DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO
PANEL:
Michael Hogard, RPN Chairperson
Mary MacMillan-Gilkinson Public Member Devinder Walia Public Member Ingrid Wiltshire-Stoby, RN Member
BETWEEN:
COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO ) BONNI ELLIS for
) College of Nurses of Ontario
- and - )
SYDNEY WALTERS ) CAROL STREET for Reg. No. 06276816 ) Sydney Walters
) ANDREA GONSALVES
) Independent Legal Counsel
) Heard: May 8, 2017
DECISION AND REASONS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (“the Panel”) on
May 8, 2017 at the College of Nurses of Ontario (“the College”) at Toronto.
The Panel ordered a publication ban following a motion brought by College Counsel, pursuant to s.45(3) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act, 1991. The order bans the publication and/or broadcasting of the identities of the clients referred to in this hearing or any information that could reasonably disclose the clients’ identities, including any reference to client names contained in the allegations in the Notice of Hearing and in any exhibits filed with the Panel. The Panel concluded that the desirability of avoiding public disclosure of those matters in the interest of any person outweighed the desirability of adhering to the principle that hearings be open to the public. Counsel for Sydney Walters (“the Member”) agreed with the publication ban.
The Allegations
Counsel for the College advised the Panel that the College was requesting leave to withdraw the allegations set out in paragraphs 3(c) and 3(d) of the Notice of Hearing dated October 26, 2016. The Panel granted this request. Counsel for the College then advised the Panel that evidence presented would only relate to [Client A]. The remaining allegations against the Member are as follows.
IT IS ALLEGED THAT:
- You have committed an act or acts 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 paragraph 1(1) of Ontario Regulation 799/93 in that, between approximately 2008 and 2014, while employed as a Registered Nurse at Central North Correction Centre (CNCC), you contravened a standard of practice of the profession or failed to meet the standard of practice of the profession when you:
a. failed to disclose to your employer that you had previously paid [Client A], [Client B], and/or [Client C], to engage in sexual acts with you, prior to providing care to [Client A], [Client B], and/or [Client C]; and/or
b. provided nursing care to clients [Client A], [Client B], and/or [Client C], despite the fact that you had previously paid [Client A], [Client B], and/or [Client C], to engage in sexual acts with you.
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 paragraph 1(26) of Ontario Regulation 799/93 in that, while employed as a Registered Nurse at the Central North Correction Centre (CNCC), you practised the profession while in a conflict of interest in that you continued to provide health care to clients [Client A], [Client B], and/or [Client C], despite the fact that you had previously paid [Client A], [Client B], and/or [Client C] to engage in sexual acts with you.
You have committed an act or acts 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 paragraph 1(37) of Ontario Regulation 799/93 in that, between approximately 2008 and 2014, while employed as a Registered Nurse at the Central North Correction Centre (CNCC) you engaged in conduct that having regard to all the circumstances would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional when:
a. you failed to disclose to your employer that you had previously paid [Client A], [Client B], and/or [Client C], to engage in sexual acts with you, prior to providing care to [Client A], [Client B], and/or [Client C]; and
b. you provided nursing care to clients [Client A], [Client B], and/or [Client C], despite the fact that you had previously paid [Client A], [Client B], and/or [Client C], to engage in sexual acts with you.
c. [withdrawn]
d. [withdrawn]
Member’s Plea
The Member admitted the allegations referring to [Client A] set out in paragraphs 1(a), 1(b), 2, 3(a) and 3(b) 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
Sydney Walters (the “Member”) obtained a Bachelor of Science in Nursing from York University in 2006.
The Member registered with the College of Nurses of Ontario (the “College”) as a Registered Nurse (“RN”) on May 16, 2006.
The Member was employed at Central North Correctional Centre (the “Facility”) from January 5, 2007 to November 6, 2014.
THE FACILITY
The Facility, which is located in Penetanguishene, Ontario, is a correctional institution that houses male and female inmates.
The Member was employed at the Facility as a casual/part-time nurse, from January 5, 2007 to approximately 2010. Thereafter, the Member was employed as a full-time staff nurse, primarily on the day shift.
