DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO
Panel:
Public Representative, Chairperson
Member, RPN
Member, RPN
Member, RN
Public Representative
BETWEEN
COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO Counsel for College of Nurses of Ontario
- and -
Thomas Twose #GI-4673-3
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member Not Represented
Heard: February 27, 2001
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee on February 27, 2001 at the College of Nurses of Ontario at Toronto. The Member was not present and was not represented by counsel. College counsel informed the panel that a Notice of Hearing had been served on the Member. Staff for the College attempted to contact the Member by telephone on February 26, 2001, and there was no response up until the hearing time. The panel adjourned until 09:39 to allow the Member time to attend. The member failed to attend the hearing.
The hearing reconvened to hear the following allegations against Thomas Twose (the “Member”):
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 from March, 1997 to September, 1998, while employed as Administrator of Chestnut Court Retirement Home in Thorold, Ontario, you misappropriated approximately $33,548 from your workplace.
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 from March, 1997 to September, 1998, while employed as Administrator of Chestnut Court Retirement Home in Thorold, Ontario, you 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 of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional with respect to your misappropriation of approximately $33,548 from your workplace.
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, in that on April
14, 2000, in the Superior Court of Justice in the Regional Municipality of Niagara, Ontario, you were found guilty of an offence relevant to your suitability to practise, and in particular, you were convicted of the following charge:
a. between the 1st day of March, 1997, and the 30th day of September, 1998, at the City of Thorold in the Regional Municipality of Niagara did by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means defraud Chestnut Court Retirement Home of money exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) contrary to the provisions of Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada and did thereby commit an indictable offence.
College counsel advised the panel that allegations 1 and 2 of the Notice of Hearing would be withdrawn and that the College was only proceeding with allegation 3 in the Notice of Hearing. As the Member was not present and was not represented by counsel, College counsel stated the hearing would proceed under the assumption that the Member was denying the allegations.
Evidence
Evidence
The College counsel presented and read exhibits #3, #4 and #5. Exhibit #3 was a Certificate of Conviction from the Ontario Court, dated October 23, 2000 certifying that the Member pled guilty to fraud over $5000.00 and was convicted of the said offense. Exhibit #4 is a copy of the Proceedings of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario against the Member wherein the Member plead guilty to the charge: S. 380 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code of Canada – Fraud Over. These proceedings were before the Honourable Mr. Justice M.P. Forestell, on Friday, April 14, 2000, at Welland, Ontario.
The College counsel read relevant sections of the proceedings to the panel including the indictment that the Member did by deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means, defraud Chestnut Court Retirement Home of money exceeding $5000.00 contrary to the provisions of S. 380 (1) (b) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The Member was represented at the proceedings by counsel.
Exhibit #5 is a copy of Reasons for Sentence of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario of the Member, before the Honouable Mr. Justice M. P. Forestell, on October 23, 2000 at Welland, Ontario. In his reasons for sentencing Mr. Justice Forestell stated that “this is a breach of trust and that is serious”. “It was a continuing breach of trust Mr. Twose. It was not a spur of the moment, but it was a continuing one”. Mr. Justice Forestell further stated “it is necessary that the public knows that fraud, breach of trust, cannot go free. I am imposing a conditional sentence of 12 months with the normal statutory terms set out in s 742.3, and further there will be a community service order of 100 hours of community service”. The Member was also asked to pay restitution of $300.00 per month for the length of his sentence.
Counsel for the College stated the College was seeking a finding of professional misconduct against the Member under section 51(1)(a) of the Health Professional Procedural Code. The College counsel further stated that the Member had been found guilty of an offence which is relevant to a finding of professional misconduct and the Member’s suitability to practice.
Decision
Decision
Given the fact that the Member was not present or represented by counsel and was presumed to deny the allegation, the onus of proof is on the College to prove its case on the standard of clear, cogent and convincing evidence. Having considered the evidence and the onus and the standard of proof on the College, the panel finds that the College has proven allegation #3 in the Notice of Hearing that the Member did commit professional misconduct and exhibited a lack of suitability to practice the profession of Nursing. Accordingly, the panel finds that the Member committed an act of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraph 3 of the Notice of Hearing.
Reasons for Decision
Reasons for Decision
Based on the evidence submitted, the panel finds that the Member, while employed as administrator with the Chestnut Retirement Home, defrauded both the facility and its residents. The offence committed was fraud and serious under the Criminal Code and by definition, was done by dishonesty, deceit and falsehood. The panel found this action threatened the trust that the public needs to have in nurses and that it brings nurses’ professional integrity into question.
Penalty
Penalty
The panel was satisfied that the penalty recommended by College counsel of an Oral Reprimand and Revocation of the certificate of registration was appropriate.
Penalty Decision
Penalty Decision
The panel concurs with the penalty submission of counsel for the College and that an appropriate penalty order is as follows:
Oral Reprimand by the panel of the Discipline Committee to be administered within a 3 month time period.
That the Executive Director (Registrar) revoke the Member’s certificate of registration. The above penalty will take effect at the date of this Order.
Reasons for Penalty Decision
Reasons for Penalty Decision
The panel concluded that the penalty is appropriate and in the public interest. The panel could not assess the Member’s feeling of remorse as the Member was not present or represented by counsel. The penalty provides the following:
A specific deterrence to the Member A general deterrence to the profession.
Recognition of the serious crime which imposes a threat to the public trust in nursing.
A severe penalty to the Member recognizing that the standards of trust and honesty will not be compromised in working with the elderly and the elderly in institutions.
Recognition of a violation of an administrator’s role with his peers and the best interest of the residents in the facility he managed.
Recognition that this crime of fraud involving the elements of theft, deceit, dishonesty, deliberate intent and falsehood will not be tolerated.
Recognition that a crime of fraud, and in this case involving $38 000.00, impacting on the care and treatment of the residents will not be tolerated.
The panel concurs, that the profession of nursing should not harbour those who would defraud the elderly or those institutions charged with their care.
I, [name], Public Representative, 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, RPN
Member, RPN
Member, RN
Public Representative 1056