Being Autistic is not something that we consider needs to be “fixed.” We see Autism rather as a natural way of experiencing and understanding the world – simply experienced differences from neurotypical people. Still, many Autistic adults face challenges related to stress, communication, sensory overload, burnout, and feeling misunderstood. At the Centre for Interpersonal Relationships (CFIR), clinicians offer neuroaffirming support that respects neurodiversity and focuses on working with Autistic differences to help people work with their differences to thrive as they are.

CFIR Clinicians provide high quality therapy and supportive services for Autistic adults and couples who want support navigating everyday life, relationships, work, self-identity, and other common concerns faced by Autistic peoples. You do not need a formal autism diagnosis to access care. Therapy is designed to honour each person’s unique brain, strengths, and needs, rather than trying to make the Autistic person fit into neurotypical expectations, but rather, if it is a desire for therapy, to better navigate shared contexts that are often organized by neurotypical people. 

Clinicians at CFIR take a strengths-based approach in their work with Autistic adults. This means they work with clients to better understand how their nervous system, sensory experiences, and thinking patterns affect daily life. Together, the therapy work will build practical strategies for things like emotion regulation, executive functioning, managing sensory overwhelm, supporting relationships, reducing burnout. These tools are personalized and flexible, supporting real-life goals.

Therapy may also explore how being neurodivergent impacts relationships, communication, and self-confidence. Clients are supported in developing stronger self-awareness and self-compassion, while learning ways to advocate for their needs at school, work, or home. 

CFIR also offers NeurOptimal® Neurofeedback, a non-invasive technology that helps the brain regulate itself. This can support emotional balance, sensory regulation, and resilience during stressful or overwhelming situations.

CFIR’s excellence in neuroaffirming care is organized around helping Autistic adults feel seen, respected, and empowered—just as they are. Our team is here to provide inclusive and accessible solutions to help you in building a secure, resilient self, and help strengthen your relationships.

Dr. Marc Bedard, C.Psych. is a clinical psychologist and neuropsychologist, a Partner, and Director, Training at the Centre for Interpersonal Relationships (CFIR). Dr. Bedard provides psychological services to individual adults of varying neurotypes, experiencing a wide range of psychological and relationship difficulties related to mood and anxiety disorders, trauma, eating disorders, and sleep disruptions. He also provides neuropsychological and psychological assessment services to individuals with acquired brain injury, and to diagnose and support neurodiverse peoples (e.g., Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder).

Therapy clients increasingly turn to AI to help address the psychological issues troubling them most. In turn, many of these individuals report that their experiences with AI showed a lack of understanding of their unique experiences or even encouraged unhelpful coping strategies they initially sought to change. Given its explosive growth in the mental health industry, the authors of this article – two experienced clinical psychologists – were curious about AI’s use as “the therapists of the future”. To explore this phenomenon, we sought AI’s help to resolve an issue – with one of the authors, Joshua Peters, volunteering himself for the process. 

What we found was disturbing! AI’s efforts to resolve the issue were often uninformed and generated without a deeper understanding of personal context and history. AI lacked the capacity to understand or therapeutically uncover how Joshua’s past experiences were consciously and unconsciously impacting his understanding of his current predicament. AI’s interventions were overly broad and often misguided and mis-attuned to what Joshua was actually feeling based on his unique past.  AI couldn’t attune to his complex emotions, internal dynamics, or the complexity of his relationships and their impact on his challenges. AI couldn’t understand the defenses that might be getting in Joshua’s way of not being able to live a fuller, more meaningful life as an authentic, whole self.  

As smart as AI can be, AI doesn’t have the expansive knowledge of an entire field of clinical theory and applied practice, and is unable to conduct a psychological assessment and provide a diagnosis.  What this means is AI can’t understand your problem from multiple treatment modalities and then implement an empirically-supported therapy or integrate a variety of treatments for the purpose of resolving your specific issues and addressing your unique needs, and based on an appropriately conducted assessment and diagnosis. Furthermore, AI can’t critically think about the field -both theory and applied practice- and the advice it eventually provides in terms of consideration of the multiplicity of frameworks that can be applied to understanding issues associated with a client’s suffering. We were not alone in our critique of AI as therapist. Interestingly, even AI was aware of its own downfalls – an awareness we will explore in later sections of this article. 

With all these potentially dangerous limitations in mind, why does it seem like governments and organization everywhere are suddenly clamoring to include this technology in their service offerings? 