The Member was assigned to work on both the male and the female units and also to distribute Methadone. When assigned to the female unit, the Member was responsible for providing for treatment, medication and care to the female inmates, as required. When distributing Methadone, the Member was responsible for distributing and supervising Methadone consumption in relation to all the male and female inmates in the Facility who were prescribed Methadone.
THE CLIENT
[Client A] (the “Client”) was incarcerated at the Facility four times between 2007 and 2011.
During that time frame, the Client had a significant history of addiction, including an addiction to Oxycodone. The Client also worked as a prostitute.
INCIDENTS RELEVANT TO ALLEGATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
The Client was first incarcerated at the Facility from September 17 to November 7, 2007. During her incarceration, she was sent to the medical ward for serious drug withdrawal symptoms and was quite ill.
Neither the Member nor the Client recalls any contact between them during her first incarceration.
After the Client was released from the Facility in November 2007, she returned to abusing drugs and working as a prostitute in the same city where the Member resided.
The Member picked the Client up from the street and hired her to provide him with a sexual service in 2008 or 2009.
If the Client were to testify, she would say that immediately after picking her up, the Member told the Client that he recognized her from the Facility. If the Member were to testify, he would say that the Client indicated she recognized him as a nurse from the Facility, and only after the paid sexual encounter. The Member would further testify that he believed that she knew who he was because she used a derogatory name for him that was used by inmates at the Facility.
If the Member were to testify, he would say that he was concerned that the Client recognized him and knew that he worked at the Facility. He would further say that he thereafter began to randomly pay the Client when he saw her in the community, in the hope that such payments would keep her from revealing to his employer that he had paid a prostitute, who was also a former inmate, for a sexual encounter.
If the Client were to testify, she would say that she did not receive any money from the Member except in relation to prostitution services and that the Member paid her for sex on more than one occasion in 2008-2009.
The Client was subsequently incarcerated at the Facility from May 7 to June 14, 2010. There is no evidence of any contact between the Member and the Client during this incarceration.
The Client was incarcerated again at the Facility from September 20, 2011 to October 26, 2011. She was receiving Methadone treatment for her drug addiction at the time. The Member was assigned to distribute and supervise the Client’s Methadone consumption on at least one occasion in October 2011.
Although the Member recognized the Client, he did not disclose to the Facility that he knew the Client from outside the Facility and that it would be inappropriate for him to provide care to her. Instead, the Member administered Methadone to the Client, despite the fact that he had previously paid her for a sexual service and that this connection created a conflict of interest.
If the Client were to testify, she would say that, during her Methadone administration, the Member asked why he had not seen her on the “road” lately. According to the Client, the “road” refers to the area where prostitutes are known to wait for clients and she took the Member’s question as an obvious reference to her previous life as a prostitute and drug addict. The Client would further testify that she took exception to the Member’s question because, at the time, she had been clean and sober for 15 months, had stopped prostituting, and that his comment caused her embarrassment in front of a ‘cute’ guard. The Client would further testify that receiving care from the Member made her extremely uncomfortable, given that he previously paid her for sex and she felt as though he was undressing her with his eyes. According to the Client, a security guard who witnessed her exchange with the Member encouraged her to file a complaint with the Facility, which she did the following day.
If the Member were to testify, he would deny making these comments to the Client, since he did not wish to draw attention to any interaction he had had with the Client on the “road”.
The Member acknowledges that the Facility only became aware of the conflict of interest created by his external interaction with the Client after she voiced a complaint about the Member on October 15, 2011 and filed a written complaint the following day.
After receiving the Client’s complaint, the Facility conducted an investigation, which included conducting interviews with the Client and the Member. During his interview, the Member denied having any contact with the Client outside the Facility and specifically denied that he ever had a sexual encounter with the Client.
On May 18, 2012, the Facility’s investigation concluded that the allegation that the Member paid for sexual services from the Client was not substantiated.
FACILITY POLICIES
The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (the “Ministry”) has a number of policies that applied to the Member as an Ontario Public Service employee and which were in place at the relevant time.
