DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO
The following is a public record of the hearing between the COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO and Paul J. Wanamaker #ID-0512-7 heard on June 11, 1998.
REASONS FOR DECISION
This matter was heard by a panel of the Discipline Committee on June 11, 1998 at the College of Nurses of Ontario ("College") at Toronto.
The panel convened at 0905 hours. The Member was not present, nor was he represented by legal counsel. The panel adjourned at 0906 hours for one half hour prior to commencing the hearing to await the arrival of the Member.
The panel reconvened at 0937 hours. The hearing commenced in the Member's absence.
Counsel for the College entered into evidence Exhibit #1, a Notice of Hearing dated May 8, 1998, together with an Affidavit of Service dated May 12, 1998. The allegations against the Member, as specified in the Notice of Hearing, are as follows:
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(20) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that on August 20, 1997, you failed to appear before a panel of the Complaints Committee to be cautioned; and/or
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(24)(i) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that you failed to abide by a written undertaking you gave to the College and, in particular, you failed to abide by one or more of the terms of a written undertaking that you signed on March 12, 1997; and/or
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(37) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that you engaged in conduct or performed an act, relevant to the practice of nursing, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional and, in particular:
a. on August 20, 1997, you failed to appear before a panel of the Complaints Committee to be cautioned; and/or
b. you failed to abide by one or more of the terms of a written undertaking you gave the College and that you signed on March 12, 1997.
Counsel for the College presented evidence that the Member engaged in conduct or performed an act relevant to the practice of nursing, that having regard to all of the circumstances would reasonably be regarded by members as dishonourable, disgraceful and unprofessional.
EVIDENCE
The panel heard evidence from [witness #1], witness for the College. [Witness #1] has been employed by the College for approximately 7 years, and for the last 1.5 years performed duties for the Complaints Committee as an administrator. These duties included setting up for and attending meetings of the Complaints Committee and preparing follow-up letters on decisions. [Witness #1] attended the meeting
of the Complaints Committee on March 20, 1997 wherein a decision was rendered against the Member. (Exhibit # 2)
A letter advising the Member of the decision was mailed to the Member by [witness #1] on March 21, 1997. On April 9, 1997, a letter was sent to Mr. Wanamaker signed by Margaret Risk, CNO Executive Director (Exhibit #4), notifying him that the panel of the Complaints Committee made a decision with regard to the complaint lodged against the Member. Enclosed with this letter were copies of the following:
Decision of the Complaints Committee, February 19, 1998 Notice of Meeting
Guidelines for Professional Behaviour Video: "One is One too Many"
The Notice of Meeting indicated that the Member was required to appear before a Panel of the Complaints Committee to be cautioned on Thursday, May 22, 1997 at 1330 hours at the College (Exhibit #5).
The Member did not sign or return the Notice of Meeting.
A letter was sent to the Member on May 7, 1997 (Exhibit #6) referring to the College's letter of April 9, 1997. This letter advised the Member of the following:
to date the College had not receive a signed Notice of Meeting;
the College was unable to reach the Member by telephone on May 5 and 6 , 1997 when calls were placed;
according to the terms of a new Notice of Meeting, the date had been changed to Wednesday, May 21,1997 (the Member was requested to sign the Notice of Meeting and return the letter to the College on or before May 13, 1997);
it was open to the Member to provide a verbal confirmation to the College Complaints Committee Administrator at Ext. 217.
There was no response from the Member. All written material was sent to the last known address of the Member and all telephone calls were made to the last known telephone number for the Member.
The Complaints Committee convened on May 21,1997 to issue an Oral Caution to the Member. The Member did not attend.
A subsequent letter dated July 18, 1997 to the Member (Exhibit #7) from Pam Marshall, Manager, Investigations & Hearings, advised the Member that the date for his attendance for the Oral Caution was set for Wednesday, August 20, 1997 at 1300 hours. Enclosed in this letter was the Notice of Meeting, requesting the Member's signature indicating his attendance to the Oral Caution.
Ms Marshall's letter referred to the Member's signed Undertaking and the requirement for the Member to view the video and review the Guidelines for Professional Behaviour before attending the Oral Caution. The letter also requested proof of completion of a Stress/Anger Management Course, and his personal statement as to what was gained from the attendance at the course as part of the conditions of the signed Undertaking.
The letter reminded the Member that failure to abide by a written Undertaking given to the College constitutes Professional Misconduct and could result in a referral to the Discipline Committee of the College.
