DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO

Panel:

— Chairperson — Member — Public Representative

BETWEEN

COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO Counsel for College of Nurses of Ontario

• and -

Steven L. Wood #HC-1229-0

DECISION AND REASONS

NO REPRESENTATION for Steven L. Wood

Heard: November 16, 1999

A panel of the Discipline Committee met at 0910 on November 16, 1999 to hear the allegations against Steven Leslie Wood, RPN (the “Member”).

The Member was not represented by legal counsel, nor was the Member in attendance for the hearing.

The panel recessed for 30 minutes to give the Member the opportunity to appear for the hearing. The panel reconvened at 0940 hours. The Member did not appear for the hearing.

Counsel for the College of Nurses of Ontario(the “College”) entered into evidence the Notice of Hearing and the Affidavit of Service of the Notice of Hearing as Exhibit # l.

The panel was satisfied the Member had received proper notice of the proceedings. The affidavit of Service confirmed that the Member had been personally served with the Notice of Hearing which specifically set out the place and time for the hearing.

NOTICE OF HEARING

The Notice of Hearing contained the following allegations against the Member:

1. 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, 1999, S.O. 1991, c.32, as amended, in that on December 8, 1995 in the Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division) at the City of London, Ontario, you were found guilty of an offence that is relevant to your suitability to practise, in that you pleaded guilty to charges of:

a. Stealing merchandise of a value not exceeding $5000 from Shopper's Drug Mart; and, stealing merchandise of a value not exceeding $5000 from T. Eaton Co. Limited.

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 on November 9, 1995 at the City of London, 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 stole aftershave which was the property of Shopper's Drug Mart.

3. 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 on December 6, 1995 at the City of London, 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 stole a Black & Decker Spacemaker which was the property of the T. Eaton Co. Limited [Eatons].

4. 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 April 24, 1996 in the Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division) at the City of London, Ontario, you were found guilty of an offence that is relevant to your suitability to practice, in that you pleaded guilty to the charge of defrauding Zellers Inc. of money of a value not exceeding

$5000.

5. 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 on April 22, 1996 at the City of London, 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, dishonourable or unprofessional in that you defrauded Zellers Inc. of money of a value not exceeding $5000.

6. 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 October 3, 1996 in the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) at the City of London, Ontario, you were found guilty of an offence that is relevant to your suitability to practice, in that you pleaded guilty to charges of:

a. Robbery in respect of Victim #1;

b. Robbery in respect of Victim #2; and,

c. Robbery in respect of Victim #3.

7. 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 on December 12, 1995 at the City of London, 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:

a. Robbed Victim #1;

b. Robbed Victim #2; and,

c. Robbed Victim #3.

MEMBER’S PLEA

The Member was not present for the discipline hearing, nor was he represented by legal counsel. The hearing proceeded on the basis that the Member denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.

EVIDENCE

Counsel for the College did not tender evidence with regards to Allegations #2, #3, #5 and #7.

Allegations #2 and #3 relied on the same underlying facts as Allegation #4. Similarly, the underlying facts concerning Allegation #7 were the same as Allegation #6. (College counsel advised it was not necessary for the panel to consider a finding of professional misconduct with respect to Allegations #2, #3, #5 and #7).

MEMBER’S STATUS WITH THE COLLEGE

A staff member of the College of Nurses of Ontario (CNO), Registration Department, gave evidence. The staff member maintains records of registration at CNO.

She testified that from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1996, Mr. Wood was a Member in good standing with CNO. She further testified that there was no record of registration renewal by the Member at the CNO since January 1, 1997.

Allegation 1

Counsel for the College presented evidence to substantiate, through various court documents, that the Member was convicted of theft on several occasions and fraud on one occasion.

An Information Document from the Ontario Provincial Court dated November 24, 1995, was entered into evidence as Exhibit #2. It is alleged that the Member:

did steal from Shoppers Drug Mart, aftershave, of a value not exceeding $5000.00.

A Certificate of Conviction from the Ontario Provincial Court dated November 24, 1995 was entered into evidence as Exhibit #2. It confirmed that on December 8, 1995, the Member was found guilty of the charge.

A copy of the court proceedings transcript dated December 8, 1995 was entered as Exhibit #4.

An information document from the Ontario Provincial Court dated December 8, 1995 was entered into evidence as Exhibit #3. It is alleged that the Member:

did steal from T. Eaton Co. Limited, a Black & Decker spacemaker can opener of a value not exceeding $5000.00.

