College of Nurses of Ontario v. Claude Robichaud, 2016 CanLII 105648

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO

PANEL: Tammy Hedge, RPN Chairperson Dawn Cutler, RN Member Cathy Egerton Public Member Cheryl Evans, RN Member Ashleigh Molloy Public Member

BETWEEN:

COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO ) EMILY LAWRENCE for ) College of Nurses of Ontario

• and - )

CLAUDE ROBICHAUD )

Reg. No. 11444895 ) CAROL STREET for

) Claude Robichaud

) ANDREA GONSALVES

) Independent Legal Counsel

) Heard: December 12-14, 2016

DECISION AND REASONS

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) on December 12, 2016 at the College of Nurses of Ontario (“the College”) at Toronto.

Publication Ban

College Counsel, with the consent of the Member’s counsel, requested a ban on the public disclosure, including publication and broadcasting, of the identities of the complainants and clients referred to in this Discipline hearing, and on any information that could disclose their identities. The Panel granted the motion.

The Allegations

Counsel for the College advised the Panel that the College was requesting leave to withdraw the

allegations set out in paragraphs 1(a)(i)(iii) and 2(a)(i)(iii) of the Notice of Hearing dated August 29, 2016. The Panel granted this request.

The remaining allegations against Claude Robichaud (the “Member”) as stated in the Notice of Hearing dated August 29, 2016 are 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(1) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that while employed as a Registered Nurse at [the Facility] (the “Hospital”), you contravened a standard of practice of the profession or failed to meet the standards of practice of the profession, as follows:

a. on March 26, 2014, you sexually harassed your co-worker, [Co-worker A], in that you:

i. {withdrawn}

ii. made inappropriate comments to [Co-worker A] regarding a stretcher;

iii. {withdrawn}

iv. touched [Co-worker A’s] leg with your leg without [Co-worker A’s] consent;

b. on March 26, 2014, you sexually harassed your co-worker [Co-worker B], in that you:

i. commented that a patient was mesmerized by [Co-worker B’s] “beautiful green eyes” or words to that effect; and/or

ii. touched and/or caressed [Co-worker B’s] ear and/or neck with your hand without [Co-worker B’s] consent; and/or

c. on March 26, 2014, you engaged in an unprofessional interaction with your co-worker [Co-worker C] in that:

i. when [Co-worker C] asked you what you were looking for in the lunch room of the Hospital, you approached [Co-worker C], pressed your thigh against [Co-worker C’s] upper arm while [Co-worker C] was sitting and you were standing, squeezed [Co-worker C’s] shoulder and said “you!”.

2. 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 while employed as a Registered Nurse at the Hospital, 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 as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, as follows:

a. on March 26, 2014, you sexually harassed your co-worker, [Co-worker A], in that you:

i. {withdrawn}

ii. made inappropriate comments to [Co-worker A] regarding a stretcher;

iii. {withdrawn}

iv. touched [Co-worker A’s] leg with your leg without [Co-worker A’s] consent;

b. on March 26, 2014, you sexually harassed your co-worker [Co-worker B], in that you:

i. commented that a patient was mesmerized by [Co-worker B’s] “beautiful green eyes” or words to that effect; and/or

ii. touched and/or caressed [Co-worker B’s] ear and/or neck with your hand without [Co-worker B’s] consent; and/or

c. on March 26, 2014, you engaged in an unprofessional interaction with your co-worker [Co-worker C] in that:

i. when [Co-worker C] asked you what you were looking for in the lunch room of the Hospital, you approached [Co-worker C], pressed your thigh against [Co-worker C’s] upper arm while [Co-worker C] was sitting and you were standing, squeezed [Co-worker C’s] shoulder and said “you!”.

Member’s Plea

The Member initially denied the allegations, and the Panel heard evidence from two witnesses called by the College. The parties then asked the Panel for a brief adjournment to discuss a potential resolution.

When the hearing resumed, the College withdrew certain allegations and the Member admitted the remaining allegations, with one qualification. Allegations 1 and 2 both refer to “sexual harassment”. The Member admitted that his conduct was “harassment”, but not sexual harassment. He specifically admitted the allegations set out in paragraphs 1(a)(ii), (iv); 1(b)(i), (ii); 1(c)(i) and 2(a)(ii), (iv); 2(b)(i) (ii); 2(c)(i) in the Notice of Hearing, in that he harassed co-workers as alleged. The College was content with the Member’s admission.