The Ministry has a policy called “Conflict of Interest.” The policy defines a conflict of interest as, “any situation where an individual’s private interests may be incompatible or in conflict with his/her public service responsibilities. The policy cites an example of a conflict of interest as a public servant, “engaging in outside activities that conflict with their public service duties.”
The Ministry also had a policy titled “Staff Conduct and Discipline.” The policy noted that if an employee’s off-duty conduct renders an employee unable to discharge his/her employment obligations, disciplinary action may be taken.
Finally, the Ministry has a policy titled “Statement of Ethical Principles,” which states that employees are expected to “display professional conduct and maintain relationships which are fair, impartial and free of impropriety in all [their] dealings with those currently or formerly under the Ministry authority.” The policy further requires employees to “ensure that any business or private ventures are neither in conflict nor appear to be in conflict with [their] duties” and clarifies that employees must not, at any time “engage in activities that might undermine organizational confidence in the ability or commitment to undertake one’s role with fairness, impartiality and integrity.” The policy specifically requires staff members to “avoid potential and actual conflict of interest with offenders [and] ex-offenders.”
COLLEGE STANDARDS
The College practice standard, Professional Standards, states under accountability that nurses are responsible for conducting themselves in a way that promotes respect for the profession. Under ethics, the Standard requires nurses to act “with integrity, honesty and professionalism in all dealings with the client…”
The Professional Standards also require nurses to establish and maintain appropriate relationships.
The Member acknowledges that he breached the ethics component of the Professional Standards when he conducted himself in a manner that did not display integrity and honesty. The Member also breached the standard when he failed to maintain boundaries between his professional, therapeutic nurse-relationship and personal relationship with the Client.
The College practice standard, Therapeutic Nurse-Client Relationship (“TNCR”), states that the nurse-client relationship is “based on trust, respect, empathy and professional intimacy and requires appropriate use of the power inherent in the care provider’s role.”
The TNCR also requires that nurses maintain boundaries by ensuring that co-existing relationships with clients do not impact objectivity in the therapeutic nurse-client relationship.
The Member admits that he breached the TNCR in that he provided care to the Client in a situation where a conflict of interest existed.
ADMISSIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
- The Member admits that he committed the acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraphs 1(a) and (b) of the Notice of Hearing with respect to [Client A] only, and as described in paragraphs 12 to 33, above, in that he contravened a standard of practice of the profession or failed to meet the standard of practice of the profession when he:
a. failed to disclose to the Facility that he had previously paid the Client to engage in a sexual act with him on one occasion in 2008 or 2009, and;
b. he provided nursing care to the Client, despite the fact he had previously paid to engage in a sexual act with her on one occasion in 2008 or 2009.
The Member admits that he committed the acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraph 2 of the Notice of Hearing with respect to [Client A] only, and as described in paragraphs 12 to 33, above, in that he practised nursing while in a conflict of interest when he continued to provide care to the Client, despite the fact that he had previously paid the Client to engage in a sexual act with him on one occasion in 2008 or 2009.
The Member admits that he committed the acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraphs 3 (a) and (b) of the Notice of Hearing with respect to [Client A] only, and in particular his conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, as described in paragraphs 12 to 33, above.
With leave of the Discipline Committee, the College withdraws allegations 3(c) and (d) in the Notice of Hearing.
Decision
The Panel finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct with respect to [Client A] as alleged in paragraphs 1(a), 1(b), 2, 3(a), and 3(b) of the Notice of Hearing. As to allegation 3(a) and 3(b), 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 findings of professional misconduct as alleged in the Notice of Hearing.
Allegation 1(a) in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 in the Agreed Statement of Facts.
The Member acknowledges that he picked the Client up from the street and hired her for a sexual service. The Member did not want the Facility, where he worked and where the Client was later incarcerated, to learn of this encounter. The Member admitted that he randomly provided funds to the Client when she was working as a prostitute in the community. The Member admitted that this was done was in the hope that she would not share information about their encounter with the Facility. The Client would testify, however, that the Member only provided her money in exchange for continued sexual services. Even when the Client disclosed their relationship to the Facility, the Member denied that he had ever had a paid sexual encounter with her. This is a breach of a number of polices and principles of the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (the “Ministry”) and The College. The Ministry requires its employees to maintain propriety in all their dealings with those who are “currently or formerly under the Ministry authority”. The College requires nurses to act with “integrity, honesty and professionalism in all dealings with a client.” The Member’s failure to disclose information to his employer regarding his sexual interaction with the Client, as well as his denial when confronted, demonstrates deceit and a lack of professionalism.
