College of Nurses of Ontario v. Sasha Lauzon, 2017 ONCNO 70678

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO

PANEL: Terry Holland, RPN Chairperson Dawn Cutler, RN Member Catherine Egerton Public Member Carly Gilchrist, RPN Member Ashleigh Molloy Public Member

BETWEEN:

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

• and -

SASHA LAUZON, Reg. No. AA796265 (GRANT FERGUSON for Sasha Lauzon)

(ANDREA GONSALVES, Independent Legal Counsel)

Heard: July 7, 2017

DECISION AND REASONS

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (“the Panel”) on July 7, 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 identity of the complainant referred to in the Discipline Hearing of Sasha Lauzon (“the Member”) or any information that could disclose the complainant’s identity, including any reference to the complainant’s name 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 this confidential and private information, including the complainant’s identity, outweighed the desirability of adhering to the principle that hearings be open to the public. Counsel for the Member consented to the College’s request for the publication ban.

The Allegations

The allegations against the Member as stated in the Notice of Hearing dated March 23, 2017 are as follows.

IT IS ALLEGED THAT:

1. 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 registered as a Registered Practical Nurse, on June 20, 2016, in the Ontario Court of Justice in Sharbot Lake, Ontario, you were found guilty of an offence relevant to your suitability to practise, and in particular,

a. you were found guilty of assault of a former client, [the Client], on or about the 10th^th^ day of October, 2015, contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada; and/or

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, while registered as a Registered Practical Nurse, 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 in that you:

a. you were found guilty of assault of a former client, [the Client], on or about the 10th^th^ day of October, 2015, contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada; and/or

Member’s Plea

The Member admitted the allegations set out in paragraphs 1(a) and 2(a) 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. Sasha Lauzon (the “Member”) obtained a diploma in nursing from Algonquin College in 2011.

2. The Member registered with the College of Nurses of Ontario (the “College”) as a Registered Practical Nurse (“RPN”) on July 8, 2011.

3. The Member was employed at Bayshore Home Health (the “Agency”) from June 23, 2014 to October 15, 2015, when her employment was terminated.

INCIDENT RELEVANT TO ALLEGATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

Finding of Guilt of Assault

4. [The Client] (the “Complainant”) was 29 years old at the time of the incident. She had a history of Crohn’s disease and a chronic perineal infection. She received daily, at home wound care from the Agency.

5. The Member provided home care to the Complainant from July 14, 2014 until early April, 2015. Thereafter, the Member and the Complainant did not have a therapeutic relationship.

6. Between October 7 and 11, 2015, the Member and the Complainant vacationed together in Sharbot Lake, Ontario at a cottage. As a result of events that occurred at the cottage, the Member was charged with assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

7. On June 20, 2016, the Member pled guilty and was found guilty of assault based on the following statement of facts:

The victim, [the Complainant] requires in-home nursing due to a medical condition, Crohn’s disease and had contracted Bayshore Home Health for this purpose. Ms. Lauzon, the accused, a nurse with that company had been assigned to the victim up until April 7^th^, 2015. But after that date, they had a friendship which continued and was still a friendship in October of 2015. And in that month, October, Ms. Lauzon rented a cottage in North Frontenac Township for the weekend and invited [the Complainant] along for companionship and relaxation. And the offence took place late in the evening in October 10^th^ and into the early morning hours of October 11^th^, while at the cottage on Palmerston Lake. [The Complainant] and the accused, Ms. Lauzon, got into a verbal argument during which on three occasions over an approximate three hour period, Ms. Lauzon physically struck – pushed [the Complainant] repeatedly causing injury, significant bruising to her right eye, back, arms and legs. Ms. Lauzon and [the Complainant] got into a verbal dispute after which Ms. Lauzon became physical striking [the Complainant] repeatedly in the head area, grabbed her, pushed her around after which [the Complainant] stated that she could have her job for what she had just done. At that time, Ms. Lauzon became enraged and attacked [the Complainant] a second time. Thereafter there occurred a dispute during which Ms. Lauzon was demanding that [the Complainant] erase her photos from her iPhone and [the Complainant] was in the process of doing so when Ms. Lauzon began – started attempting to take the phone away. [The Complainant] was pushed to the ground and ultimately, Ms. Lauzon was successful and took, took the iPhone and threw it into the lake. […]

She suffered substantial bruising to her face, back, arms and legs. Medical attention was sought but there was no lasting injury. […]

The phone goes into the lake, the next day [the Complainant] is picked up by her father at the cottage…they attend the police station…and at that time some photographs were taken of the injuries... The value of the iPhone was $590…and those are the facts alleged.

8. The Member acknowledges that the above facts are substantially accurate.

9. On October 17, 2016, the Member was sentenced to a conditional discharge, 15 months’ probation, a restriction on communicating with the Complainant and restitution.

ADMISSIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

10. The Member admits that she was found guilty of assault on June 20, 2016, and that the finding of guilt is relevant to her suitability to practise.

11. The Member admits that she committed the act of professional misconduct as described above in paragraphs 4 to 9, and as alleged in paragraph 1(a) in the Notice of Hearing, in that she was found guilty of an offence relevant to her suitability to practise nursing.

12. The Member admits that she committed the acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraph 2(a) of the Notice of Hearing, and in particular that her conduct was dishonourable and unprofessional, as described in paragraphs 4 to 9 above.

Decision

The Panel finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraphs 1(a) and 2(a) of the Notice of Hearing.

As to allegation 2(a), the Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct that would reasonably be considered by members to be 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 7, 8 and 10 in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Member was charged and convicted with a criminal offence. As she admitted in the Agreed Statement of Facts, she pled guilty at her criminal trial and as a result was given a conditional discharge with 15months’ probation and a restriction on communicating with the complainant. The Member admitted that her conviction related to conduct that was relevant to her suitability to practise nursing. The victim of her crime was a former client who was vulnerable. The Member chose to abuse the power dynamic that exists in the nursing profession by breaking the professional boundaries between a nurse and a client.

Allegation 2(a) in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 12 in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Panel found that the misconduct was dishonourable as the underlying conduct had elements of moral failing. The Member’s conduct fell well below what is expected of a member of this profession. The Member demonstrated violent behaviour and lack of personal restraint.

The Panel found that the Member’s conduct of assaulting a former client was unprofessional as it clearly was unacceptable and inappropriate for a member of the profession and demonstrated a serious and persistent disregard for her professional obligations.

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 three 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 her 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:

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. 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:

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;

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:

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 her 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 her 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 her 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 her 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. The Member’s Counsel indicated that he agreed with those submissions.

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

• The Member has no past disciplinary record with the College; and

• The Member took responsibility for her conduct in the criminal court proceedings and in her dealings with the College.

The aggravating factors in this case were:

• The Member’s conduct in of itself is serious in nature;

• The assault displays the Member’s lack of personal restraint and violent behaviour that is clearly unacceptable for members of the profession; and

• The assault constituted actual harm to a former client by the Member.

The proposed penalty provides for general and specific deterrence through the three month suspension and reprimand. The suspension and reprimand demonstrate to the Member and the profession that this type of violent behaviour is completely unacceptable, will not be tolerated, and will be met with a serious penalty.

Specific deterrence is met through remediation and rehabilitation through the terms, conditions and limitations of the proposed penalty which includes meetings with an expert and a review of the Professional Standards. The meetings with the expert are intended to lead to further insight in order to prevent any further incidents.

Overall, the public is protected through the proposed requirements for the Member to notify employers of the Panel’s decision.

College Counsel submitted cases to the Panel to demonstrate that the proposed penalty fell within the range of similar cases from this Discipline Committee. College Counsel relied on the case of CNO vs Kent (Discipline Committee 2015). In this case, there was more than one assault of non-clients in which the member also failed to disclose the findings to the College. The penalty included a reprimand, a three month suspension, terms, conditions and limitations, including meeting with a nurse expert. Within this case, the College referred to two other cases cited in the decision, namely CNO vs Sharp and CNO vs Sondy both of which fell within the same penalty range.

The Member’s Counsel indicated that he agreed with College Counsel’s submissions and submitted that the Member was cooperative and showed remorse. The Member’s Counsel noted that the Member did not hide from the College and is interested in being rehabilitated.

Penalty Decision

The Panel accepts the Joint Submission as to Order and accordingly orders:

1. The Member is required to 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 three 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 her 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:

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. 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:

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;

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:

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 her 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 her 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 her 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 her 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. Other members of the profession will understand that this behaviour will not be condoned, even when it occurs outside of the workplace. The Member has co-operated with the College and, by agreeing to the facts and a proposed penalty, has accepted responsibility. The Panel found that the penalty satisfies the principles of specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation and remediation, and public protection.

The penalty is in line with what has been ordered in previous cases.

I, Terry Holland, 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