The Undertaking was signed and dated March 12, 1997 by the Member (Exhibit #8).
There was no verbal or written confirmation from the Member that he received the July 18, 1997 letter or the enclosed material.
There was no verbal or written confirmation that the Member had complied with the terms and conditions of the signed Undertaking dated March 12, 1997.
A subsequent Notice of Meeting was served on the Member on July 22, 1997, requesting that the Member appear before a Panel of the Complaints Committee to be cautioned. This caution was scheduled to take place on Wednesday, August 19, 1997 at 1300 hours at the College. The receipt for this Notice of Meeting was signed by the Member on July 22, 1997. The Member was served with the Notice of Meeting at [Member's address], the same address to which all College correspondence was sent.
THE MEMBER'S POSITION REGARDING THE ALLEGATIONS
At the hearing before the Discipline panel on June 11, 1998, the Member arrived late and joined the hearing at 1025 hours.
The Chair advised the Member of the proceedings to date. The Member was provided with a copy of all exhibits. The Chair also advised the Member that he would be permitted to ask questions during the hearing process.
At this time the College counsel informed the hearing panel that his submission was completed.
The Member was given an opportunity to review all documents. The Member informed the panel of several extenuating circumstances which contributed to his non-compliance to his Undertaking and his non-attendance at previous meetings.
The Member advised the panel that he had viewed the video and reviewed the Guidelines for Professional Behaviour. He stated that he had participated in a stress management element within a custodial training program sponsored by a government agency. The College received no confirmation that he had completed the Program or his written statement as required in the Undertaking.
The allegations as shown in Exhibit #1 were admitted by the Member to be legitimate complaints. The Member said that he could not attend due to his financial and personal problems. The Member advised the panel that he is currently employed as an RPN.
The College counsel advised the panel that the Member's Registration Certificate was not current.
DECISION
Both Allegation #1: the failure to appear before the Complaints Committee; and Allegation #2: failure to abide by the conditions of the Undertaking (Exhibit #8) were established by the Member's own admission.
Allegation #3 was established by the Member's failure to comply with points 4 (c) and 4 (d) of the Undertaking. The College's counsel further stated that a substantial part of the Undertaking was not completed or completed in a timely fashion, and that there was no respect for the public. This conduct would be viewed by the members of the profession as dishonourable, disgraceful and unprofessional. The College counsel stated that the Member's conduct was viewed as ungovernable and not respectful of the rules and regulations of the licensing body.
The College's counsel submitted that one year later, the Member had not complied with the conditions imposed by the Complaints Committee and therefore Allegation 3 was established on evidence presented.
The Panel considered the allegations and made the following findings:
Allegation #1: The Panel finds that Allegation #1 has been established as submitted by Exhibit #1 in that the Member failed to appear before the panel of the Complaints Committee to be cautioned on August 20, 1997;
Allegation #2: The Panel finds in relation to Allegation #2 that the Member failed to abide by one or more of the terms of a written Undertaking which was signed by the Member dated March 12, 1997, with a compliance date prior to June 1, 1997;
Allegation #3: The Panel finds in relation to Allegation #3 that the Member engaged in conduct or performed an act relevant to the practice of nursing, that having regard to all these circumstances would reasonably be regarded by the members as dishonourable, disgraceful and unprofessional, in particular, that the Member did not take seriously the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act of 1991, subsection c. 32 as amended and defined in subsection 1(37) of the Ontario Regulation 799/93.
In summary, the Panel has found through evidence presented and the examination of the witness that the College has proved the allegations brought against the Member as set out in the Notice of Hearing dated May 8, 1998.
PENALTY
Counsel for the College, on the issue of penalty, recommended the following terms:
an oral reprimand;
suspension for six months with a caveat that the suspension run from the time the Member next registers with the College;
fulfillment of all the terms of the Undertaking;
for a period of two years of working as an RPN, provide address of employers; and
provide performance appraisals every 4 months for 2 years of employment as an RPN.
The panel agrees with the recommendations of the College as to the penalty. The panel, however, added the condition that the 6-month suspension will begin one month after the Member's renewal of registration.
The penalty fulfills the mandate of the College to protect the public interest. It is aimed at remediation. It provides a general deterrent to members of the profession, as well as a specific deterrent to the Member to appreciate the privilege he has as being able to provide health care pursuant to the provisions of the Regulated Health Professions Act.
The Member signed the waiver of appeal. At the conclusion of the hearing, the oral reprimand was delivered to the Member.