DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO
PANEL: Michael Hogard, RPN Chairperson April Cheese, RPN Member Dennis Curry, RN Member Joan King Public Member Margaret Tuomi Public Member
BETWEEN:
COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO
- and - LOU-ANNE SAMSON Registration No. HC07266
COUNSEL: MEGAN SHORTREED for College of Nurses of Ontario NO REPRESENTATION for Lou-Anne Samson
Heard: July 26, 2010
DECISION AND REASONS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee on July 26, 2010 at the College of Nurses of Ontario (“the College”) at Toronto.
The hearing commenced at 9:05 a.m. Lou-Ann Samson (the “Member”) was not present, but was expected. The Panel recessed for 30 minutes to give the Member time to attend. At 9:30 a.m., the Panel was informed that the Member was some distance away and not likely to arrive before noon. The Panel adjourned until 12:30 p.m.
The hearing commenced at 12:30 p.m. and the Member was in attendance via teleconference. The panel granted the Member’s request to attend via teleconference pursuant to Rule 5 of the Discipline Committee’s Rules. The Member stated that she had signed the Agreed Statement of Facts and the Joint Submission on Order on July 12, 2010.
The Allegations
The allegations against the Member as stated in the Notice of Hearing dated May 19, 2010 are as follows:
- 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 while a member of the College of Nurses of Ontario, you were found guilty of offences relevant to your suitability to practise, and in particular:
(a) on September 20, 2004, in the Ontario Court of Justice [ ], you were found guilty of:
i. 4 counts of knowingly using a forged document as if it were genuine, contrary to Section 368(1)(a) of the Criminal Code;
ii. 2 counts of failing without excuse to comply with a probation order, contrary to Section 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code;
iii. 1 count of stealing a cheque of a value not exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to Section 334(b) of the Criminal Code;
iv. 1 count of defraud of money of a value not exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to Section 380(1)(b) of the Criminal Code; and
v. 1 count of defraud of money of a value exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to Section 380(1) of the Criminal Code;
(b) on April 14, 2005, in the Ontario Court of Justice [ ], you were found guilty of:
i. 1 count of willfully attempting to obstruct justice, contrary to Section 139(2) of the Criminal Code; and
ii. 1 count of fraud of money of a value not exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to Section 380(1) of the Criminal Code;
(c) on September 19, 2008, in the Ontario Court of Justice [ ], you were found guilty of:
i. 1 count of defrauding of money of a value not exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to Section 380(1) of the Criminal Code;
ii. 1 count of fraudulent personation with intent to obtain property, contrary to Section 403(b) of the Criminal Code; and
iii. 1 count of failing without lawful excuse to comply with a condition, contrary to Section 145(5.1) of the Criminal Code; and
(d) on January 3, 2008, in the Ontario Court of Justice [ ], you were found guilty of:
i. 1 count of obtaining a sum of money of a value not exceeding $5,000.00 by a false pretence and with intent to defraud, contrary to Section 362(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.
Member’s Plea
The Member admitted the allegations set out in paragraphs numbered 1 a, b, c and d in the Notice of Hearing. The panel conducted an oral plea inquiry via teleconference, and was satisfied that the Member’s admissions were voluntary, informed and unequivocal.
Agreed Statement of Facts
Counsel for the College advised the panel that the agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts which provided as follows.
THE MEMBER
Lou-Anne Samson (the “Member”) was registered with the College of Nurses of Ontario (the “College”) as a Registered Practical Nurse (“RPN”) on January 1, 1983.
The Member resigned her certificate of registration on February 23, 2009, while subject to this disciplinary proceeding.
PRIOR DISCIPLINE HISTORY
A discipline hearing was held on June 20, 2002 respecting the Member. The Member and the College submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty. The Panel’s Decision and Reasons were released on July 16, 2002.