Allegation 1(b) in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Member admitted that he was assigned to distribute and supervise the Client’s Methadone consumption on at least one occasion when she was incarcerated. This was after he had paid for her prostitution services in the community. This is a breach of the College’s practice standard, Professional Standards. It requires nurses to consistently maintain professional boundaries with their clients.
Allegation 2 in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Ministry’s policy called “Conflict of Interest” defines “any situation where an individual’s private interests may be incompatible with his/her public service responsibilities.” The College’s practice standard, Therapeutic Nurse-Client Relationship (“TNCR”) requires that nurses maintain boundaries by ensuring that co-existing relationships do not impact objectivity in the therapeutic nurse-client relationship. When the Member picked up the Client from the street for the purposes of prostitution, they recognized each other from the Facility. This set up a conflict of interest situation which required the Member to disclose the encounter with the Facility and to refrain from providing care to the Client if she ever were to be incarcerated again. The Member did not follow through on his professional obligations.
With respect to Allegation 3(a) and 3(b), the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional in that the Member showed a lack of good judgement when he attempted to hide his prior sexual relationship, with an incarcerated prostitute, from the Facility where he worked. His conduct showed a serious disregard for his professional obligations as he should have disclosed this information to the Facility. The Member’s conduct was also dishonourable when he denied the Client’s claims once she bought them forward to the Facility. In doing so, he mislead the Facility and cast doubt on the Client’s believability. This falls below the standards expected of a nurse. The Panel also found the Member’s conduct was disgraceful. His conduct casts serious doubt on his moral fitness and inherent ability to discharge the higher obligations the public expects professionals to meet.
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.
Requiring the Member to appear before the Panel to be reprimanded within three months of the date that this Order becomes final.
Directing the Executive Director to suspend the Member’s certificate of registration for two 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.
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 of this Order. 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:
the Panel’s Order,
the Notice of Hearing,
the Agreed Statement of Facts,
this Joint Submission on Order, and
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):
Professional Standards,
Therapeutic Nurse-Client Relationship,
iv. At least seven days before the first meeting, the Member provides the Expert with a copy of the completed Reflective Questionnaires, and online participation forms;
v. The subject of the sessions with the Expert will include:
the acts or omissions for which the Member was found to have committed professional misconduct,
the potential consequences of the misconduct to the Member’s clients, colleagues, profession and self,
strategies for preventing the misconduct from recurring,
the publications, questionnaires and modules set out above, and
the development of a learning plan in collaboration with the Expert;
vi. 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:
the dates the Member attended the sessions,
that the Expert received the required documents from the Member,
that the Expert reviewed the required documents and subjects with the Member, and
the Expert’s assessment of the Member’s insight into his behaviour;
vii. 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 18 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:
the Panel’s Order,
the Notice of Hearing,
the Agreed Statement of Facts,
this Joint Submission on Order, and
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:
that they received a copy of the required documents, and
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
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:
the Member’s acknowledgement of his guilt, which demonstrates that the Member can be remediated;
the Member’s presence at the hearing; and
the Member feelings of remorse.
The aggravating factors in this case were:
the vulnerability of the Client, who had a history of substance abuse and was working as a prostitute;
the Member did not advise his employer about his sexual involvement with the Client;
the power imbalance between the Member and the Client, which in this case was enhanced by the fact that the Client was incarcerated and was reliant on the Member to provide Methadone for her, creating an additional layer of inequity;
the Member’s payment to the Client to encourage her silence, which transferred an element of control to the Client and set up a situation where the Client could then use the information to her own advantage;
the power imbalances were complex and problematic for both the Member and the Client;
the Member was not truthful when he was confronted by his employer; and
the Member was initially believed and the Client’s claims were not able to be substantiated. This was a disservice to the Client
The proposed penalty provides for general deterrence through the suspension and terms, conditions and limitations.
