DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO
PANEL: Dennis Curry, RN Chairperson Lorenza Barron, RN Member Kim Jinkerson, RPN Member Abdul Patel Public Member Margaret Tuomi Public Member
BETWEEN:
COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO JEAN-CLAUDE KILLEY for College of Nurses of Ontario
- and -
JILLIAN GHESQUIERE Registration No. 7427826 JONATHAN PAUL AFFLECK for Jillian Ghesquiere
LUISA RITACCA Independent Legal Counsel
Heard: April 2, 2013
DECISION AND REASONS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee on April 2, 2013, at the College of Nurses of Ontario (“the College”) at Toronto.
The Allegations
The allegations against Jillian Ghesquiere (the “Member”) as stated in the Notice of Hearing dated February 13, 2013, are as follows.
IT IS ALLEGED THAT:
- 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 you were found guilty of an offence that is relevant to your suitability to practise, and in particular, on or about March 16, 2012, you were found guilty of the criminal offence of fraud of a value exceeding $5,000.00, contrary to s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Member’s Plea
The Member admitted to the allegation set out in paragraph 1 in the Notice of Hearing. The panel conducted an oral plea inquiry and was satisfied that the Member’s admission was voluntary, informed and unequivocal.
Agreed Evidence
Counsel for the College advised the panel that an agreement had been reached on the facts and presented the panel with a book of documents containing four exhibits. These exhibits included a certified copy of the Information and Indictment concerning the Member, and the transcript from her criminal trial in the Ontario Court of Justice where she pleaded guilty and was sentenced. The essential facts of the offence were that she improperly used the corporate credit card of her employer, [ ], and thereby defrauded her employer of approximately $30,000.
The panel was not provided with a written agreed statement of facts but was assured by both counsel that the evidence contained in the exhibits represented the facts on which the panel could rely.
Decision
The panel considered the evidence from the criminal proceeding and finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct in that the Member committed an act of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraph 1 of the Notice of Hearing in that she was found guilty of the criminal offence of fraud of a value exceeding $5,000.00 contrary to s.380 (1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The offence is relevant to the Member’s suitability to practi[s]e.
Penalty
Counsel for the College advised the panel that the parties had agreed that revocation was the most appropriate penalty. Counsel also informed the panel that the Member had already resigned her certificate of registration prior to this proceeding.
Penalty Submissions
College Counsel submitted that the only appropriate penalty is revocation of the Member’s certificate of registration. He stated that Member’s conduct involves deceit, dishonesty and a breach of public trust. He added that the public’s confidence in the College’s ability to self-regulate would be undermined if the Member were not given a severe penalty.
College Counsel advised the panel that this Member had resigned her certificate of registration prior to the hearing, but that the panel still retained jurisdiction over her conduct while she was registered, pursuant to s. 14(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code. This was because members ought not be permitted to escape sanctions for their conduct through resignation. College Counsel stated that the revocation of the Member’s certificate of registration would prevent her from reapplying within one year and would be recorded on the College’s Public Register. College Counsel also submitted that the Member had committed the offence for her own financial gain. The proposed penalty imposes specific deterrence for the Member and sends a clear message to the profession and the public that there is no tolerance for breaches of trust of this kind.
Defense Counsel stated that the Member had made partial restitution, had already suffered financially and had not appeared previously before the College. He also stated that the Member supported the penalty as proposed.
Penalty Decision
The panel accepts the penalty proposed by College Counsel and supported by Defense Counsel. The panel directs the Executive Director to revoke the Member’s certificate of registration.
Reasons for Penalty Decision
The panel concluded that revocation is reasonable and in the public interest. The Member has co-operated with the College and, by agreeing to the facts and the proposed penalty, has accepted responsibility for her actions. The panel finds that the penalty of revocation provides deterrence to the Member and to the membership while protecting the public.
I, Dennis Curry, 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:
Chairperson Date
Panel Members:
Lorenza Barron, RN
Kim Jinkerson, RPN
Abdul Patel, Public Member
Margaret Tuomi, Public Member