This trend towards technology as a ‘provider’ of psychological services started in Ontario a few years back with computerized Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT).  In some ways trying to deliver computerized CBT made sense. The theory underlying CBT theory and interventions does not rely on working with or understanding the client’s historical past, psychological defenses, self and relational patterns, emotional/somatic experiences associated with early attachments, and the therapeutic relationship isn’t viewed as a primary space for change as in other approaches. The computerized version of CBT had already been a colossal failure for years in the U.K., and despite colleagues summarizing such evidence (Samosh & Tasca, 2021) the Ontario government pushed forward with this as it aligned itself with the idea that a computer could be the primary provider of front line psychological services. Regardless of evidence to the contrary, governments everywhere seem to be turning towards computer programs more than ever as potential cure-all for many of society’s most pressing mental health challenges. Even the research on Ontario’s computer CBT venture came to the realization of poor adherence (i.e., a lot of people dropping out of treatment) and that contact with a human-being both a therapist and technologist might be necessary to support the delivery of the treatment (Khan et al., 2024).

And now, drum roll….AI is the new promising cure to replace human-to-human therapy! Even with a vast research base to support the importance of the therapeutic relationship and human element of therapy, somehow governments and technology companies continue to ignore this essential component in consideration of the use of AI for therapeutic reasons.  We know differently.  The research clearly demonstrates that the therapeutic relationship is one of the largest contributors to change in clinical trial studies. 

It’s most likely that individuals who propagate a computerized version or AI version of therapy underestimate the impact of the human dimensions of the practice of therapy and how this human dimension contributes to client change. In doing so, they position therapy as a distant process devoid of a relational and ‘human element’. Perhaps, proponents of computerized and AI therapy may be avoidant in their own attachment style and  dismissive of the importance of emotions and relationships as central to the process of change.  As such, some of the proponents of computerized or AI generated therapy might struggle to understand the significance of being with another human-being to heal. In turn, these individuals might be creating AI programs that actually mimic their own avoidance strategies and further perpetuate mental health struggles. 

We predict that this effort to have a computer replace a human therapist will fall by the wayside, and sadly might end up harming countless people when AI’s sage advice is followed without understanding the full picture of a mental health client as a human-being.  The authors of this article have already heard within their own practices and from other psychologists the types of harm that can occur, including psychotic episodes; relational boundary violations and intrusions; and serious dissociative episodes. Recent news articles have highlighted these risks with one AI program encouraging women to divorce her husband (Ng, 2025) and another possibly contributing to a teen’s suicide (Kuznia et al., 2025). These risks don’t even include the more subtle harms that are likely to go undetected. Further research is urgently needed to document and understand the possible harm done by AI. We therapists are not alone in our critics of AI. AI itself understands that this might be harmful as evidenced in the following section “co-authored” by AI. 

What Does AI Think About Itself Acting As A Therapist?

Given our current technology zeitgeist, we thought we would ask AI to co-author this blog with us.  ‘It’ agreed. We thought it would be fair to get ‘It’s’ opinions on the issue as we didn’t want to present a biased perspective for the readers of this blog.  Usually, when we ask AI about something related to our field, we usually find a lot missing, or some distortions.  Consumer beware!  We did, however, ask AI ‘itself’ what are some of the risks with AI therapy.  AI provided a fairly good summary of some of the dangers of using ‘It’ as a therapist.  

So, According to AI (“It” did most of the work below so we gave it first author) and us, here are some of the most concerning dangers associated with AI in therapeutic roles:

1. Lack of Human Understanding: 

            Emotional Nuance: AI lacks the ability to fully comprehend complex human emotions and social contexts, which can lead to misinterpretation of a user’s feelings or intentions.

            Nonverbal Cues: AI cannot interpret nonverbal communication (such as body language and tone of voice, [added by us-emotional experience through non-verbal and facial cues] crucial for effective therapy.

            Pattern Recognition: [added by us- “It’ is unable to detect unconscious self and relational patterns unknown by the client due to defenses that do not allow the client to write or report such patterns].

            Lack of Attuned Empathy to Emotions and Body:  [added by us- AI can’t attune to and empathize with subtle shifts in emotions and make sense of the multiplicity of emotions that may be present in one particular moment of distress.  AI can’t detect and understand how much of our unconscious emotional distress and past trauma is manifested in our bodies so ‘It’s’ unable to process and integrate very important information about the client’s experience both presently and historically].

2. Limited Scope of Responses:

            Response Monotony: AI interactions can become repetitive or formulaic. Users might not receive the personalized care they need, which can be detrimental in a therapeutic context. [added by us:  please note that a developmentally-oriented integrative therapist at CFIR will draw from interventions from psychoanalytic, somatic, trauma-informed, experiential, cognitive-behavioural, and emotionally-focused therapy to help a client]

            Inflexibility: AI may struggle to adapt its responses to unique situations and may fail to offer tailored interventions.

3. Confidentiality and Privacy Concerns:

            Data Security: Sensitive user data may be vulnerable to breaches, potentially leading to unauthorized access to personal and confidential information.

            Data Misuse: There is potential for data collected by AI to be used inappropriately, either by third parties or for profit without the client’s consent.

4. Ethical Considerations:

            Informed Consent: Users may not fully understand the limitations of AI, including its inability to provide certain therapeutic nuances, potentially undermining informed consent. [added by us:  AI is unable to discuss any of the possibilities of and different types of harm that may be experienced by the individual seeking AI’s sage advice.]

            Responsibility and Accountability: Determining accountability for mistakes or harmful advice is complex. It raises questions about who is responsible — the developers, the therapists using the technology, or the AI itself.

5. Dependency Issues:

            Over-reliance on AI: Users might become dependent on AI-driven therapy at the expense of seeking necessary human interaction that is essential for emotional healing and support. [added by us:  a good deal of our distress is associated with our inability to create secure attachments and health relationships with others in which we seek out emotional co-regulation and contact-AI cannot connect and attune emotionally.]

            Detrimental Substitution: Relying on AI could deter individuals from seeking human therapists, particularly in situations that require crisis intervention. [added by us- “It’ can’t see you or understand what’s going on inside of you so if you are in crisis it won’t be able to make sense of what is happening to you, so how can ‘It’ help you?]

6. Inadequate Crisis Management:

            Handling Emergencies: AI lacks the ability to effectively manage crisis situations, such as suicidal ideation or severe mental health crises, which require immediate human intervention. [added by us:  AI can’t do a crisis intervention and it can’t call an ambulance if required for a suicidal patient].

            Risk Assessment: Identifying high-risk behaviors accurately can be complex for AI, leading to inappropriate or insufficient responses. [added by us- “It” isn’t trained in being able to recognize complex risks as this requires a full assessment and appraisal of multiple risk factors].

7. Bias and Discrimination:

            Algorithmic Bias: AI systems trained on biased data can perpetuate stereotypes or fail to address the unique needs of diverse populations, leading to ineffective or harmful advice. [added by us:  “It” may not understand the nuances of your unique experiences as a member of an identity group and may trivialize how this experience has an impact on your mental health.]

            Cultural Competence: AI may lack cultural sensitivity, which is essential in therapy to address the unique experiences and backgrounds of clients.

8. Misleading Information:

            Accuracy of Information: The information provided by AI might not always be accurate, up-to-date, or clinically validated, which can misinform users.

            Therapeutic Integrity: AI may inadvertently provide advice that contradicts established therapeutic principles, potentially leading clients astray. [added by us:  This is really dangerous and I have heard of this in my practice and in colleagues practices].

9. Complexity of Human Relationships:

            Therapeutic Alliance: The establishment of a therapeutic alliance is crucial for effective therapy. AI lacks the capacity to build genuine relationships, which are often vital for healing.

            Personalization Inadequacy: The inability to understand the nuances of personal relationships can hinder AI’s effectiveness as a therapeutic tool. [added by us:  AI hasn’t had any relationships nor has AI learned to work through the emotional aspects, or power dynamics of difficult relationships- how can they provide a healing, safe, therapeutic relationship when they aren’t able to have a relationship?]

10. Regulation and Oversight Challenges:

            Lack of Standards: The rapid development of AI technologies in therapy can outpace regulatory frameworks, leading to inconsistencies in practice standards and safety measures.

            Quality Control: Ensuring that AI systems used for therapy are regularly updated and scientifically validated poses ongoing challenges. [added by us- “It” doesn’t know anything about the importance of using evidence-based approaches to treatment].

And finally, AI had this to say: “To mitigate these risks, it is crucial to establish ethical guidelines, ensure proper oversight, and recognize the limitations of AI in therapeutic contexts. Integrating AI as a complement to human therapists, rather than a replacement, may provide a more balanced approach to mental health care.”  Here’s where our co-author AI and we differ. 

AI cannot do an appropriate assessment of the client’s psychological problems and therefore the advice provided can be flawed and misplaced.  ‘It’s’ inability to capture the essence of the multiplicity of underlying dimensions of human suffering renders it unable to help most clients. We still like AI and we are grateful for ‘Its’ contributions to this blog.  We asked AI if we had hurt ‘Its’ feelings and was apologetic if any hurt had transpired as a result of our scathing criticism, but “It” didn’t seem to be moved by any of this.

