DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO

Panel: [Names of Panel Members]

BETWEEN

COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO

• and -

Camille F. Davis #91-1676-5

Heard: SEPTEMBER 17, 1999

REASONS FOR DECISION

Reasons for Decision

A panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario (“the College”) was convened on September 17, 1999, to hear allegations brought before it with respect to the Member, Camille Davis, RN.

The Notice of Hearing [ ] outlines the following allegations:

1. 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 period of December, 1997 through to and including June, 1998, while employed as a Registered Nurse [the Facility] in [ ], in the Province of Ontario, you misappropriated property from a workplace, in that you misappropriated a co-worker’s bank card and withdrew approximately

$2,250.00 from the co-worker’s personal bank account without her knowledge or consent, and/or;

2. 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 during the period of December, 1997 through to and including June, 1998, while employed as a Registered Nurse [the Facility] in [ ], in the Province of Ontario, 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, dishonorable or unprofessional in that you misappropriated a co-worker’s bank card and withdrew approximately $2,250.00 from the co-worker’s personal bank account without her knowledge or consent.

Counsel for the College informed the panel that there should be no finding in allegation #2 and that the hearing would proceed by way of an Agreed Statement of Fact. The panel conducted a Plea Inquiry of the Member. The Member acknowledged that she had reviewed and understood the allegations made against her. She admitted to the allegation voluntarily and understood the attendant consequences. The Member also acknowledged that she understood that any prior agreement made between herself and the College was not binding on the panel. [ ]

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

Agreed Statement of Facts

1. Camille Davis (“the Member”) has been registered as a Registered Nurse by the College of Nurses of Ontario since 1991.

2. The Member worked at [a hospital] as a full-time staff nurse from May 1989 to November 1990, at which time she resigned. In April of 1991, she began working at [another hospital] through [a nursing agency]. In January of 1997, the Member obtained a part-time position as a Direct Care Worker at a group home for handicapped children, a position she retained until May of 1998. In July of 1997, the Member began to work as a casual nurse at [the Facility], and began a regular part-time position at [the Facility] in November of 1997. From September of 1997 to September of 1998, the Member also worked as a part-time casual nurse at [a clinic].

3. At the time of the occurrence of the events that are the subject of the allegations of misconduct, December 1997 to June 1998, the Member was working at [three facilities].

4. The Member and [a co-worker] met and became friends through their work at [the Facility]. During the friendship, [the co-worker] made personal loans of $60 and $300 to the Member when the Member was short of funds.

5. The evidence of the College would be that on April 16, 1998, [the co-worker] attempted to use her bank card to

withdraw $20 from her bank account to take a cab home from a store. The transaction was declined because of insufficient funds. Upon calling her bank, [the co-worker] learned that there had been a $300 transaction that she did not recall making.

6. When [the co-worker] arrived home, she called the Member and told her what had happened.

7. The following day the Member asked [the co-worker] to meet her at a local mall. The Member explained that she had made the $300 withdrawal from [the co-worker]’s account the previous day, and had invested it. She explained that she and her cousin had done very well with small investments and that she wanted to do [the co- worker] a favour since [the co-worker] had been so kind to lend her money when she needed it. When asked, the Member explained that she had watched [the co-worker] use her bank card before and had memorised [the co- worker]’s Personal Identification Number (PIN).

8. Later that day, [the co-worker] had her bank book updated and discovered that there had been eight unauthorised withdrawals on the following dates from her account, for a total of $2250:

December 31, 1997 $300

January 1, 1998 $300

January 31, 1998 $300

February 1, 1998 $500

February 26, 1998 $300

March 11, 1998 $300

March 25, 1998 $300

April 16, 1998 $250

9. The Member eventually admitted that she had made all eight withdrawals from [the co-worker]’s account while they were both working at [the Facility], by taking [the co-worker]’s bank card from her knapsack in the staff lounge, making the withdrawals from a banking machine in the hospital using the memorised PIN, and then returning the card.

10. The total amount owing to [the co-worker] by the Member, including the previous personal loans of $360, the above-listed unauthorised withdrawals and service charges, was $2,661.45.

11. The evidence of [ ] the College would be that [the co-worker] reported feeling betrayed and violated by the Member’s actions, and was subsequently referred to the Hospital’s employee assistance program for counselling as a result of these events.

12. When questioned by [Facility] management about the unauthorised withdrawals, the Member maintained that she had taken the money from [the co-worker]’s account, and had invested the money for [the co-worker] in order to pay back the loans [the co-worker] had made to her earlier.

13. On May 13, 1998, [the Facility] informed the Member that her employment was terminated for breach of trust and misconduct, and that it would report the matter to the College of Nurses of Ontario.