The Panel made eight findings of professional misconduct as follows:
a. On August 30, 2000 and June 21, 2001, the Member was found guilty of an offence that is relevant to her suitability to practise in that she pleaded guilty to a charge of using a stolen credit card at a [ ] bank machine on June 4, 1999;
b. On August 30, 2000 and June 21, 2001, the Member was found guilty of an offence that is relevant to her suitability to practise in that she pleaded guilty to a charge of using a stolen credit card at [a currency exchange] on June 4, 1999;
c. On August 30, 2000 and June 21, 2001, the Member was found guilty of an offence that is relevant to her suitability to practise in that she pleaded guilty to a charge of using a stolen credit card at a [ ] bank machine on June 5, 1999;
d. On June 21, 2001, the Member was found guilty of an offence that is relevant to her suitability to practise in that she pleaded guilty to a charge of defrauding [a store] of money of a value not exceeding $5,000 between September 21 and 25, 2000;
e. On June 21, 2001, the Member was found guilty of an offence that is relevant to her suitability to practise in that she pleaded guilty to a charge of defrauding [a bank] of money of a value not exceeding $5,000 on November 30, 1999;
f. On June 21, 2001, the Member was found guilty of an offence that is relevant to her suitability to practise in that she pleaded guilty to a charge of defrauding [a bank] of money of a value not exceeding $5,000 on August 20, 2000;
g. On June 21, 2001, the Member was found guilty of an offence that is relevant to her suitability to practise in that she pleaded guilty to a charge of defrauding [a store] of money of a value not exceeding $5,000 on October 6, 2000; and
h. On June 21, 2001, the Member was found guilty of an offence that is relevant to her suitability to practise in that she pleaded guilty to a charge of defrauding [a store] of money of a value not exceeding $5,000 on October 2, 2000.
- The Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
a. Directing the Executive Director to suspend the Member’s certificate of registration for a period of four months [ ] commencing on the date that the Member renews her registration with the College;
b. Directing the Executive Director to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s certificate of registration:
i. The Member shall successfully complete, at her own expense, a course approved by the Director of [Professional Conduct] in nursing ethics from a post-secondary educational institution; and
c. Requiring the Member to appear before the panel of the Discipline Committee to be reprimanded.
- [The] Decisions and Reasons of the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario [was] dated July 16, 2002.
INCIDENTS RELEVANT TO ALLEGATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
The Member was employed at the [Facility] from March 3, 2008 until March 25, 2008. The Member worked at [the Facility] in a non-nursing capacity in the Human Resources Department where she was responsible for maintaining personnel records and administering payroll.
The Member was terminated from her position at [the Facility] after an article appeared in a local newspaper regarding the following incidents of criminal conduct.
The Member was found guilty of 15 criminal offences between 2004 and 2008, in addition to those for which she was prosecuted before the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario in 2002.
Findings of Guilt on September 23, 2004
- On September 23, 2004, the Member was found guilty of the following nine criminal offences:
a. Four counts of knowingly using a forged document as if it were genuine contrary to section 368(1)(a) of the Criminal Code as follows:
i. On March 29, 2001 and June 8, 2002, the Member knowingly used a forged cheque as if it were genuine,
ii. On November 23, 2002, the Member knowingly used a forged [ ] bank draft as if it were genuine,
iii. On July 9, 2003, the Member knowingly used a forged document, namely an altered Criminal Record Check in her name, as if it were genuine;
b. Two counts of failing without excuse to comply with a probation order, contrary to section 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code as follows:
i. On June 8, 2002, while bound by a probation order made [ ] on June 21, 2001, the Member failed without reasonable excuse to comply with the order. Specifically, she failed to keep the peace and be of good behaviour,
ii. On November 23, 2002, while bound by a probation order made [ ] on June 21, 2001, the Member failed without reasonable excuse to comply with the order. Specifically, she failed to keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
c. One count of stealing a cheque of a value not exceeding $5,000 contrary to section 334(b) of the Criminal Code. Specifically, on August 28, 2003, the Member stole a cheque, the property of [a school], with a value of less than $5,000;
d. One count of defrauding money of a value not exceeding $5,000 contrary to section 380(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. Specifically, on September 6, 2003, the Member by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means defrauded [a school] of the sum of $830 by cashing a cheque for this amount made out to herself; and
e. One count of defrauding money of a value exceeding $5,000 contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. Specifically, between February 10, 2003 and April 2, 2004, the Member by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means defrauded [a credit card company] of the sum of $6,011.72 by using a forged credit card.