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.

The Evidence

The Panel heard from two witnesses called by the College. The first witness, [Co-worker D], had been an RN with the College since 1995 and at the time of the allegations was the Acting Director of Nursing at the Facility where the Member was employed. [Co-worker D] testified to the following:

• layout of the facility;

• the format of the staff assignments;

• the type of assignment the Member had been given the day of the incident;

• the timesheet that showed the Member was on the floor the day of the incident;

• that she was not directly involved in the investigation; and

• the investigation was done by a third party outside of the facility.

The second witness, [Co-worker B], was one of the Member’s former co-workers mentioned in the allegations. [Co-worker B] testified about [Co-worker B’s] interactions with the Member, particularly on March 26, 2014. The parties reached a resolution before [Co-worker B’s] cross-examination by the Member’s counsel was complete. Accordingly, the Panel put little weight on [Co-worker B’s] evidence and relied primarily instead on the evidence in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Agreed Statement of facts submitted in this case reads as follows.

THE MEMBER

1. Claude Robichaud (the “Member”) obtained a diploma in nursing from New Brunswick in 1987.

2. The Member registered with the College of Nurses of Ontario (the “College”) as a Registered Nurse (“RN”) in January 2011. Prior to moving to Ontario and registering with the College, the Member was employed as an RN in New Brunswick for approximately 22 years.

3. After the Member moved to Ontario and during the relevant times, he was employed at [the Facility] (the “Facility”) from April 2011 to May 2014, when his employment ended as a result of the incidents that occurred on March 26, 2014, as described below.

4. The Member’s first language is French. During the incidents on March 26, 2014, he communicated in English.

THE FACILITY

5. The Facility is located in [ ], Ontario and was a 375 bed acute care facility. The Member’s spouse was the Facility’s [ ].

6. The Member worked as a full-time staff nurse on the Nurse Resource Team (“NRT”). The nurses on the NRT are assigned to work in locations where staffing is needed.

7. On the day of the incidents, the Member was assigned to the Oncology/Medical floor. It was his first day on the floor. He was scheduled to work 0730 to 1930.

8. The Member acknowledges that he is a tactile person who uses touch to communicate, and that the Facility has cautioned him previously about maintaining physical boundaries with clients.

INCIDENTS RELEVANT TO ALLEGATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

[Co-Worker C]

9. [Co-worker C] was employed as an RPN at the Facility.

10. During a break at approximately 1000 on March 26, 2014, [Co-worker C] was sitting in the lounge/kitchen with two of [Co-worker C’s] colleagues. The Member entered the area looking for something. When [Co-worker C] asked what he was looking for, he approached [Co-worker C], pressed his thigh against [Co-worker C’s] upper arm/shoulder area, touched [Co-worker C’s] shoulder and said, “you!” [Co-worker C] said “ok” and the Member left.

11. If [Co-worker C] were to testify, [Co-worker C] would state that [ ] did not understand why he chose to respond to [ ] question in that manner nor why he came close enough to [ ] to touch any part of [Co-worker C’s] body.

12. If the Member were to testify, he would state that he was offended by [Co-worker C’s] tone when [Co-worker C] asked him what he was looking for, which he perceived to be hostile, which is why he reacted the way he did.

13. The Member acknowledges that his conduct towards [Co-worker C] was confrontational, improper and unprofessional.

[Co-Worker B]

14. [Co-worker B] was an RPN who was also working on the NRT as a float nurse. [Co-worker B] was assigned to a 1:1 with a client on March 26, 2014 between 0730 and 1930.

15. [Co-worker B] and the Member had been assigned on other units at the Facility near each other. They had casual, friendly conversations in the past. The Member had not been inappropriate during these conversations.

16. On March 26, 2014, during [Co-worker B’s] break, the Member came up behind [Co-worker B] when [Co-worker B] was standing at the counter in the kitchen area. [Co-worker B] felt that the Member stood too close to [ ].

17. At some time before or during the lunch break, the Member was talking to others about his difficulty with his assigned client. [Co-worker B] commented that [ ] had not had any problems with the Member’s client. The Member responded that the client was “mesmerized by [Co-worker B’s] beautiful green eyes”.

18. During the lunch break, [Co-worker B] was sitting in the kitchen. The Member was sitting behind [Co-worker B] and slightly to the left. [Co-worker B] was texting and playing games on [ ] cell phone. [Co-worker B] felt the Member’s hand caress [ ] ear and neck. [Co-worker B] moved [ ] chair a few inches away, but the touching continued. [Co-worker B] moved further away. The Member got up and left the kitchen. [Co-worker B’s] co-worker, [Co-worker C], observed the Member touch [Co-worker B’s] neck.

19. [Co-worker B] testified that the Member’s touch was very intimate and [Co-worker B] felt disgust and shame regarding the incident.

20. If the Member were to testify, he would state that he has, in the past, commented on [Co-worker B’s] green eyes (although [Co-worker B] denied this) and that he had not intended to caress [Co-worker B’s] ear or neck. He would also state that he put his hand on [Co-worker B’s] shoulder to steady himself when he got up from his chair to leave the kitchen because it was crowded. When he touched [Co-worker B], it was intended to be friendly and not sexual. The Member acknowledges that while he intended to touch [Co-worker B’s] shoulder, he may have touched [Co-worker B’s] ear or neck and that [Co-worker B] may have perceived this as a caress.

21. The Member acknowledges that his comments regarding [Co-worker B’s] eyes were unwelcome, improper and unprofessional, and could have been perceived by [Co-worker B] as sexually suggestive. He also acknowledges that it was improper and unprofessional to touch [Co-worker B’s] ear, neck and/or shoulder, and that [Co-worker B] did not consent to the touch. He also acknowledges that his conduct was perceived by [Co-worker B] as an unwelcome touch of a sexual nature.

[Co-Worker A]

22. [Co-worker A] was a 20-year-old, third year [ ] nursing student who was assigned to the Oncology/Medical floor as part of [ ] nursing program, on March 26, 2014 between 0700 to 1800.

23. That day, the Member was on a 1:1 with a client. He allowed the client to walk the floor, while walking behind him.

24. Throughout the morning, [Co-worker A] felt that the Member was “blatantly staring” at [ ].

25. When [Co-worker A] was preparing a stretcher for a client shortly before lunch, the Member asked [Co-worker A] if the stretcher was for him and where the call bell was if he needed to call [Co-worker A].

26. At around 1700, [Co-worker A] was preparing medications at the medication cart near the Member’s client’s room. [Co-worker A] was with [ ] supervising nurse as well as [ ] clinical instructor. [Co-worker A] was leaning against the medication cart, and [ ] legs crossed. From behind [ ], [Co-worker A] heard the Member ask, “what are you doing for dinner?” (or words asking about dinner) but did not acknowledge his question. [Co-worker A] then felt the Member’s knee on the back of [ ] knee, causing [Co-worker A’s] knee to buckle. He asked about dinner again. [Co-worker A], knowing it was the Member, did not turn around or respond. [Co-worker A] left the medication cart area.

27. If [Co-worker A] were to testify, [Co-worker A] would state that [ ] was uncomfortable with the Member’s conduct throughout the day and at the medication cart because [Co-worker A] considered him to be a superior since [Co-worker A] was a student. [Co-worker A] interpreted the Member’s question regarding what [Co-worker A] was doing for dinner as a request to have dinner together. [Co-worker A] felt scared after the incident and did not want to work with the Member.

28. If the Member were to testify, he would state that he did not intend to be flirtatious or sexually suggestive in his comments or behaviour and that he had no sexual intent in his comments or conduct. He would state that he only pressed his knee against the back of [Co-worker A’s] knee to get [Co-worker A’s] attention that he needed to access the medication cart, since he had been standing behind [Co-worker A] and [Co-worker A’s] colleagues for some time waiting for them to acknowledge his presence and his need to access the medication cart. He would also state that he was asking the nurses at the medication cart when staff took dinner and was not asking [Co-worker A] to have dinner with him.

29. The Member acknowledges that his comments regarding the stretcher were unwelcome, improper and unprofessional, and could have been perceived by [Co-worker A] as sexually suggestive. He also acknowledges that it was improper and unprofessional to touch [Co-worker A’s] leg with his leg, and that [Co-worker A] did not consent to his touch. He also acknowledges that his conduct could have been perceived by [Co-worker A] as an unwelcome touch of a sexual nature.

The Member’s Interactions with his Co-Workers

30. The Facility’s lawyers conducted an investigation into the incidents described above and the Member was terminated – that termination was later turned into a resignation.

31. Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, harassment is defined as “engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome”. The Member admits that his interactions with [Co-worker A], [Co-worker B ] and [Co-worker C] on March 26, 2014 constituted harassment. He admits that his interactions were unprofessional. He admits that his comments towards [Co-worker A], [Co-worker B] and [Co-worker C] were unwelcome and made them uncomfortable. He admits that his physical touching of [Co-worker A], [Co-worker B] and [Co-worker C], without consent, was unwelcome, and made each of them feel uncomfortable. The Member also admits that the interactions were perceived by [Co-worker A] and [Co-worker B] to be sexual in nature.

32. If the Member were to testify, he would say that he purposefully touched [Co-worker A], [Co-worker B] and [Co-worker C], and made comments to [Co-worker A] and [Co-worker B], but that none of his conduct or comments or behaviour on March 26, 2014 was intended to have any sexual intent, though the Member understands that [Co-worker A] and [Co-worker B] viewed his conduct as sexual in nature.

ADMISSIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

33. The Member admits that his unprofessional conduct was in breach of the College’s Professional Standards.

34. The Member admits that he committed the acts of professional misconduct as described above in paragraphs 9 to 32 and as alleged in the Notice of Hearing in paragraphs:

• 1(a)(ii), (iv), (b)(i), (ii) and 1(c)(i), in that he harassed [Co-worker A] and [Co-worker B] and he engaged in an unprofessional interaction with [Co-worker C]; and

• 2(a)(ii), (iv), (b)(i), (ii), in that he harassed [Co-worker A] and [Co-worker B] and 2(c)(i), in that he engaged in an inappropriate interaction with [Co-worker C] and that his conduct with respect to 2(a)(ii), (iv), b(i), (ii), and 2(c)(i) was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

35. The College withdraws allegations 1(a)(i) and (iii) and 2(a)(i) and (iii).

Decision

The Panel finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged in

paragraphs 1(a)(ii), (iv), (b)(i), (ii) and 1(c)(i), and 2(a)(ii), (iv), (b)(i), (ii), of the Notice of Hearing.

As to allegation #2(a)(ii), (iv), (b)(i), (ii), 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 relied primarily on the evidence considered the Agreed Statement of Facts, as the College’s second witness was not fully cross-examined and the matter resolved before the Member had an opportunity to testify.

The Panel finds that the evidence in the Agreed Statement of Facts supports findings of professional misconduct as alleged in the Notice of Hearing.

Allegation #1 (a)(ii) in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 25 and 29 in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

Allegation #1 (a)(iv) in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 26, 28 and 29 in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

Allegation #1 (b)(i) in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 17, 20 and 21 in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

Allegation #1 (b)(ii) in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 18, 19, 20 and 21 in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

Allegation #1(c)(i) in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 10, 12 and 13 in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

As to Allegation #1 generally, the Member by his own admission in the Agreed Statement of Fact admits that his conduct was in breach of the College’s Professional Standards. The Panel agrees. Building and maintaining respectful relationships with colleagues and coworkers is a fundamental tenet of the standards of practice of the profession, and failing to do so can undermine client care and safety. The Member’s conduct towards his coworkers crossed the line of what is appropriate, and happened with not just one but three coworkers in the course of a single day.

Allegation #2 (a)(ii) in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 25, 29, 31 and 32 in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

Allegation #2(a)(iv) in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 26, 28, 29, 31 and 32 in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

Allegation #2 (b)(i) in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 17, 20, 21, 31 and 32 in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

Allegation #2 (b)(ii) in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 21, 31 and 32 in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

Allegation #2 (c)(i) in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 10, 12, 13, 31 and 32 in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

As to Allegation #2 generally, the Panel finds the Member’s conduct would be considered by members to be all three of disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. The Panel was in agreement that the Member was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional as he was in a senior role and an experienced Nurse who should have led by example and follow the standards of practice. The member acknowledged that his comments and conduct were unwelcomed, improper and unprofessional, and also involved improper touching without consent. He also admitted that his comments and physical touch without consent were unwelcome and made his colleagues uncomfortable. These actions demonstrate serious errors in judgement and a disregard for the professional obligations of a nurse with respect to establishing and maintaining professional relationships based on trust and respect. The Panel agrees that the member's conduct, occurring over three interactions with three separate colleagues, does constitute conduct which would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

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 as follows.