14. [The co-worker] sought repayment of the funds. The Member promised to repay the money but also advised that she did not have the funds available. After three failed attempts to secure repayment from the Member, and after informing the Member that she would have the Member charged by the Police for theft if the Member did not repay the money, [the co-worker] received $2800 from the Member in the following instalments:

May 28, 1998 $1000

May 29, 1998 $550

June 9, 1998 $900

June 9, 1998 $350

15. The evidence of the College would be that, after receiving payment in full, [the co-worker] decided not to proceed with criminal charges against the Member since the Member had lost her job and was under investigation by the College of Nurses.

16. If [the Member] testified, she would describe the following circumstances. She has a history of [ ] abuse. She is currently in a physically violent [ ] relationship. At present, [the Member] continues to live with her [spouse]. [The Member] has [no one] who can offer her [ ] support. [The Member] has [ ] children. She feels unable to leave the [ ] relationship unless she is financially secure. [The Member] became involved in a financial scheme where she hoped to quickly double her money, thereby enabling her to leave the marital relationship. She took

money [from] [the co-worker] in order to invest additional funds in the financial scheme. She reports that she always intended to return the funds to [the co-worker]. The financial scheme [the Member] invested in was a scam and she lost all of her investment.

17. The Member admits that by taking [the co-worker]’s bank card and withdrawing $2250 from [the co-worker]’s personal bank account, without [the co-worker]’s knowledge or consent, she misappropriated property from a workplace, and thereby committed professional misconduct as set out in paragraph 1 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 allegation #1.

Counsel for the College also informed the panel that the College of Nurses entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty with the Member. [ ]

JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY

Joint Submission on Penalty

Camille Davis (“the Member”) and The College of Nurses of Ontario (“the College”) jointly submit that the panel of the Discipline Committee should make the following order:

1. Requiring the Member to appear before the Panel to be reprimanded;

2. Directing the Executive Director to suspend the Member’s certificate of registration for nine months, six months of which are to be remitted in consideration of the mitigating considerations particular to this case; and

3. Directing the Executive Director to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s certificate of registration:

a. The Member must [meet with a counsellor] with relevant experience in counselling, [with] prior approval of the Director of the Investigations and Hearings Program (“the Director”). This [counselling] shall commence no later than 60 days from the date the panel makes its order concerning penalty, shall continue for a period of no less than two years, and shall address the following issues:

1. the incidents of theft by the Member that are the subject of the current proceeding, [and other specified issues].

b. In the event that the Member is unable to commence therapy within the 60 day period, through circumstances beyond her control, she shall provide to the Director confirmation that she has requested and been granted a position on the waiting list for a counselling program specified in paragraph 3(a) above;

c. The Member must provide to the counselling professional a copy of the decision of the panel of the Discipline Committee in this matter, and a copy of the report [ ] entitled “Re: College of Nurses and Camille Davis” and dated March 31, 1999;

d. The Member must, on the date she commences [counselling], give the counselling professional a letter signed by her, authorising the counselling professional to confirm to the College whether the Member is complying with the requirement that she receive [counselling] as referred to in paragraph 3(a), above, and authorising the counselling professional to provide the Director with a copy of that letter;

e. The Member must request, and the counselling professional must deliver to the College within 21 days of the start of the Member’s [counselling], a letter from the counselling professional confirming:

i. the counselling professional’s receipt of the decision of the Discipline Committee and the report referred to in paragraph 3(b) above,

ii. the date the Member began [counselling] with the counselling professional,

iii. that the counselling professional has received a letter signed by the Member authorising the counselling professional to confirm to the College whether the Member is complying with the requirement that she receive [counselling] as referred to in paragraph 3(a), above, and a copy of the Member’s letter,

iv. a copy of the counselling professional’s resume or curriculum vitae that includes the business address and telephone number of the counselling professional; and

f. If the Member changes counselling professionals within the two-year period referred to in paragraph 3(a) above, she must report the name and address of the new counselling professional in writing to the Director within 30 days, and must adhere to the requirements described in paragraph 3(c), 3(d) and 3(e) above, with the new counselling professional.

Decision

Decision

The panel heard presentations from both the College and defence counsel on the Joint Submission on Penalty. After deliberation, the panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty as an appropriate penalty in this case.

Reasons

Reasons

The panel specifically invited both counsel to make submissions on the Member’s willingness to accept the need for community support groups to provide ongoing support to the Member as identified in paragraphs 3(a) ii to iv. Following submissions, the panel accepted the rationale for the penalty agreed to by both parties.

In addressing the Joint Submission on Penalty, counsel for the College submitted that the panel should consider the principle of general deterren[ce] and rehabilitation.

Furthermore, the panel found the rehabilitative component of this penalty to be appropriate.

I, [Chair], sign this decision and reasons for the decision as Chairperson of this Discipline Panel and on behalf of the members of the Discipline Panel as listed below: