DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO
FULL-TEXT DECISION
Note: This is the full text of the decision of the Discipline panel in this matter. Any information identifying clients, witnesses or facilities has been removed [ ]. The member’s name is omitted if the allegations have been dismissed or if the results are not placed on the public portion of the Register.
PANEL:
Rob Rupert, RN, Chairperson Glenda Hayward, RN Member Kendra O'Bryan, RPN Member Sophie Young Public Member Faye Cole Public Member
BETWEEN:
COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO
-and-
JOAN MARIE WALLACE, RN # 72-0216-1
Marie Henein for College of Nurses of Ontario
Mia London for Joan Marie Wallace
Heard: July 19, 2004
DECISION AND REASONS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee on July 19, 2004 at the College of Nurses of Ontario (“the College”) at Toronto .
The Allegations
The allegations against Joan Marie Wallace, the Member, as stated in the Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) dated May 1, 2004 are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED THAT:
You have committed an act or acts or 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(16) of the Ontario Regulation 799/93 in that between the years 1998 and 2002, you inappropriately used the term, title or designation of Doctor of Education, Master of Science and/or Doctor of Nursing Science in respect of your practise without having the named professional and educational credentials.
You have committed an act or acts or 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 the Ontario Regulation 799/93 between 1998 and 2002, in that you engaged in conduct or performed an act or acts 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 misrepresented that you held the professional and educational credentials of Doctor of Education, Master of Science and/or Doctor of Nursing Science.
Member’s Plea
The Member admitted the allegations set out in paragraphs numbered 1 and 2 in the Notice of Hearing. The panel accepted the signed Plea Enquiry as Exhibit 2.
Agreed Statement of Facts
Counsel for the College advised the panel that agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts (Exhibit 3) which provided as follows:
Background
Joan Marie Wallace, RN, (“the Member”), graduated from the Diploma Program at the [ ] School of Nursing [ ] in 1971 and became registered with the College in the same year. In 1981, the Member graduated from [University A] with a Bachelor of Science in Nursing.
From 1971 to 1981, the Member worked as a staff nurse, head nurse and nurse educator at [Hospital A]. In 1981, the Member was hired as a Staff Nurse with [Hospital B]. The Member subsequently became a Nurse Educator.
In March 25, 1993 , the Member obtained a Masters of Education degree from [University B]. In 1993, the Member provided [Hospital B] with a copy of her Masters of Education degree. She continued to work in Professional Practice at [Hospital B]. Her role was to work on all nursing units to assist nurses with daily practice issues.
Events Relevant to Allegations of Professional Misconduct
In 1998, the Member applied for the position of Co-ordinator, Professional Nursing Practice at [Hospital B]. In the application process the Member indicated that she had completed her Doctor of Education from [University B]. In addition, the Member indicated that she had commenced her doctoral studies at [University C].
The statements made by the Member about her credentials on her application form were false. The Member had never received a Doctor of Education degree from [University B]. In addition, the Member had not commenced any doctoral studies in nursing at [University C] nor had she enrolled in any such program.
The Member was promoted to Co-ordinator, Professional Nursing Practice. The Member’s promotion including her credentials was circulated in a publication throughout the [Hospital B] organization, a copy of which is attached as Appendix “A”. She was commonly referred to as “Doctor Wallace” by hospital staff.
In 2001, the Member advised her employer that she had successfully completed her doctoral studies in nursing at [University C]. This statement was false. The Member did not have a doctoral degree in nursing from [University C] or indeed any other university. As a result of her claimed educational credentials and the quality of her performance, the Member was promoted once again to Director, Professional Nursing Practice. The Member’s false claim that she had successfully received her doctoral degree in nursing and her promotion was once again noted in a hospital publication, copies of which are attached as Appendix “B”.
The Member held a position of responsibility within [Hospital B]. She was responsible for the promotion and enhancement of professional nursing practice, enhancement of the organizational climate and for representing the organization in academic and professional environments.
In the spring of 2002, [ ], the Vice-President and Chief Nursing Officer, requested that the Member apply for an appointment to the Faculty of Nursing at [University B]. [The Vice- President] prepared and sent a letter of reference and asked the Member to review the accuracy of her credentials. The Member verbally confirmed that the credentials of R.N., B.SC.N., M.Ed., M.Sc., D.Ed., D.Sc.N. were correct. A copy of the letter of reference is attached as Appendix “C”. [The President] subsequently found out that the Member did not apply for a faculty appointment.
In November of 2002, [Hospital B] in reviewing their files noted that they did not have copies of the Member’s Doctor of Education ([University B]), Master of Science ([University C]) and Doctor of Nursing Science ([University C]). [Hospital B] requested that the Member provide copies of these degrees to [Hospital B]. The Member did not do so.
[Hospital B] contacted both [University B] and [University C]. Both institutions informed [Hospital B] that the Member had not received a Doctor of Education , a Master of Science or a Doctor of Nursing Sciences.
When confronted with this information by [the Vice-President], the Member continued to insist that she held the degree and attempted to provide reasons for the inability to locate a record of the degree which turned out to be false. [University B] and [University C] did not have a record of the Member obtaining a Doctor of Education, Master of Science or a Doctor of Nursing Science degree.
The Member was once again asked by [the Vice-President] to provide copies of her degrees but did not do so.
At the time that the hospital was investigating the Members degrees, the Member advised [Hospital B] that she had decided to resign. The Member had been in discussions with [the Vice- President] regarding the timing of her resignation for the previous two months. The Member ultimately admitted to [Hospital B] that she had lied about her credentials and did not have a Doctor of Education, a Master of Science or a Doctor of Nursing Science degree.
On November 21, 2002 , the Member’s employment with [Hospital B] was terminated.
The Member’s promotions in [Hospital B] between 1998 to 2001 were based in part on the Member’s false claim that she legitimately held such post-graduate degrees.
From 1987 to 2003, the Member was suffering [from health issues].
If she were to testify, the Member would express her considerable remorse about her behaviour.
Admissions
The Member admits that she has committed acts of professional misconduct in that between the years 1998 and 2002, she inappropriately used the term, title or designation of Doctor of Education ([University B]), Master of Science ([University C]) and Doctor of Nursing Science ([University C]) in respect of her practice without having the named professional and educational degrees.
The Member admits that she has committed acts of professional misconduct in that she engaged in conduct or performed acts relevant to the practice of nursing that having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional in that she misrepresented having professional and educational degrees of Doctor of Education ([University B]), Master of Science ([University C]) and Doctor of Nursing Science ([University C]).
Decision
The panel considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct and, in particular, finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Notice of Hearing. The Member inappropriately used the term, title or designation of Doctor of Education, Master of Science and/or Doctor of Nursing Science without having the named professional and educational credentials. Furthermore the Member engaged in conduct or performed an act or acts 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 she misrepresented that she held the professional and educational credentials of Doctor of Education, Master of Science and/or Doctor of Nursing Science.
Reasons for Decision
The panel deliberated and after due consideration of all the facts and the Member’s admission to the allegations unanimously decided to accept the Agreed Statement of Facts as presented, which substantiated the findings of professional misconduct by the panel.
Penalty
Counsel for both parties advised the panel that they had agreed to the following penalty:
An oral reprimand; and
A suspension of the Member’s Certificate of Registration for a period of three months.
Counsel for the College submitted that this penalty reflected the seriousness of the misconduct and the Member’s senior Nursing role that required a very significant expectation of trust and decision making in the organization where she was employed. Counsel for the Member had nothing further to add to the submission of the College with regards to this part of the penalty.
Counsel for the College submitted that the penalty should also include a requirement of notification in that the Member be required, for a one year period, to notify any employer of this penalty decision. As well, this penalty would require the Employer to notify the College of any acts of professional misconduct by the Member. Ms. Henein stated that this proposed penalty reflects the seriousness of this misconduct that happened repeatedly and undermines the confidence and trust of the profession. This penalty would act in a rehabilitative nature for the Member and as a deterrent to other Members.
Counsel for the Member submitted that they did not agree with this penalty submission. Counsel stated that the oral reprimand and the suspension would act as a specific deterrent to the Member and to protect the public interest. Counsel submitted that there were no cases in the jurisprudence to support this proposed penalty and presented the panel with three cases from this College to support her submission. Counsel submitted that there were no allegations regarding the Member’s nursing practice, and therefore, the reporting requirement was not warranted.
Independent Legal Counsel (ILC) was consulted by the panel with regards to the procedural management of a partial joint submission as to penalty. ILC advised the panel and both Counsel that the questions to be answered by Counsel were:
were the oral reprimand and suspension separate issues from the reporting proposal?
what were the details of the reporting proposal and did Counsel have further to submit about this part of the penalty?
Counsel for the College responded that the oral reprimand and suspension were agreed to by both parties and were separate from the proposed reporting requirement. Counsel for the Member acknowledged her agreement.
Counsel for the College then offered to provide the panel with a written proposal about the reporting requirement. Counsel stated that this would require the Member to inform the employer of the penalty decision and the employer to notify the College of any professional misconduct.
Counsel for the Member re-submitted that they did not agree with this proposed requirement as it was not in keeping with other decisions by this College. Counsel further submitted that if the panel chose to have a reporting requirement, it should not include the Employer’s requirement to report any misconduct as this was inherent in the Employer’s ongoing obligations. Furthermore, Counsel submitted that this requirement was very broad and did not fit with the offence.
Penalty Decision
The panel considered the submissions of Counsel for the College and the Member and makes the following order:
that the Member attend before this panel of the Discipline Committee for an oral reprimand.
that the Executive Director suspend the Member’s certificate of registration for three months.
that the Executive Director impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s certificate of registration:
Upon resumption of practice after completing the period of suspension referred to above, the Member may practice only where she practices for an employer where the following conditions apply:
i. the Member must deliver to the Director by courier or other verifiable method of delivery, written notification of the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all facilities, as well as the name of her direct supervisor, for whom she practices nursing;
ii. the Member must provide the employer with a copy of the panel’s penalty order, or, if available, its decision and reasons in advance of commencing or resuming practice;
iii. the employer agrees to write to the Director within fourteen days of commencement or resumption of the Member’s employment to advise the Director of the following:
the date the Member commenced or resumed employment as a nurse,
that the employer has received a copy of the panel’s penalty order or, if available, its decision and reasons.
iv. the terms and conditions set out in paragraph 3 shall remain in effect until the Member has been engaged in the regular practice of nursing for a total of 52 weeks.
Reason for Penalty Decision
The panel duly considered the submissions of Counsel for the College and the Member. The panel found the suspension of three months would act as a general and specific deterrent to the profession, and reflects the very serious nature of this offence. The panel determined that the reporting requirement is necessary to reflect the repetitive nature of the Member’s dishonest behaviour and the fact that she failed to disclose her lack of qualifications even when questioned by her previous Employer. The panel agreed with Counsel for the College that this penalty would act as a rehabilitative measure for the Member. The panel agreed with Counsel for the Member that a requirement for the Member’s employer to report any misconduct should not be included in this penalty order as it is part of their ongoing reporting obligation.
I, Rob Rupert, RN, 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:
Rob Rupert, RN, Chairperson
Panel Members:
Glenda Hayward, RN
Kendra O'Bryan, RPN
Sophie Young, Public Member Faye Cole, Public Member