A Certificate of Conviction from the Ontario Provincial Court dated December 8, 1995 was entered into evicdence as Exhibit #3. It confirmed that on December 8, 1995 the Member was found guilty of the charge.

A copy of the transcript of the court proceedings dated December 8, 1995 was entered into evidence as Exhibit #4.

Allegation 4

An Information Document from the Ontario Provincial Court, dated April 22, 1996, was entered into evidence as Exhibit #5. It is alleged that the Member:

did defraud Zellers Inc. of money of a value not exceeding $5000.00. The Member selected a battery charger and concealed it in a shopping bag and then proceeded to obtain a refund which was refused. The Member then left the store with the merchandise.

A Certificate of Conviction from the Ontario Provincial Court dated April 24, 1996, was entered into

evidence as Exhibit #5. It confirmed that on April 24, 1996, the Member was found guilty of the charge.

A copy of the transcript of the court proceedings dated April 24, 1996 was entered into evidence as Exhibit #6.

Allegation # 6

The panel was presented with an Indictment Document from the Ontario Provincial Court of Justice dated December 12, 1995. It is alleged the Member:

did steal from Victim #1 and at the time did use violence or the threat of violence and did thereby committed robbery.

did steal from Victim #2 and at the time did use violence or the threat of violence and and thereby committed robbery.

did steal from Victim #3 and at the time did use violence or the threat of violence and thereby committed robbery.

Exhibit #8 is a transcript of the court proceedings, dated October 3, 1996. The transcript stated that the Member was found guilty of the charges of robbery as listed above.

It was alleged and the Member confronted the three female shoppers in various malls, produced a sawed-off shotgun, demanded their purses and money and told them to get in their cars and drive away. According to the transcript of the court proceedings, one of the victims gave the Member’s liscensed plate and description to the police. After a pursuit the Member was arrested by police.

FINDING OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

The panel considered the evidence and the fact that the College bears the onus of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof as set out in Re Bernstein and College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (1977), 15 O.R. (2nd) 447, namely, that the proof must be clear and convincing and based upon cogent evidence which is accepted by the panel.

The panel deliberated and unanimously found the “Member” guilty of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(a) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act, 1999,

S.O. 1991, c.32, as amended.

The panel found the offenses of theft, fraud, dishonesty and physical violent conduct completely at odds with the notions of respect for human life and human dignity that are embodied in the nursing profession.

PENALTY

Counsel for the College made submissions with respect to penalty and recommended that the Member’s Certificate of Registration be revoked.

The panel deliberated and unanimously accepted CNO counsel’s recommendation and directs the Registrar of CNO to revoke the Member’s Certificate of Registration, effective immediately.

The panel deliberated and unanimously accepted CNO counsel’s recommendation and directs the Registrar of CNO to revoke the Member’s Certificate of Registration, effective immediately.

REASONS

The panel agreed with College counsel’s submission that theft, fraud, crimes of dishonesty and threats of violence are at odds with everything that the nursing profession represents.

The panel considerd the three factors relied on by the College’s counsel to support her position that the Member’s Certificate of Registration be revoked.

These were:

1. Seriousness of the Member’s misconduct

a. repeated escalating criminal offences

b. the total disregard for the lives of other people in this society

2. Protection of the Public

a. concern for suitability of the Member to continue providing nursing care to the public, especially vulnerable clients.

3. General and Individual Deterrents

a. this kind of behavior is intolerable and will not be sanctioned by the profession

In the Member’s absence it was difficult for the panel to assess what the Member had done to change his ways. Failure to attend the hearing was an element of his character, indicating lack of respect for human life and human dignity which are embodied in the nursing profession.

The Member’s actions on members of the public is completely at odds with the belief of the nursing profession which holds public trust and protection as the core belief of the profession. Conduct that is dishonest and physically threatening would be completely at odds with all that the nursing profession upholds.

For all of the reasons outlined, when assessing that the penalty was appropriate, the panel agreed that honesty and integrity are the cornerstones of the profession. The conduct demonstrated by the Member also jeopardizes the public’s trust in the profession. The penalty incorporates the principles of general deterrence. It also demonstrates that the type of conduct exhibited by the Member will not be tolerated by the profession and carries serious consequences.

I, , 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:

, Chairperson Date Member, RN

Public Representative