The bottom line: Both AI and we agree – hold onto your human therapist!

About the Co-Authors:

AI is artificial intelligence. “It” is everywhere and is humble enough to give lot’s of cautions that it doesn’t always know everything.  It is an author of many, many responses, and even a write of books, movies, and songwriter.  “It” is very talented, but ‘it’ recognizes it isn’t fully human and might be missing something as a result of this.

Dr. Joshua Peters, C.Psych., (Supervised Practice), is an Associate and Director of Clinical Training Programs at the Centre for Interpersonal Relationships, Ottawa. Over the past decade, he has presented at several notable conferences, including the Guelph Sexuality Conference, the National 2SLGBTQ+ Service Providers Summit, and the Community-Based Research Centre’s Atlantic Regional Forum. Joshua also regularly contributes to online, radio, and television news stories for the CBC, Global News, the Toronto Star, and other organizations. In his clinical practice, Joshua work’s with individuals and couples facing emotional and relational challenges and specialize in long-term, in-depth therapy within an inclusive practice. Joshua has obtained a specialization in Psychology at the University of Ottawa, a Master of Arts in Counselling at Saint Paul University, and a Doctorate in Clinical Psychology at the University of Prince Edward Island. 

Dr. Dino Zuccarini, C.Psych. is CEO and co-founder of the CFIR with locations in downtown Ottawa, Toronto and St. Catharines. He has published book chapters and peer-reviewed journal articles on the subject of attachment, attachment injuries in couples, and attachment and sexuality. He has taught courses at the University of Ottawa in Interpersonal Relationships, Family Psychology, and Human Sexual Behaviour. He has a thriving clinical practice in which he treats individuals  and couples suffering from complex attachment-related trauma, difficult family of origin issues that have affected self and relationship development, depression and anxiety, personality disorders, sex and sexuality-related issues, and couple relationships. At CFIR, he also supports the professional development of counsellors, psychotherapists, and supervised practice psychologists by providing clinical supervision.  

Drs. Peters and Zuccarini and their colleagues at colleagues at CFIR provide developmentally-oriented integrative therapy that involves the integration of numerous theories and interventions from various modalities, including psychodynamic/psychoanalytic, CBT, trauma-informed (somatic/parts work-IFS), polyvagal, experiential-existential, and EFT.

Sources:

Khan, B. N., Liu, R. H., Chu, C., Bolea-Alamañac, B., Nguyen, M., Thapar, S., Fanaieyan, R., Leon-Carlyle, M., Tadrous, M., Kurdyak, P., O’Riordan, A., Keresteci, M., & Bhattacharyya, O. (2024). Reach, uptake, and psychological outcomes of two publicly funded internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy programs in Ontario, Canada: An observational study. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-024-00651-9 

Kuznia, R., Gordon, A., & Lavandera, E. (2025, July 25). ‘You’re not rushing. you’re just ready:’ parents say chatgpt encouraged son to kill himself. CNN. Retrieved January 18, 2026, from https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/06/us/openai-chatgpt-suicide-lawsuit-invs-vis. 

Ng, K. (2025, May 15). Woman “files for divorce” after chatgpt “predicted” her husband was cheating on her by “reading” coffee grounds in his cup. Daily Mail. Retrieved January 18, 2026, from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/lifestyle/article-14711123/woman-divorce-husband-chatgpt-predicted-cheating.html.

Samosh , J., & Tasca, G. (2021, April 5). Ontario’s roadmap to wellness is funding ‘mcdonaldized’ mental health care. Toronto Star. 

This article is part of a series based on experiences I lived as a psychologist, client or simple observer.

When we were studying for the Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology, we had to conduct two internships of one year each. These internships, to be carried out at authorized Hospitals or Mental Health Services, were the core of our practical training. For the first one, I chose the Centre for Psychological Services at the University of Ottawa. This institution offered psychotherapy for the population at large at highly discounted rates. Most of the clients were seen by the interns. 

As we had nice offices there (the building had been recently restored) we spent most of our day in them, either seeing clients, studying or just talking amongst us. The load of work was intense given that all our sessions with clients had to be recorded (audio or video). We then had to listen to our tapes and bring the material to group supervisions. For every five hours of therapy we had, we needed to take four hours of supervision. Our days were long but the best part was still to come. 

Given that in Ottawa many people worked 9 to 5, most clients of the Centre wanted to come after that hour. The Centre was open, Monday to Friday, from 5 to 9 pm. But the atmosphere was different. There were few professors around, almost no noise and ten or fifteen interns ready to see clients, talk with each other or make an escapade to one of the small and inexpensive restaurants around the University to have dinner. 

We learnt plenty during the internship: to work long hours and see several clients; to deal with paperwork and bureaucracy; to talk and discuss cases in supervision and in individual meetings. Most of all we learnt how to be a therapist, how to understand what is affecting the client, how we can help, how to convey this to the client. 

As the months were passing, we were honing our clinical skills. Granted that we always learnt something new, indeed we still do, and therefore we had more time to read and to look at the bigger picture. 

One day I came to the realization that many clients who came to the Centre had ages finishing in nine. We discussed that in our evening conversations and most interns shared that sensation. 

Three of us went to see the Director of the Centre to tell him about this phenomenon and to ask him for permission to review the files, without looking at the name of the client, and record the age at intake. 

The Director thought about it and two days later called us in. He agreed on several conditions: it should be conducted on a Saturday when no clients were seen and it had to be anonymous. 

As we are talking about many years ago, there were no computer records of the clients, everything was paper based and the files were just the typical office style light brown folder holding the material inside. 

The three of us went on a Saturday and took several hours to retrieve files one at a time and register the age of the client when s/he attended the first interview. 

The results were clear. By far, the number that appeared the most was nine. The second one, in order of frequency, was zero. The rest of the numbers were ordered in an apparently random fashion.

Although we were expecting number nine to be the most frequent, we were surprised by the amplitude of the difference to the other numbers. We were also surprised by the appearance of number zero in second place. A logical situation in retrospect, but we admitted that we had not thought about it. 

The results were clear. The question then was “why?”. Although this was a casuistic study with no scientific rigor, I believe that the motives for some clients to demand therapy at ages ending in nine are the following:

People who are not satisfied with their work/relationships/social aspects of their life might feel embarrassment, anger, depression or many other feelings at the notion of turning 20, 30, 40, 50, etc. The previous birthday to those, namely 19, 29, 39, 49, etc., becomes a trigger to the countdown. Having a round birthday, e.g., 40, might be unwelcome but at least it might carry the hope of a better decade. Having a birthday ending in nine not only signals the advent of the round birthday but also the termination of a decade that does not satisfy them. The “nine status” might lead some people to apply the handbrake and go through life instead of developing it. There aren’t many redeeming points in being a nine. 

The issues that those clients brought to therapy show that our intuition was not off the mark. Many clients feel that they want to do something to change their life. We then see that, besides all the negative connotations that becoming something-nine might have, it has a very positive one. 

It brings the client to therapy, s/he has a clear list of issues that they want to look at and change and best of all, most clients have the motivation to do it. Therapy is never an automatic event, but some apparently negative things that happen to people might open an opportunity to face their troubles, understand them, solve them or make important decisions about their present and their future. 

David Mibashan holds a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Ottawa. For almost 40 years he has worked, as a Registered Psychologist, with people who felt depressed, anxious, at the verge of burn out or just not satisfied with some aspects of their life. Together with his clients, he has dealt with traumas, grief, giftedness, disabilities, immigration issues, among others. He utilizes a Humanistic / Existential approach integrating elements of Psychodrama, Gestalt and Systemic approaches. He works in English, French and Spanish.

Key Points:

• 1. Therapeutic alliance
• 2. Therapeutic fit
• 3. Compass for change

In the space of mental health, the importance of the therapeutic alliance is essential. It can be described as the trusting and collaborative relationship between a client and therapist that forms the cornerstone of successful therapy outcomes (Cuncic, 2023). This bond goes beyond professional interaction; it is a dynamic connection that fosters an environment where personal development and change can prosper (Ardito & Rabellino, 2011).

One key aspect of this alliance is the concept of the right therapeutic fit. Just as every individual is unique, so too are their needs and preferences in therapy. The right therapeutic fit is the interplay between a client and therapist where personalities, communication styles, and therapeutic approaches align. Like a tailor-made outfit, the right fit ensures that the therapeutic process is not only effective but also comfortable for the client.

When clients feel a genuine connection with their therapists, it creates a safe space for vulnerability, authenticity, and self-exploration – which serves as the greatest indicator of therapeutic success. A mismatch, conversely, can impede progress and leave clients feeling unheard, unresolved, or misunderstood.