The Member received a six-month jail term followed by a two year probationary period for each of the nine findings of guilt. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.
During the proceedings, the [judge] noted that, “The various schemes that were used by Ms. Samson to accomplish her frauds were a breach of trust by stealing cheques from an employer and forging those cheques for large amounts of money.”
It was also noted by the Crown Attorney that one of the complainants was the Member’s step daughter.
Findings of Guilt on April 14, 2005
- On April 14, 2005, the Member was found guilty of the following two criminal offences:
a. One count of wilfully attempting to obstruct justice contrary to section 139(2) of the Criminal Code. Specifically, on September 9, 2004, the Member wilfully attempted to obstruct the course of justice by providing a forged document to Probation Services during the preparation of a pre-sentence report; and
b. One count of fraud of money of a value not exceeding $5,000 contrary to section 380(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. Specifically, on September 18, 2003, the Member by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means defrauded [a financial institution] by holding out a worthless cheque as if it were genuine.
- The Member received a sentence of a one day jail term for each finding of guilt, both of which sentences were suspended.
Findings of Guilt on September 19, 2008
- On September 19, 2008, the Member was found guilty of the following three criminal offences:
a. One count of defrauding money of a value not exceeding $5,000 contrary to section 380(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. Specifically, between November 9, 2007 and December 12, 2007 the Member by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means defrauded [an individual] by using her credit card;
b. One count of fraudulent personation with intent to obtain property, contrary to section 403(b) of the Criminal Code. Specifically between November 9, 2007 and December 12, 2007 the Member fraudulently personated [an individual] with intent to obtain cash, services and merchandise; and
c. One count of failing without lawful excuse to comply with a condition contrary to section 145(5.1) of the Criminal Code. Specifically, between November 9, 2007 and December 12, 2007, the Member failed without lawful excuse to abide by a condition of an undertaking that she entered into before an officer in charge, namely to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
The Member received a suspended sentence and 36 months of probation for each finding of guilt, to be served concurrently. In this instance, the Member served 107 days of pre-trial custody, which was considered by the Court in determining the appropriate sentence. A compensation order was made requiring the Member to pay the full sum defrauded of $8,102.40 to [the individual]. A restitution order was also made requiring the Member to pay $100 per month towards the restitution order for each month of the 36 months of the suspended sentence.
During the proceedings, the [judge] noted that:
In light of the pre-trial detention, in light of the guilty plea, it’s not necessary for me to consider a further period of incarceration even though, of course, there’s a very significant breach of trust and, to a certain extent, the moral culpability is elevated which is a polite way of saying it’s despicable to steal from anyone, but its despicable to take things from people that are in a relationship of trust. We leave our bags lying around our friends because we don’t expect them to be dipping into it to get our wallets.
Findings of Guilt on January 3, 2008
- On January 3, 2008, the Member was found guilty of the following criminal offence:
a. One count of obtaining a sum of money of a value not exceeding $5,000 by a false pretence and with intent to defraud contrary to section 362(2)(b) of the Criminal Code. Specifically, between June 17, 2004 and July 28, 2004, the Member obtained a sum of money of a value not exceeding $5,000 from [a bank].
The Member was given a suspended sentence and placed on probation for one day for this finding of guilt. In making this order, the Court considered that this incident occurred at the same time as a number of other charges that were previously resolved. Further, the police did not address this incident when the other charges were laid, even though it was known to them at that time.
During the proceedings, the [judge] stated, “You’ve done everything the Court would have hoped you would have done when you were placed on the conditional sentence. So I see no reason to impose any further conditions at this time and given these circumstances.”
ADMISSIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
The Member admits that all 15 criminal offences for which she was found guilty are relevant to her suitability to practise nursing.
The Member admits that she committed acts of professional misconduct, as set out in allegation 1 of the Notice of Hearing, in that she was found guilty of offences relevant to her suitability to practise, and in particular:
a. On September 20, 2004, in the Ontario Court of Justice [ ], she was found guilty of:
i. 4 counts of knowingly using a forged document as if it were genuine, contrary to section 368(1)(a) of the Criminal Code;
ii. 2 counts of failing without excuse to comply with a probation order contrary to section 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code;
iii. 1 count of stealing a cheque of a value not exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to section 334(b) of the Criminal Code;
iv. 1 count of defraud of money of a value not exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to section 380(1)(b) of the Criminal Code;
v. 1 count of defraud of money of a value exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to section 380(1) of the Criminal Code;
b. On April 14, 2005, in the Ontario Court of Justice [ ], she was found guilty of:
i. 1 count of wilfully attempting to obstruct justice, contrary to section 139(2) of the Criminal Code;
ii. 1 count of fraud of money of a value not exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to section 380(1) of the Criminal Code;
c. On September 19, 2008, in the Ontario Court of Justice [ ], she was found guilty of:
i. 1 count of defrauding of money of a value not exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to section 380(1) of the Criminal Code;
ii. 1 count of fraudulent personation with intent to obtain property, contrary to section 403(b) of the Criminal Code;
iii. 1 count of failing without lawful excuse to comply with a condition, contrary to section 145(5.1) of the Criminal Code; and
d. On January 3, 2008, in the Ontario Court of Justice [ ], she was found guilty of:
i. 1 count of obtaining a sum of money of a value not exceeding $5,000.00 by a false pretence and with intent to defraud, contrary to section 362(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.
Decision
The panel considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and finds the facts support a finding of professional misconduct and, in particular, finds the Member committed an act of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraphs 1 a, b, c and d in the Notice of Hearing, in that the Member was found guilty of 15 criminal offences relevant to her suitability to practise. The panel determined that because the convictions involve theft, fraud, forgery, breach of probation orders, deceit, falsehood and lack of honesty, they are all relevant to the Member’s suitability to practise nursing.
Penalty
Counsel for the College advised the panel that a Joint Submission as to Penalty had been agreed upon by the College and the Member. The Joint Submission requested that the panel make an order:
requiring the Member to appear before the panel to be reprimanded on a date to be arranged but, in any event, within three (3) months of the date of the Order; and
directing the Executive Director to revoke the Member’s [c]ertificate of [r]egistration.
Penalty Submissions
Counsel for the College submitted that although the offen[c]es were not specifically related to the Member’s workplace, they were contrary to the principles of trust, honesty and integrity which are cornerstones of the nursing profession. Protecting the public is a core value of the profession, and the Member’s criminal conduct threatens the trust the public needs to have in a nurse.
Penalty Decision
The panel accepts the Joint Submission on Order and accordingly orders as follows:
The Member is to appear before the Panel to be reprimanded on a date to be arranged but, in any event, within three (3) months of the date of the Order.
The Executive Director is directed to revoke the Member’s [c]ertificate of [r]egistration.
Reasons for Penalty Decision
The panel concluded that the proposed penalty is reasonable and in the public interest.
The repetitive nature of the misconduct – 23 criminal convictions over a ten-year period – demonstrates that the Member lacks honesty and trustworthiness, and is ungovernable. Further, this is the Member’s second appearance before the Discipline Committee for the same misconduct.
The revocation of the Member’s [c]ertificate of [r]egistration sends a clear message to the membership at large. This decision is clearly in the interest of public protection.
I, Michael Hogard, RPN, 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
Panel Members:
April Cheese, RPN Dennis Curry, RN Joan King, Public Member Margaret Tuomi, Public Member