College of Nurses of Ontario v. Kimberlee Camille Davis, 2021 CanLII 152981

minicounsel

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO

PANEL: Dawn Cutler, RN Chairperson Andrea Arkell Public Member Benson Mathai, RPN Member Fidelia Osime Public Member Sherry Szucsko-Bedard, RN Member

BETWEEN:

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

and - ) KIMBERLEE CAMILLE DAVIS ) NO REPRESENTATION for REGISTRATION NO: 9116765 ) Kimberlee Camille Davis ) PATRICIA HARPER ) Independent Legal Counsel ) Heard: August 17-18, 2021

DECISION AND REASONS

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the College of Nurses of Ontario (the “College”) commencing on August 17, 2021, via videoconference.

As Kimberlee Camille Davis (the “Member”) was not present, the hearing recessed for 15 minutes to allow time for the Member to appear. Upon reconvening, the Panel noted that the Member was not in attendance.

By way of an affidavit from [CNO Staff Member], dated July 29, 2021, Counsel College provided the Panel with evidence that the Member had been sent the Notice of Hearing. In her affidavit, [CNO Staff Member] confirms that on July 13, 2021 she sent correspondence, which included the Notice of Hearing, to the Member’s last known address on the College Register.

The Panel was satisfied that the Member had received adequate notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing and of the fact that if she did not participate in the hearing, it may proceed without her participation. Accordingly, the Panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the Member’s absence.

Publication Ban

College Counsel brought a motion pursuant to s.45(3) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act, 1991, for an order preventing public disclosure and banning publication or broadcasting of the name and any information that could disclose the identity of [Nurse A] referred to orally or in any documents presented in the Discipline hearing of Kimberlee Camille Davis except to the extent that publication and broadcasting of her name and other identifying details are necessary to understand or explain the evidence received by the Panel.

The Panel considered the submissions of the College and decided that there be an order preventing public disclosure and banning publication or broadcasting of the name and any information that could disclose the identity of [Nurse A] referred to orally or in any documents presented in the Discipline hearing of Kimberlee Camille Davis except to the extent that publication and broadcasting of her name and other identifying details are necessary to understand or explain the evidence received by the Panel.

The Allegations

The allegations against the Member as stated in the Notice of Hearing dated July 12, 2021 are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED THAT:

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 applying for nursing-related positions and/or while registered with the College of Nurses of Ontario (“CNO”) as a Registered Nurse, you contravened a standard of practice of the profession or failed to meet the standards of practice of the profession, in that:

(a) on or about April to June 2018, you submitted an application for employment and other documents to Scarborough Health Network in Toronto, Ontario (the “Facility”), which you knew contained false or misleading statements in respect of your academic credentials and/or your employment history;

(b) on or about April to June 2018, you submitted an application for employment to the Facility, in which you held yourself out as having academic credentials and/or an employment history that were in fact the academic credentials and/or employment history of another CNO member with a name similar to your name;

(c) on or about May to June 2018, you submitted to the Facility a verification of a degree from Ryerson University issued to another CNO member with a name similar to your name, as if it were your own, and/or you altered the verification to conceal the fact that the document verified the degree of another CNO member;

(d) on or about May to June 2018, you provided the Facility with the results of a police reference check from Durham Police Services which you altered and/or knew had been altered;

(e) on or about May to June 2018, you provided the Facility with a document purporting to be a 2018 Renewal Proof of Payment Receipt from CNO, which you altered and/or fabricated and/or knew was altered and/or fabricated;

(f) on or about November 2019, you submitted a resume to apply for full-time employment to Humber River Hospital in Toronto, Ontario (the “Hospital”), which you knew contained false or misleading statements in respect of your academic credentials;

(g) on or about November 2019, you submitted a resume to apply for full-time employment to the Hospital, in which you held yourself out as having academic credentials that were in fact the academic credentials of another CNO member with a name similar to your name;

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(14) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that while applying for nursing-related positions and/or while registered with CNO as a Registered Nurse, you falsified a record relating to your practice, in that:

(a) on or about May to June 2018, you provided the Facility with a document purporting to be a 2018 Renewal Proof of Payment Receipt from CNO, which you altered and/or fabricated and/or knew was altered and/or fabricated; and/or

(b) on or about May to June 2018, you provided the Facility with the results of a police reference check from Durham Police Services which you altered and/or knew had been altered; and/or

