College of Nurses of Ontario v. Tanya Bogdanovich, 2016 ONCNO 104250

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO

PANEL:

MARGARET TUOMI, Chairperson Public Member

TANYA DION, RN Member TERRY HOLLAND, RPN Member MARY MACMILLAN-GILKINSON Public Member

DESIREE ANN PRILLO, RPN Member

BETWEEN:

COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO JEAN-CLAUDE KILLEY for College of Nurses of Ontario

• and -

TANYA BOGDANOVICH Registration No. AB850364 SELF-REPRESENTATION for Tanya Bogdanovich

JOHANNA BRADEN

Independent Legal Counsel

Heard: November 24, 2016

DECISION AND REASONS

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) on November 24, 2016 at the College of Nurses of Ontario (“the College”) at Toronto.

Tanya Bogdanovich (the “Member”) was not represented but was present via tele-conference.

The Allegations

The allegation against the Member as stated in the Notice of Hearing dated August 30, 2016 is as follows.

IT IS ALLEGED THAT:

1. 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 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 of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, and in particular, on or about January 1, 2013, you participated in the kidnapping, forcible confinement, sexual assault, and/or murder of [the Victim], for which you were found guilty of first degree murder contrary to s. 235(1) of the Criminal Code.

Member’s Plea

The Member admitted the allegation set out in paragraph 1 in the Notice of Hearing. The Panel received a written plea inquiry which was signed by the Member. The Panel also conducted an oral plea inquiry and was satisfied that the Member’s admission was voluntary, informed and unequivocal.

Agreed Statement of Facts

Counsel for the College and the Member advised the Panel that agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts, which reads as follows.

THE MEMBER

1. Tanya Bogdanovich (the “Member”) obtained a diploma in nursing from Lambton College in 2012.

2. The Member registered with the College of Nurses of Ontario (the “College”) as a Registered Practical Nurse (“RPN”) on October 1, 2012. The Member was administratively suspended for non-payment of fees from February 18, 2014 to March 20, 2014. She was administratively revoked for non-payment of fees on March 20, 2014.

INCIDENT RELEVANT TO ALLEGATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

Finding of Guilt of First Degree Murder

3. On January 1, 2013, at 2:06 a.m., 27-year old [Victim] left a New Year’s Eve party in downtown [ ], Ontario.

4. The Member and her boyfriend, M.M., had been planning the abduction, rape and murder of a random victim on New Year’s Eve.

5. As they were driving around, the Member and M.M. spotted [the Victim] walking alone. The Member dropped M.M. off so she could lure [the Victim] into the car. [The Victim] got into the car with the Member. She then picked up M.M. and drove out of town.

6. The Member and M.M. drove [the Victim] more than 18 kilometres out of [ ] to a remote, rural area on the County of [ ]. [The Victim] was directed at knifepoint approximately 170 meters into a forested area where she was raped and then attacked with knives by both M.M. and the Member.

7. [The Victim] died of her injuries in the wooded area.

8. The Member and M.M. were arrested on January 3, 2013 in [ ], Ontario where M.M. had gone to receive surgery to repair injuries to his hand, incurred during the knife attack on [the Victim].

9. On December 18, 2015, the Member pled to and was found guilty of the first degree murder of [the Victim], contrary to section 235(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. On February 11, 2016, the Member was sentenced to life in prison with no eligibility for parole for 25 years. She was required to submit a DNA sample and to be registered in the sex offender registry.

ADMISSIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

10. The Member admits that she committed the acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraph 1 of the Notice of Hearing, and in particular her participation in the kidnapping, forcible confinement, sexual assault, and murder of [the Victim] The Member also admits that her conviction for first degree murder, as described in paragraphs 3 to 9 above, is disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

Decision

The Panel finds that the Member committed professional misconduct as alleged in paragraph 1 of the Notice of Hearing. The Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct that would reasonably be considered by members to be disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

Reasons for Decision

The panel considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and the Member’s plea and finds that this evidence supports a finding of professional misconduct as alleged in the Notice of Hearing. Although the Member was not a member of the College at the time she was convicted of the offence, she was a member of the College when the offence was planned and committed.

The allegation in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct in participating in the kidnapping, forcible confinement, sexual assault and murder of [the Victim] was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. The Member’s premeditated conduct was heinous. Such despicable behaviour is disgraceful in that it casts serious doubt on her moral fitness and inherent ability to discharge the higher obligations the public expects professionals to meet. The Member’s actions were dishonourable in that she demonstrated deceit and dishonesty when she lured an innocent and unsuspecting victim for the purposes of rape and murder. The Member’s actions are unprofessional in that they fall well below the standards of a professional nurse whose mandate is to preserve and to enhance life. The actions of this Member are vile and morally repugnant.

Penalty

Counsel for the College and the Member advised the Panel that a Joint Submission on Order had been agreed upon. The Joint Submission requests that this Panel make an order directing the Executive Director to immediately revoke the Member’s certificate of registration.

Penalty Submissions

Submissions were made by College Counsel. The Member indicated that she agreed with the submissions.

College Counsel acknowledged that the Member has been incarcerated since 2014 and, as a result, is no longer a risk to the public. He also acknowledged that the Member’s certificate has been administratively revoked for non-payment of fines since 2014, however, the Panel still has the authority to revoke her certificate for disciplinary purposes. Counsel submitted that revocation will show the public that the College is aware of the seriousness of the Member’s crimes. He submitted that a decision to revoke the Member’s certificate would continue to ensure public confidence in the self-regulatory process.

Counsel submitted two cases to the panel to demonstrate that the proposed penalty fell within the range of similar cases from this Discipline Committee. In the case of CNO v. Philp (Discipline Committee, 2012), the member was convicted of attempted murder and arson with disregard for human life. Her certificate of registration was revoked. In the case of CNO v. Kieda (Discipline Committee, 2015), the member was convicted of second degree murder. His certificate of registration was revoked.

Penalty Decision

The Panel accepts the Joint Submission as to Order and accordingly directs the Executive Director to immediately revoke the Member’s certificate of registration.

Reasons for Penalty Decision

The Panel understands that the penalty ordered should protect the public and enhance public confidence in the ability of the College to regulate nurses. The Panel also considered the penalty in light of the principle that joint submissions should not be interfered with lightly.

Although the Member is incarcerated and the public is in that sense protected, revocation ensures public confidence in the self-regulatory process. The Panel wants to send a strong message that such reprehensible conduct is fundamentally inconsistent with the core values of the profession. Such contemptible behaviour will not be tolerated by the profession. The penalty of revocation is in line with what has been ordered in previous cases. It is the only possible penalty in these circumstances.

I, Margaret Tuomi, Public Member, 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:

Margaret Tuomi, Public Member

Tanya Dion, RN

Terry Holland, RPN

Mary MacMillan-Gilkinson, Public Member

Desiree Ann Prillo, RPN```