Reasons for Decision

A panel of the Discipline Committee convened a hearing to hear allegations brought before it with respect to the Member, Ms Nicole C. Craig, RN.

The Notice of Hearing, Exhibit #1, outlines the following allegations:

You have committed an act of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(a) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c.32, as amended, in that on or about January 24, 1997, you were found guilty of an offence that is relevant to your suitability to practise, namely theft of property the value of which did not exceed five thousand dollars ($5, 000.00) contrary to Section 334(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
You have committed an act of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c.32, as amended, and defined in subsection 1(8) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that during the year 1996 you misappropriated property from a client or workplace, and in particular during the period October 1, 1996, to November 30, 1996, you misappropriated money and/or other property from your employer, the Victorian Order of Nurses.

Counsel for the College informed the panel that Ms. Craig had admitted to the allegations and that the hearing would proceed by way of an Agreed Statement of Fact. Ms. Craig acknowledged that she had reviewed and understood the allegations made against her, that she admitted to the allegations voluntarily and understood the attendant consequences. She also acknowledged understanding that any prior agreement made between herself and the College was not binding on the panel. The Agreed Statement of Fact was entered as Exhibit #2.

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACT

Agreed Statement of Fact

Nicole Caron Craig (the "Member") has been registered as an RN with the College of Nurses of

Ontario (the “College”) since 1993.

Ms. Craig was employed, on a part-time basis, as an RN by the Victorian Order of Nurses (“VON”) in Brockville, Ontario, from August 20, 1996, until her employment was terminated on December 2, 1996. From February, 1993, to March 1996, Ms. Craig was employed as a full-time RN at the Diagnostic Centre Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA.
On November 21, 1996, Ms. Craig was video taped by a surveillance camera as she removed a cash box containing approximately $200.00 in marked bills from an office in the Prescott branch. On November 28, 1996, Ms. Craig was arrested for the theft of approximately $200.00 from the VON and she subsequently admitted to the police that she was guilty of this offence.
On January 24, 1997, Ms. Craig plead guilty in the Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division) to the offence that, on November 21, 1996, she stole approximately $200.00 from the VON contrary to section 334(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Ms. Craig received a conditional discharge and one year probation. As well, she was required to make restitution in the amount of

$200.00 to the VON and was also required to make a charitable donation in the amount of

$500.00 to the VON (both of these requirements have been met). In sentencing Ms. Craig, the Court took into account the following mitigating factors: (1) there were indications of genuine remorse on the part of Ms. Craig including the guilty plea, (2) Ms. Craig’s loss of employment,

(3) the lack of a previous criminal record and, (4) the excellent prospect for rehabilitation. The Court noted that the only reason that a conditional discharge was being imposed instead of a more severe sentence is that a criminal record would impede Ms. Craig’s ability to further her rehabilitation by preventing her from re-entering the United States for employment purposes.

Ms. Craig fully co-operated with the College during its investigation.
Ms. Craig admits that, on January 24, 1997, she was found guilty of an offence relevant to her suitability to practice, namely the theft of property the value of which did not exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) contrary to section 334(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Ms. Craig therefore agrees she has committed an act of professional misconduct as set out in allegation 1 of the Notice of Hearing.
Ms. Craig further admits that, on November 21, 1996, she misappropriated property, namely

$200.00, from her employer, the VON. Ms. Craig therefore agrees she has committed an act of professional misconduct as set out in allegation 2 of the Notice of Hearing.

The panel accepted the Agreed Statement of Fact as presented. A finding of professional misconduct was made as set out in Allegations #1 and #2 in the notice of hearing.

Counsel for the College also informed the panel that the College of Nurses entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty with Ms. Craig. The Joint Submission on Penalty was entered as Exhibit #3.

JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY

Joint Submission on Penalty

The College of Nurses and Ms. Craig jointly submit the following penalty:

a. the panel of the Discipline Committee shall make an order:

i. requiring Ms. Craig to appear before the panel to be reprimanded; and

ii. directing the Executive Director to suspend Ms. Craig's certificate of registration for a period of three (3) months. The order shall be suspended for 12 months from the date of the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee (the “Decision”) if Ms. Craig provides the Director of the Investigations & Hearings Department of the College (the “Director”) with two (2) written evaluations conducted by a Registered Nurse or a Registered Practical Nurse in a supervisory position advising whether Ms. Craig is meeting all applicable standards of the profession, including honesty and integrity. The first evaluation shall be provided to the Director six (6) months from the date of the Decision and the second evaluation shall be provided to the Director twelve (12) months from the date of the Decision. If Ms. Craig fails to provide an evaluation by the due date, her certificate of registration shall be suspended for three

(3) months. If she provides both evaluations by the due dates, the suspension shall not be imposed.

The College and Ms. Craig jointly submit that the panel shall direct that the results of this proceeding be included in the public portion of the Register.

DECISION

Decision

The panel accepted the joint submission on penalty as the appropriate penalty in this case.

REASONS

Reasons

In addressing the Joint Submission on Penalty, counsel for the College submitted that the panel should consider the principle of general deterrence. This included the need to warn other members, and to emphasize that stealing is a serious breach of the employee/employer trust relationship. It was submitted that Ms. Craig’s actions had the potential to jeopardize public trust in the profession, especially since she had been employed by the VON where there is no direct supervision in homes; there was therefore a greater onus to protect the public. An appropriate penalty would include a three month suspension mitigated by conditions for withholding the suspension, and a recorded reprimand.

In his submission, counsel for Ms. Craig identified several facts. Ms. Craig had been given a conditional discharge by the Provincial Court. Throughout the case, Ms. Craig’s co-operation had been a consistent factor as was her remorse and shame. Other sanctions had been experienced by Ms. Craig in addition to the serious penalty suggested. Ms. Craig had initially been discharged from both places of employment, and had made restitution to the VON by a payment of $200.00 and a charitable donation of $500.00.

She had suffered and will continue to suffer financial consequences, public shame and embarrassment. Since November of 1996, there had been no evidence of further problems.

On reviewing the Joint Submission on Penalty and the submissions of both counsel, the panel acknowledged that the respective counsel had agreed the penalty satisfied the public interest, and that counsel for the College had accepted the mitigating circumstances put forth by Ms. Craig’s counsel as accurate.

In assessing whether the penalty was appropriate, the panel considered that honesty and integrity are the cornerstones of any health profession; therefore, the breach of trust between Ms. Craig and the employer, and Ms. Craig and her profession was regarded as serious. The conduct demonstrated by Ms. Craig might also jeopardize the trust held by the public for the profession. The need for a general deterrence was recognized.

The penalty incorporated the principles of general deterrence; it demonstrates that the type of conduct exhibited by Ms. Craig will not be tolerated by the profession and carries serious consequences. In mitigation, the panel noted that throughout the proceedings Ms. Craig exhibited remorse, a co-operative behaviour and a willingness to comply with the conditions outlined in the Joint Submission on Penalty. The panel found the Joint Submission on Penalty as presented by both counsel to be fair and reasonable.

College of Nurses of Ontario v. Craig, 1998 ONCNO 31279

Case Summary