1. Requiring the Member to appear before the Panel to be reprimanded within three months of the date that this Order becomes final.

2. Directing the Executive Director to suspend the Member’s certificate of registration for four months. This suspension shall take effect from the date that this Order becomes final and shall continue to run without interruption as long as the Member remains in the practising class.

3. Directing the Executive Director to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s certificate of registration:

a) The Member will attend two meetings with a Nursing Expert (the “Expert”), at his own expense and within six months from the date that this Order becomes final. To comply, the Member is required to ensure that:

i. The Expert has expertise in nursing regulation and has been approved by the Director of Professional Conduct (the “Director”) in advance of the meetings;

ii. At least seven days before the first meeting, the Member provides the Expert with a copy of:

1. the Panel’s Order,

2. the Notice of Hearing,

3. the Agreed Statement of Facts,

4. this Joint Submission on Order, and

5. if available, a copy of the Panel’s Decision and Reasons;

iii. Before the first meeting, the Member reviews the following College publications and completes the associated Reflective Questionnaires, online learning modules and online participation forms (where applicable):

1. Professional Standards;

iv. The subject of the sessions with the Expert will include:

1. the acts or omissions for which the Member was found to have committed professional misconduct,

2. the potential consequences of the misconduct to the Member’s clients, colleagues, profession and self,

3. strategies for preventing the misconduct from recurring,

4. the publications, questionnaires and modules set out above, and

5. the development of a learning plan in collaboration with the Expert;

v. Within 30 days after the Member has completed the last session, the Member will confirm that the Expert forwards his/her report to the Director, in which the Expert will confirm:

1. the dates the Member attended the sessions,

2. that the Expert received the required documents from the Member,

3. that the Expert reviewed the required documents and subjects with the Member, and

4. the Expert’s assessment of the Member’s insight into his behaviour;

vi. If the Member does not comply with any one or more of the requirements above, the Expert may cancel any session scheduled, even if that results in the Member breaching a term, condition or limitation on his certificate of registration;

b) For a period of 12 months from the date the Member returns to the practice of nursing, the Member will notify his employers of the decision. To comply, the Member is required to:

i. Ensure that the Director is notified of the name, address, and telephone number of all employer(s) within 14 days of commencing or resuming employment in any nursing position;

ii. Provide his employer(s) with a copy of:

1. the Panel’s Order,

2. the Notice of Hearing,

3. the Agreed Statement of Facts,

4. this Joint Submission on Order, and

5. a copy of the Panel’s Decision and Reasons, once available;

iii. Ensure that within 14 days of the commencement or resumption of the Member’s employment in any nursing position, the employer(s) forward(s) a report to the Director, in which it will confirm:

1. that they received a copy of the required documents, and

2. that they agree to notify the Director immediately upon receipt of any information that the Member has breached the standards of practice of the profession; and

3. All documents delivered by the Member to the College, the Expert or the employer(s) will be delivered by verifiable method, the proof of which the Member will retain.

Penalty Submissions

Submissions were made by College Counsel and the Member’s Counsel.

The parties agreed that the mitigating factors in this case were:

• this was the Member’s first appearance;

• there is no record of the Member having any history of complaints with the College;

• the Member lost his employment because of the allegations;

• the Member co-operated with the College; and

• the Member showed remorse and has insight as set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

The aggravating factors in this case were:

• the professional misconduct included both verbal and physical behaviour not fitting for a nurse;

• the allegations involved three different co-workers;

• the allegations all happened repeatedly on the same day; and

• some of the misconduct was directed at a student nurse, without regard to the power dynamic inherent between students and nurses.

The parties agreed that the proposed penalty provides for general and specific deterrence through a reprimand and suspension which sends the message from the College about how serious these allegations are.

The proposed penalty provides for remediation and rehabilitation through:

• attending meetings with a Nursing Expert;

• a review of the Professional Standards;

• participation in the upcoming Quality Assurance program; and

• further reflection and insight by completing the Reflective Questionnaires

Counsel submitted two cases to the Panel to demonstrate that the proposed penalty fell within the range of similar cases from this Discipline Committee.