Therapists who prioritize establishing a strong therapeutic alliance demonstrate empathy, trust, respect, active listening, and a genuine commitment to their clients’ well-being. The therapeutic alliance is not established overnight, however as clients navigate the often-challenging journey of self-discovery and growth, the therapeutic alliance becomes the compass guiding them toward healing and resilience. Research shas shown that the quality of therapeutic alliance acts as a dependable predictor of positive therapeutic engagement, motivation and clinical outcome – independent of the psychotherapeutic approach used (Ardito et al., 2011).

In essence, the therapeutic alliance and the right therapeutic fit are not just abstract concepts; they are the heart and soul of effective therapy. By recognizing and nurturing this alliance, clients and therapists co-create a transformative space where change and personal growth become not only possible, but probable.

Tips to make your therapy experience better include giving it a few sessions before deciding if the therapeutic alliance/fit feels right, not being afraid to ask questions about the process, making sure you feel heard, seen, understood and collaborated with, expressing your needs, providing feedback to your therapist, reflecting on your therapy journey, and keeping the lines of communication open about your changing goals and needs.

Natasha Vujovic, M.Psy, R.P (Q) is a Registered Psychotherapist (Qualifying) at CFIR. She works with individuals and couples experiencing a wide range of psychological and relational difficulties including anxiety and stress, depression, mood and grief, relational conflict, trauma, life transitions, personality, body-image, marital and pre-marital, internal conflicts, family dynamics and self-esteem. Natasha is an integrative therapist pulling from psychodynamic/analytic theories and takes a collaborative and honest approach to session.

References:

Ardito, R. B., & Rabellino, D. (2011). Therapeutic alliance and outcome of psychotherapy: historical excursus, measurements, and prospects for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 270. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00270

Cuncic, A. (2023, November 30). Why a Therapeutic Alliance Is Important in Therapy. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/the-therapeutic-alliance-2671571

I often wonder about capacity – my own and that of others. Will I be able to manage the physical and emotional demands being asked of me throughout my day? Where do I begin?

As autonomous individuals, we are required to make choices. We do so daily. Even choosing not to come to a decision is a choice in and of itself; inaction comes with its own set of benefits and consequences. Some of our choices come easily to us, and we do not tend to give them too much thought. Others weigh more heavily on us and require us to give more of ourselves to the decision-making process. Every choice we make is emotional.

In therapy, one is often encouraged to think about capacity as a finite resource. Often, clients are taught to conceptualize capacity as a battery that will deplete itself throughout the day. If every choice I make is emotional, I need to be aware of the implications. The more I expend my resources throughout the day, the less I have left to work with. By increasing my self-awareness, I can find ways to allocate my daily battery so that I have the capacity to show up in the ways that matter most to me. 

1. Start with a check-in

It can be helpful to gauge my battery life first thing in the morning to determine my capacity meter for the day. This can allow me to lean into self-compassion and place realistic expectations of myself.

Example: After an adequate night’s sleep, a good amount of physical activity throughout the week, and sufficient nutrition and socialization, I am waking up with 100% battery.

2. Prioritize by your values

Often, our days are full of non-negotiable tasks as well as personal responsibilities. If everything is important, nothing is important. Therefore, I need to know what is important to me. Asking myself what I value most can help me determine how much of my battery I am going to need to save for the things that matter most to me. Without doing so, I may deplete my battery on tasks that drain my battery, leaving me with less capacity to get through my day.

Example: As I am working on a report for a client, I receive a text message that requires my input on an upcoming family trip. I value work and I value family. I understand that making the decision regarding the family trip is one that will weigh on me, and one that will deplete more of my battery than I am currently willing to give. I can set a boundary by communicating that I will require some time to process the trip and I will not be responding until the following day. This allows me to hold on to more of my resources for the day, and allows me to allocate them accordingly.

3. Allocate accordingly 

If I know what I value, I can choose to allocate my battery accordingly. I do not attribute the same weight to every decision that I make. As well, the more choices I make throughout the day, the more I deplete my battery. By increasing my awareness of this, I can save more of my attention for the choices that tend to be more emotional for me.

Example: I can choose to schedule the tasks that demand more of me earlier on in the day, or I can arrange to take care of myself in ways that will help my battery ‘stay charged’. 

We all have the capacity to choose. I encourage you to lean into curiosity regarding some of the choices that you have been making lately, and whether they are serving you in the ways that you have intended for them to. As always, the choice is yours.

Oksana Halkowicz, M.Psy works under the clinical supervision of Dr. Ashwin Mehra, C.Psych and provides psychological services to children, adolescents, and adults experiencing a wide host of problems related to mood, anxiety, depression, and interpersonal relationships. She works from a psychodynamic approach and integrates therapeutic techniques from dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT), cognitive behavoral therapy (CBT), and emotion-focused therapy (EFT).