The proposed penalty provides for specific deterrence through the suspension, the reprimand and the terms, conditions and limitations.
The proposed penalty provides for remediation and rehabilitation through the reprimand and the two meetings with a Nursing Expert. The Member will be able to reflect on his conduct so that it is not repeated. Overall, the public is protected because the Member will improve his practice.
College Counsel submitted other professional misconduct cases to the Panel. She acknowledged that there were difficulties in finding cases that that were similar to this one. In most cases, boundary violations happen in the reverse order. Often the nursing relationship happens prior to a personal and romantic relationship developing. In this case, the intimate relationship occurred first, then the therapeutic-nurse relationship ensued. College Counsel presented cases from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “CPSO”) that had some similarities, and submitted that the proposed penalty fell within the range of similar cases from the CPSO’s discipline committee.
The College provided the Panel with the decision in Ontario (College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) v. Irvine, 2011 ONCPSD 39. In this case, the doctor admitted to providing over 100 prescriptions to an individual he had an intimate relationship with, as well as to her son. This occurred over a period of two and a half years. This was in violation of the CPSO’s Policy entitled “Treating Self and Family Members” which stated “… Whenever a physician treats someone with whom the physician has a personal relationship, there is a risk that the personal relationship will affect the physician’s ability to provide good quality care…” The physician was given a four month suspension and was required to pay costs according to the CPSO’s tariff of $3,650.00.
The second case the College provided to the Panel was the decision in Ontario (College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) v. Rai, 2006 ONCPSD 1, 2006 ONCPSD1. In this case, Dr. Rai was involved in a continuous sexual relationship with Ms. A from January 2007 until approximately 2011. For some of those years, they were married. During the time of their relationship, Dr. Rai treated Ms. A nine times in the emergency room and once in a walk-in clinic. The CPSO panel was not concerned about the emergency room visits as they believed doctors have to be given some latitude in treating spouses in emergency situations. However, they found the treatment of his romantic partner in the walk-in clinic where he did a Pap test and ordered some blood work for her to be disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. This was an example of a case where a personal relationship developed prior to the treating relationship. The panel ordered a reprimand, a two month suspension and costs of the proceeding in the amount of $4,460.00.
Penalty Decision
The Panel accepts the Joint Submission as to Order and accordingly orders:
The Member shall appear before the Panel to be reprimanded within three months of the date that this Order becomes final.
The Executive Director is directed to suspend the Member’s certificate of registration for two 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.
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 of this Order. 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:
the Panel’s Order,
the Notice of Hearing,
the Agreed Statement of Facts,
this Joint Submission on Order, and
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):
Professional Standards,
Therapeutic Nurse-Client Relationship,
iv. At least seven days before the first meeting, the Member provides the Expert with a copy of the completed Reflective Questionnaires, and online participation forms;
v. The subject of the sessions with the Expert will include:
the acts or omissions for which the Member was found to have committed professional misconduct,
the potential consequences of the misconduct to the Member’s clients, colleagues, profession and self,
strategies for preventing the misconduct from recurring,
the publications, questionnaires and modules set out above, and
the development of a learning plan in collaboration with the Expert;
vi. 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:
the dates the Member attended the sessions,
that the Expert received the required documents from the Member,
that the Expert reviewed the required documents and subjects with the Member, and
the Expert’s assessment of the Member’s insight into his behaviour;
vii. 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 18 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:
the Panel’s Order,
the Notice of Hearing,
the Agreed Statement of Facts,
this Joint Submission on Order, and
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:
that they received a copy of the required documents, and
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
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. He has avoided the need for a contested hearing, which might have been a challenge for the Client. The Panel finds that the penalty satisfies the principles of specific and general deterrence. It sends a strong message to the Member and the membership that conduct such as this will not be tolerated.
The public is protected by the fact that the Member has accepted responsibility for his actions and will be rehabilitated by the suspension and the meetings with an expert. There is also a significant period of employer notification. This will ensure that when the Member returns to practice, he obtains appropriate supervision.
The penalty is in line with what has been ordered in previous cases.
I, Michael Hogard 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