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(15) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that while applying for nursing-related positions and/or while registered with CNO as a Registered Nurse, you signed or issued, in your professional capacity, a document that you knew or ought to have known contained a false or misleading statement, in that:

(a) on or about April to June 2018, you submitted an application for employment and other documents to the Facility, which you knew contained false or misleading statements in respect of your academic credentials and/or your employment history;

(b) on or about May to June 2018, you submitted to the Facility a verification of a degree from Ryerson University issued to another CNO member with a name similar to your name, as if it were your own, and/or you altered the verification to conceal the fact that the document verified the degree of another CNO member;

(c) on or about November 2019, you submitted a resume to apply for full-time employment to the Hospital, which you knew contained false or misleading statements in respect of your academic credentials;

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 registered with CNO as a Registered Nurse, 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, in that:

(d) on or about May to June 2018, you provided the Facility with the results of a police reference check from Durham Police Services which you altered and/or knew had been altered;

(f) on or about November 2019, you submitted a resume to apply for full-time employment to the Hospital, which you knew contained false or misleading statements in respect of your academic credentials; and

Member’s Plea

Given that the Member was not present nor represented, she was deemed to have denied the allegations in the Notice of Hearing. The hearing proceeded on the basis that the College bore the onus of proving the allegations in the Notice of Hearing against the Member.

Overview

The Member registered with the College as a Registered Nurse on January 23, 1991. Between the years of 1991 to 2017 the Member had been registered with many different names at the College, including Camille Fayette Williams, Camille Fayette Davis, Kimberlee Camille Davis and Kimberlee Camille Bryon. During 2018 and 2019 the Member applied to positions at two healthcare facilities where she provided false and misleading statements regarding her employment history and academic credentials. The Member had documented on her resume that she had been successful in obtaining both a Bachelor’s and Master's Degree in Nursing from Ryerson University, neither of which was true. During her document submission for her employment application with the Scarborough Health Network, it was found that she falsified a police vulnerability sector check report, as well as a College of Nurses renewal proof of payment. The Member not only falsified documents while trying to obtain employment, she also held herself out as another College member with a similar name (i.e. [Nurse A]).

The Panel heard evidence from six witnesses and received 34 exhibits to consider. The Panel found that the Member committed professional misconduct by failing to meet the standards of practice of the profession, by falsifying records related to her practice, by issuing and providing documents in her professional capacity that she knew or ought to have known contained false or misleading statements and by engaging in conduct that would be considered by members of the profession to be disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

The Evidence

Witness #1

The Evidence

The first witness called by College Counsel was [Witness 1]. [Witness 1] was the Manager of Business Employee Relations at Scarborough Health Network at the time the Member applied for employment. [Witness 1] testified that she was responsible for the oversight of the recruitment process. [Witness 1] stated she had been employed at Scarborough Health Network for 33 years. Although [Witness 1] was not involved with the direct interview process, the Member’s hiring was brought to her attention when documents provided by the Member had some irregularities. College Counsel put forth many exhibits for this witness to review and she was asked to identify them and to point out any irregularities she found in them, if any:

i. Resume of Kim Davis (Exhibit #4): [Witness 1] testified this was the resume that Scarborough Health Network received when the Member was applying to a position there in May 2018. [Witness 1] identified that the education documented in this resume indicated the Member completing her nursing program at Humber College and then going on to complete her Bachelor’s and Master’s of Nursing at Ryerson University. The first page of the resume documented the Member’s work experience, including that she was presently working at [Employer A].

ii. Passport of Kimberlee Camille Davis (Exhibit #5): [Witness 1] was asked what name and date of birth was on this passport to which she responded Kimberlee Camille Davis and [Member’s birthdate]. This was a document [Witness 1] had reviewed after the concerns were brought to her attention.

iii. Humber Confirmation of Graduation (Exhibit #6): [Witness 1] confirmed the spelling on this document was KIMBERLEE DAVIS with [Member’s birthdate], as her date of birth.

iv. Ryerson University Degree Verification Service (Exhibit #7): [Witness 1] provided evidence that she reviewed Exhibit #7 with the Member when they met in person. [Witness 1] testified that she identified irregularities in this document such as the spelling of Kimberly with “ly” not “lee”.

v. Mackenzie Health Letter (Exhibit #8) and Saint Elizabeth Employment Letter (Exhibit #9): [Witness 1] testified she did review these letters, but only focused on the experience and name so did not compare them to the resume marked as Exhibit #4.

vi. Durham Regional Police Vulnerable Sector Check (Exhibit #10): [Witness 1] testified that within her responsibilities, she is the one that receives the police vulnerability checks as a normal part of the hiring process. When asked if she had any concerns with the police vulnerability check submitted by the Member she indicated yes, she had a lot of concerns. [Witness 1] went on to identify there was whiteout on the document as well as the middle name being scratched out. [Witness 1] indicated she did reach out to the Durham police to ask if they would produce a document which included parts whited out or scratched out and they indicated they would not.

vii. New Hire Enrolment Form (Exhibit #12): [Witness 1] testified that this document was completed by the Member when the hiring process was complete. In comparing the Hire Letter (Exhibit #11) with Exhibit #12, [Witness 1] pointed out the spelling of the names were different as were the addresses. Exhibit #11 had Kim Davis at [Address A] and Exhibit #12 had Kimberly Davis at [Address B]. Exhibit #11, the hire letter, would have been documented from the Member’s resume submitted whereas Exhibit #12 was completed by the Member directly. [Witness 1] indicated they investigated the different addresses and could not identify any information that showed the Member lived at [Address A].

viii. CNO 2018 Renewal Proof of Payment (Exhibit #13): [Witness 1] testified that this exhibit was submitted to Scarborough Health Network as part of the documentation requested in the review of her application. [Witness 1] indicated that this was reviewed with the Member when she met with her in person. Exhibit #13 has the name KIMBERLEE DAVIS at [Address A] documented on it. The Registration number documented on this exhibit was # [Nurse A’s registration number].

ix. Email exchange dated June 5 and 6, 2018 (Exhibit #14): [Witness 1] testified that she was cc’d on this email as Scarborough Health Network Human Resources (“HR”) Business Partners were communicating that the Member was a “rehire” as her Social Insurance Number (“SIN”) was in the HR system, but under a different name with the same birth date. The name in their file was Camille Davis. When HR followed up with the Member, she advised them that she did change her name. At this time the Member was asked to provide original copies of her degree and SIN. [Witness 1] was brought into this email communication due to the discrepancies that the HR team was finding with this new hire.

x. Scarborough Health Network Employee Information Leaver Details (Exhibit #15): [Witness 1] testified that this is a snapshot from their HR System. The name on this exhibit is KIMBERLEE Camille Davis. This exhibit documents that the Member had previously worked at Scarborough Health Network during 2003 and 2004 under its former name, Scarborough Hospital. [Witness 1] went on to say that on the New Hire Enrollment Form (Exhibit #12) the Member checked off the box to indicate she had not previously worked at the facility, but the HR team circled the “yes” to indicate she had been a previous employee. The College Registration number documented on (Exhibit #13) was # [Nurse A's registration number]. [Witness 1] testified that she went to the College’s website at this time and noted there was a [another member, Nurse A] with [Nurse A’s registration number]. [Witness 1] went on to testify from going on the CNO website and noting the different registration numbers this led her to identify there were different addresses noted on Exhibit # 12 and Exhibit #13 that were submitted to Scarborough Health Network by the Member. [Witness 1] testified that at the time she did not compare the internal system data with the Member’s submitted resume.

xi. Internal Investigation Notes (Exhibit #16) dated June 22, 2018: [Witness 1] testified that due to the many discrepancies in the documents provided by the Member she requested an in person meeting with the Member to discuss the issues further. [Witness 1] reviewed the numerous documents with the Member at the meeting and the Member did not provide responses to most questions asked by [Witness 1]. [Witness 1] questioned how the Member obtained information on [Nurse A], to which the Member responded it was a “mix up”. [Witness 1] informed the Member that the information she had provided was false and was a criminal offence, which [Witness 1] would have to report to the College and the police. [Witness 1] told the Member she had two options: to resign and she would be reported to the College or to have her employment terminated and reported to the College. The Member chose to resign.

The Panel found [Witness 1] to be credible given she gave straight forward and convincing testimony. [Witness 1’s] evidence was clear and concise. While going through the many exhibits [Witness 1] was professional and did not hesitate to indicate if she did not know an answer.

Witness #2

The second witness called by College Counsel was [Witness 2]. [Witness 2] worked at [Employer A] as a Labour Relations Advisor within the Human Resources team. [Witness 2] testified that she had been contacted by the College and asked to review the employment record of a Kimberlee Camille Davis with the date of birth as [Member’s birthdate]. [Witness 2] testified that she searched [Employer A’s] system and could not find this person in their database. [Witness 2] testified that she searched the electronic record by first and last name, even trying Davis with Camille as the first name without success. She indicated that she did not try to search by date of birth. College Counsel then asked what other records were found and [Witness 2] indicated a [person with Nurse A's name and spelling] was found and presently holds a position in [ ] in [Employer A]. [Witness 2] gave evidence that the College registration number documented in [Employer A’s] system for [Nurse A] is [Nurse A’s registration number].

The Panel found [Witness 2] to be credible given the fact that she was clear and concise in her testimony and she had no personal interest in the outcome of the hearing.

Witness #3

The third witness called by College Counsel was [Witness 3]. [Witness 3] indicated she works at Humber Hospital in the position of Senior Director of Professional Practice, Quality and Patient Safety. [Witness 3] has been at Humber Hospital since October 2016. [Witness 3] testified that she does not have any direct role in the hiring process. College Counsel took [Witness 3] to the Resume of Kim Davis submitted to Humber Hospital (Exhibit #19) and asked her to review it. [Witness 3] testified that the Member’s resume documented that she had been at Humber Hospital part time since August 2018, and that she graduated from Humber in 1989 in Nursing as well as from Ryerson University in 2008 with her Bachelor of Science in Nursing. [Witness 3] provided evidence that the Member had applied to a full-time position and with this the normal process would be for her to resubmit a resume, even though she would have submitted one in August 2018 when she was originally hired. College Counsel asked [Witness 3] if a nursing degree was required for the position to which the Member was applying, to which she responded no. College Counsel went on to ask if there was any documentation on the Member’s resume about working at Scarborough Health Network in which [Witness 3] responded no. [Witness 3] testified in preparation for the hearing, she reviewed the Kim Davis’ Humber Hospital electronic record that documented her date of birth being [Member’s birthdate]. When asked if Ms. Davis was still employed at Humber Hospital [Witness 3] testified “no” and that the Member resigned when she was requested to attend a fact finding meeting when Humber Hospital had received a request from the College for the right of documents from the Human Resource file.

The Panel found [Witness 3] to be credible given the fact that she was professional and provided straight forward, clear and convincing testimony.

Witness #4

The fourth witness called by College Counsel was [Witness 4]. [Witness 4] testified that he has been a College Investigator since November 2019. [Witness 4] testified that he was first contacted about this investigation in January 2020. [Witness 4] indicated that his general practice in an investigation is to collect relevant documents and interview witnesses. He testified that he has seen Police Vulnerability checks in his work. He does not normally review their content, but in this case he did. College Counsel directed him to the Durham Regional Police Vulnerable Sector Check submitted by the Member to Scarborough Health Network (Exhibit #10). The witness indicated that he had been concerned with the whiteout and crossed out names on it. [Witness 4] indicated that he had contacted the Durham Police and requested a new copy of the document, which they provided (Exhibit #20, Copy of the Durham Regional Police Vulnerable Sector Check). The witness testified that Exhibit #20 had the same “Date of Request” and receipt number as Exhibit #10. The name on the copy provided by Durham Police to [Witness 4] (Exhibit #20) was KIMBERLEE CAMILLE Davis, with the date of birth documented as [Member’s birthdate]. [Witness 4] was asked to identify the address documented on Exhibit #20, which he identified as [Address A]. [Witness 4] went on to testify that he looked up the Member’s address on the College’s electronic information and [Address A] was not on file, nor was it listed as a former address. [Witness 4] checked further into the College’s system and could not find [Address A] documented as an address for any member. College Counsel took [Witness 4] to the Register Report, February 2020 (Exhibit #21). He testified that this exhibit was from the College’s webpage and available publicly. The date stamp on it indicated it was pulled on February 12, 2020 and would have been up to date as of that date. [Witness 4] testified that this document showed the registration history current to the date it was reviewed. He testified that the Member at this time was entitled to practice. College Counsel took [Witness 4] to the Register Report, August 2021 (Exhibit #22). [Witness 4] testified that this was another printout from the public site for “Find a Nurse” in which it was documented that as of December 19, 2020, the Member had resigned as a member of the College.

The Panel found [Witness 4] to be credible, reliable and concise in his testimony. [Witness 4] provided clear and straightforward responses and indicated that even though he did review in this case the Durham Regional Police Vulnerable Sector Check it was not a normal process for him to do this.