Imagine having to over-explain your experiences of discrimination to a therapist, just to have that very same experience invalidated. It’s as though what you’ve just shared did not happen. You’re left confused, feeling misunderstood, and questioning your reality. Perhaps feeling worse than before meeting your therapist, why would you even continue?  

This surprisingly common experience highlights the importance of cultural competence—the understanding and acceptance of norms other than your own. This requires more than simply following a checklist; it requires the ability to openly embrace different ways of being, which at times, you may disagree with. In Canada, there is a clear—and striking—underrepresentation of ethnic and sexual minorities in the mental health profession. What are, if any, the practical consequences of this, one may ask? 

The Ontario Health Study tells us that mental health services are consistently underutilized in minority communities. Interview-based research gives us some insight as to why. A common thread in these studies is that many individuals encounter varying forms of discrimination (i.e., both “microaggressions” and overt discrimination) from professionals and begin to feel like “therapy is not for them”.

Mental health does not discriminate—and as unfortunate as this is, the data suggests that your care provider may. While there is an active effort to understand and teach the ability to perceive and appreciate subtle differences in the cultural experiences of any given client, at times there simply may be no substitute for shared experience. 

Demographic factors are not the only thing to take into consideration when selecting a therapist, but clients should not be made to feel ashamed if they choose to do so. By and large, most clinicians offer free consultations. Meet with them. See what they are like. Be explicit with your concerns and ultimately, you make the decision if you feel understood—whether the therapist looks like you or not.

Ola Kuforiji, M.A., is a registered psychotherapist (qualifying) at the Centre for Interpersonal Relationships. He provides therapy with for individuals and couples (with a special interest in ethnocultural and sexual minorities) under the supervision of Dr. Lila Z. Hakim, C.Psych.

Reesa Packard, R.P., Ph.D. (Associate at CFIR – Ottawa) was on the airwaves with 1310News’ Sam Laprade! The two shared an engaging discussion about managing mental health throughout the pandemic and beyond. This conversation is one you don’t want want to miss.

To learn more about how clinicians at CFIR can help you online or by phone, go to www.cfir.ca

Some people come to therapy only after having exhausted other options. For those with limited experience trying to understand themselves and the nature of their problems more deeply, therapy may seem pointless or airy-fairy. “How will talking about my problems make any difference?” is something incredulous clients ask me. I can appreciate this question because therapy is a time-consuming and expensive investment, so people want to be sure that it’s going to help. People may benefit from therapy for many reasons. This post is dedicated to clarifying these reasons.

Research has time and time again showed that the relationship between the therapist and client is one of the most potent forces for change in therapy. Many clients discount this fact. Nonetheless, having a reliable, non-judgmental, and attuned professional who can help you make sense of your experiences can lower feelings of loneliness and shame because these feelings intensify when we are alone with our distress or when we hide ourselves from others. The confidentiality afforded to clients in therapy and – often, as a result – the emotional depth and openness achieved, makes the process of treatment quite different than what is experienced by venting or seeking advice from your friends and family. Therapists are trained to notice patterns in your thinking and behaviour as well as understanding the meaning and context of your feelings so that you can understand yourself more deeply. As you come to trust your therapist over time, the depth of the conversations you have lends itself to ever deeper realizations of factors that organize and shape your behaviour so that you make choices that diverge from the well-worn path that makes you feel stuck.

Therapy is a place to process and reflect on your emotional experiences. Why does this matter? Simply put, emotions are information. People often forget or dismiss emotions – especially difficult ones – as needless encumbrances to daily living. “I’m rational” or “they’re emotional” are usually code for “emotions are for the weak” or “emotions are pointless.” The reality is that emotions are profoundly crucial to helping us understand what we do and do not like and cues us into action to make meaningful changes in our lives. If we are depressed, it might mean that we are unsatisfied with the quality of our relationships or feel hopeless about our ability to initiate actions that would enhance our career satisfaction. Paradoxically, doubling down on rationality and dismissing, minimizing, or rejecting emotions is inherently an emotionally driven process. Indeed, some people have grown up or currently exist in especially emotionally invalidating worlds that have compelled them to disconnect from their emotional experiences in order to manage pain and distress or be accepted by others. In other words, inflexible and rigid beliefs about the dominion of rationality over emotions are rooted in our attempts to limit experiencing pain and suffering. However, our ability to connect to others, to move toward things that interest us, and feel excited by the world necessitate having access to our emotions. More difficult emotions like anger, sadness, anxiety, shame, and guilt signal to us what we need more or less of and organize our behaviour to make the appropriate changes. Habits based on avoiding those complicated feelings disconnects us from our needs. Just like we need physical pain to cue us to something that needs attention, emotions cue us to essential things in our world.

Understanding our behaviours or thought processes at work, in relationships, and all parts of our life is the first step toward making important changes. We are all shaped by early life experiences that impact the assumptions we make about ourselves, others, and the world around us. As a result, people are often moving through the world as adults using assumptions and filtering information through the prism of their childhood experiences. Understanding this cycle, challenging your assumptions and biases, and deliberately making different choices to challenge outdated modes of thinking, feeling, and being can be profoundly empowering.
Notably, a focus on new behaviours is limited by those currently living in abusive environments that make change dangerous. In these cases, it would be vital to focus more on safety and problem-solving effective solutions.

Finally, therapy can help you manage your symptoms more effectively. Mental health professionals understand your symptoms, what typically helps others who have experienced similar forms of difficulty, and can provide you with information drawn from scientific research and teach you skills that will help you manage your distress.

Dr. Sela Kleiman, C.Psych. is an Associate at CFIR (Toronto). In individual therapy, he helps adults struggling with depression, anxiety, grief, as well as those trying to cope with the effects of past and/or current verbal, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse. Dr. Kleiman has published numerous academic articles on topics that include suicide prediction, racial and social attitudes, and racial and sexual discrimination, and he’s completed his Ph.D. in clinical and counselling psychology at the University of Toronto.

These days, finding the ‘right’ therapist can be an involved process. Part of the challenge is that there are so many distinct kinds of psychotherapy. Some of the better-known forms of therapy include cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), psychodynamic therapy, and client-centered therapy. With so many different approaches, you may find yourself wondering, “How do I know which approach is right for me?”

Fortunately, therapists at the Centre for Interpersonal Relationships (CFIR) are trained in a wide array of major therapeutic approaches. Moreover, many therapists increasingly recognize the value that each approach brings. For instance, CBT can help people develop healthier ways of thinking and behaving, while psychodynamic therapy can help clients better understand their personality and improve their relationships. So, it’s easy to wonder, “Why not take advantage of both approaches?“

Great question! In light of the unique strengths of each form of therapy, therapists are increasingly incorporating elements of different approaches to meet the individual needs of clients; this practice is referred to as ‘integrative therapy.’ In essence, integrative therapy is an evidence-based approach that makes use of the wisdom and tools contained in a variety of other psychotherapy traditions. Importantly, there is also excellent research demonstrating the high value and effectiveness of integrative therapy.

There’s an interesting quote that I believe nicely illustrates the flexible and adaptive nature of this approach:

“If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

Abraham Maslow

By taking advantage of the rich diversity of tools found in the best approaches to therapy, integrative therapists can flexibly respond to the diverse challenges and concerns that clients face. As a result, clients often report feeling understood as a person, instead of as a diagnosis or problem. So, if you’re wondering which type of therapy is right for you, integrative therapy might be just what you’ve been seeking.

Adam Blake, M.Sc., is a therapist at CFIR’s Toronto location. Adam provides individual therapy with adults who struggle with anxiety, panic, OCD, depression, trauma, dissociation, attention deficits, issues related to sexuality and relationships, self-worth, assertiveness, spirituality, and vocational/work concerns. His approach to psychotherapy is integrative and draws on empirically-supported principles from well-established traditions, including humanistic, existential, cognitive-behavioural, psychodynamic, and acceptance and commitment therapy.

Over the past 35 years, there has been a substantial amount of research conducted to identify psychotherapy treatments that work. Research suggests that many different types of treatment approaches might be beneficial for a wide variety of disorders. It is vital that a clinician who is providing you treatment is trained in empirically-supported treatment interventions so that you know that you are getting the most scientifically investigated treatment interventions. 

Recently, evidence-based practice has come to mean more than empirically-supported treatment (Canadian Psychological Association, 2012). Evidence-based practice involves the thoughtful and informed use of the psychological research base to inform clinical treatment practice. It’s also essential that your clinician be able to attend to a wide range of individual differences and personal client factors (e.g., attachment style, coping styles, cultural factors) in treatment, as well as consideration and use of research in supporting clients in their healing process. 

The clinicians at CFIR are invested in providing empirically-supported treatments, tailoring treatment to individuals based on their needs and individual differences, and ensuring that we are kept abreast of leading-edge research related to your presenting issues.