emotional burdens. The current fee for a single attempt is $550, and total costs, including travel and accommodations, can exceed $1,500. Many candidates also spend thousands more on preparatory courses to mitigate the unpredictable nature of the assessment.
This structure disproportionately affects candidates with fewer financial resources, reinforcing inequity in access to professional practice. It also diverts administrative time and resources from other regulatory functions. Most importantly, every month these outdated requirements delay a fully qualified candidate is another month that Canadians, particularly those in underserved regions, remain on mental health waiting lists.
Eliminating Punitive Exam Limits
The proposed removal of lifetime limits on attempts for the Jurisprudence and Ethics Examination is another positive development. Standardized exams provide a narrow snapshot of ability and can be influenced by factors such as anxiety , language proficiency, or access to study materials. Permanently excluding candidates after a fixed number of unsuccessful attempts does not enhance public protection; it merely wastes human potential.
Allowing repeated attempts reflects a more educational and developmental approach to regulation. It recognizes that competence is demonstrated by eventual mastery, not by how quickly it is achieved.
National Implications
Because Ontario regulates the largest number of psychologists in the country, its decisions have far-reaching implications. Under the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, psychologists licensed in one province are eligible for recognition in others. Modernizing entry-to-practice requirements in Ontario could therefore prompt a nationwide shift toward more consistent and equitable standards.
Aligning its practices with contemporary evidence and international norms is not lowering the bar; it is raising the standard for fairness and professional integrity across Canada.
These amendments represent a meaningful modernization of psychology’s regulatory framework. They would ensure that the path to licensure remains rigorous yet equitable, supporting both the public interest and the professional community.
In a country grappling with a mental health care shortage, regulatory systems must focus on competence rather than compliance, and on inclusion rather than exclusion. Ontario’s proposed reforms reflect this evolution and may well mark a defining moment for psychology in Canada.
Faber, S. C., Osman, M., & Williams, M. T. (2023). Access to mental health care in Canada. International Journal of Mental Health, 52(3), 312–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207411.2023.2218586
College of Psychologists and Behaviour Analysts of Ontario. (2025). Consultation: Amendments to registration regulation 193/23 under the Psychology and Applied Behaviour Analysis Act, 2021. https://cpbao.ca/wp-content/uploads/Consultation-Amendments-to-Registration-Regulation-under-the-Psychology-and-Behaviour-Analysis-Act-2021-5.pdf
College of Psychologists and Behaviour Analysts of Ontario. (2024, December 13). Meeting of the College Council: Agenda and materials. https://cpbao.ca/wp-content/uploads/Materials-Council-Meeting-2024.06-December-13-2024-2.pdf
Share this post Facebook Bluesky Linkedin Email
There was a problem adding your email address. Please try again.
By submitting your information you agree to the Psychology Today Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy
Monnica Williams, Ph.D., ABPP, is a licensed clinical psychologist and professor at the University of Ottawa in the School of Psychology, where she is the Canada Research Chair for Mental Health Disparities.
Get the help you need from a therapist near you–a FREE service from Psychology Today.
This article is part of the Bringwise Psychology Journal — daily insights on human behavior, mental health, and personal growth.