CNO v. Gesembe (Discipline Committee, 2014) – this case involved more serious allegations, which is reflected in the harsher penalty.

CNO v. Wouthuis (Discipline Committee, 2006) – most of the allegations in this case were distinct, but there was one allegation of making rude and inappropriate remarks for a colleague and physically touching her.

Penalty Decision

The Panel accepts the Joint Submission as to Order and makes an Order as follows:

1. The Member shall appear before the Panel to be reprimanded within three months of the date that this Order becomes final.

2. The Executive Director is directed to suspend the Member’s certificate of registration for four months. This suspension shall take effect from the date that this Order becomes final and shall continue to run without interruption as long as the Member remains in the practising class.

3. The Executive Director is directed to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s certificate of registration:

a) The Member will attend two meetings with a Nursing Expert (the “Expert”), at his own expense and within six months from the date that this Order becomes final. To comply, the Member is required to ensure that:

i. The Expert has expertise in nursing regulation and has been approved by the Director of Professional Conduct (the “Director”) in advance of the meetings;

ii. At least seven days before the first meeting, the Member provides the Expert with a copy of:

1. the Panel’s Order,

2. the Notice of Hearing,

3. the Agreed Statement of Facts,

4. this Joint Submission on Order, and

5. if available, a copy of the Panel’s Decision and Reasons;

iii. Before the first meeting, the Member reviews the following College publications and completes the associated Reflective Questionnaires, online learning modules and online participation forms (where applicable):

1. Professional Standards;

iv. The subject of the sessions with the Expert will include:

1. the acts or omissions for which the Member was found to have committed professional misconduct,

2. the potential consequences of the misconduct to the Member’s clients, colleagues, profession and self,

3. strategies for preventing the misconduct from recurring,

4. the publications, questionnaires and modules set out above, and

5. the development of a learning plan in collaboration with the Expert;

v. Within 30 days after the Member has completed the last session, the Member will confirm that the Expert forwards his/her report to the Director, in which the Expert will confirm:

1. the dates the Member attended the sessions,

2. that the Expert received the required documents from the Member,

3. that the Expert reviewed the required documents and subjects with the Member, and

4. the Expert’s assessment of the Member’s insight into his behaviour;

vi. If the Member does not comply with any one or more of the requirements above, the Expert may cancel any session scheduled, even if that results in the Member breaching a term, condition or limitation on his certificate of registration;

b) For a period of 12 months from the date the Member returns to the practice of nursing, the Member will notify his employers of the decision. To comply, the Member is required to:

i. Ensure that the Director is notified of the name, address, and telephone number of all employer(s) within 14 days of commencing or resuming employment in any nursing position;

ii. Provide his employer(s) with a copy of:

1. the Panel’s Order,

2. the Notice of Hearing,

3. the Agreed Statement of Facts,

4. this Joint Submission on Order, and

5. a copy of the Panel’s Decision and Reasons, once available;

iii. Ensure that within 14 days of the commencement or resumption of the Member’s employment in any nursing position, the employer(s) forward(s) a report to the Director, in which it will confirm:

1. that they received a copy of the required documents, and

2. that they agree to notify the Director immediately upon receipt of any information that the Member has breached the standards of practice of the profession; and

3. All documents delivered by the Member to the College, the Expert or the employer(s) will be delivered by verifiable method, the proof of which the Member will retain.

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. This is achieved through a penalty that addresses specific deterrence, general deterrence and, where appropriate, rehabilitation and remediation. The Panel also considered the penalty in light of the principle that joint submissions should not be interfered with lightly.

The Panel concluded that the proposed penalty is reasonable and in the public interest. The Member has co-operated with the College and, by agreeing to the facts and a proposed penalty, has accepted responsibility. The Panel finds that the penalty satisfies the principles of specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation and remediation, and public protection.

The penalty should allow the Member to remediate his practice and ensure that his interactions with colleagues are professional and appropriate in the future. Other members of the profession should be made aware that the College will take action in cases of harassment by nurses toward their colleagues.

Although the facts are somewhat different than the two cases presented to us, the Panel accepts that the penalty is in line with what has been ordered in previous cases.

I, TAMMY HEDGE, 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.

Chairperson Date