Witness #5

The fifth witness called by College Counsel was [Witness 5]. [Witness 5] has been employed by the College for 13 years and her current position is Customer Service Administration Team Lead. In this position [Witness 5] is responsible for processing applications and reinstatements, changes to the register, changes to Find a Nurse, name changes and verifying registrations for other jurisdictions. [Witness 5] testified that for changes to be made to the register, such as a name change, a request would come in from a member. College Counsel took [Witness 5] to the Register report, February 2020 (Exhibit #21) for KIMBERLEE Camille Davis and inquired about the name changes. [Witness 5] provided evidence that the bottom name is the first name that would have been on the Register, and in the case of Exhibit #21 the first name on the Register was Camille Fayette Williams. [Witness 5] indicated that the Member had been on an administrative suspension from March 28, 2017, until April 27, 2017, due to a late fee payment. [Witness 5] went on to say that the yearly renewal deadline date for all nurses is December 31, and after this date a late fee is charged to the member, but they can continue to practice until they are notified of the suspension date. Once a member receives a suspension date, they have 30 days to pay the renewal fee and if they do not pay their membership expires. [Witness 5] was then taken to the CNO 2018 Renewal Proof of Payment for Reg #9116765 (Exhibit #23) and asked by College Counsel how this is generated. She testified that this document would be generated from a database, and the address documented on the renewal for KIMBERLEE Camille Davis was [Address B]. [Witness 5] indicated that the address for this document would be pulled from the database and would be the current address on file at the College. College Counsel then took the witness to the CNO 2018 Renewal Proof of Payment for [Nurse A’s registration number] (Exhibit #24), the witness testified that this was a 2018 renewal receipt for [Nurse A] who paid the renewal on December 22, 2017. [Witness 5] testified that the order number found on the renewal documents is computer generated. College Counsel than took [Witness 5] to Exhibit #13 and asked her to point out any inconsistencies on this renewal payment form. [Witness 5] testified that the name, the payment date of January 2, 2018, as it did not trigger late fees and the address [Address A] is not in the College’s database to generate on the receipt. [Witness 5] testified that Exhibit #13 was not an authentic document, it was “fake”.

The Panel found [Witness 5] to be credible given the fact that she gave clear and concise evidence and was knowledgeable about the College’s systems and processes.

Witness #6

The sixth and final witness to be called by College Counsel was [Witness 6]. [Witness 6] presently holds the position of Associate Registrar and Director of Student Records, Academic Policy and Operations in the Office of the Registrar at Ryerson University. In this position [Witness 6] testified that she oversees academic policies, enrolment, execution of policies, academic records, grades, standings, and all documents with student academic information. College Counsel took [Witness 6] to [the] Ryerson Degree Verification Service Result (Exhibit #25) [for a person with Nurse A's name and spelling] in which [Witness 6] explained that this document is from an online search that is available to the public as is an internal and external database. The information needed to complete this search is the entire legal name with date of birth or student identification number. College Counsel then had [Witness 6] review Exhibit #7 (Ryerson Degree Verification Document) which she stated would have been pulled from the old system. When [Witness 6] was asked would the middle name show up on the search, she indicated she did not remember what the old template looked like. [Witness 6] testified that Exhibit #25 provides program descriptions, Bachelor of Science in Nursing and Master's in Nursing for [Nurse A's name and spelling]. [Witness 6] was then taken to Exhibit #26 ([Nurse A's name and spelling] Personal Information Page-Student Information). She testified that this is from an internal system at Ryerson University, and it provides the date of birth as [Birthdate A], and is the same as documented on [the Official Transcript for a person with Nurse A’s name and spelling] (Exhibit #27). [Witness 6] was asked by College Counsel if a KIMBERLEE Camille Davis with [Member’s birthdate], as the date of birth attended Ryerson University and she responded there was no degree on record for this person. Exhibits #28 and #29 were brought forward by College Counsel showing Kim Davis with the date of birth documented as September 26, 1966, with no documented enrollments or completion of studies at Ryerson University to confirm the witness’s response.

The Panel found [Witness 6] to be credible, clear cogent and convincing when providing evidence. [Witness 6] was professional in her responses and had no personal interest in the outcome of the hearing.

Final Submissions

College Counsel reminded the Panel that the onus is on the College to prove on a balance of probabilities, the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. The Panel must make the conclusions as it flows from the evidence provided. The Panel must look at the totality of the evidence (Exhibits and Witnesses) and assess it for reliability and admissibility.

College Counsel summarized the evidence and submitted that the evidence established that the Member held herself out as having academic credentials and employment experience that she did not have, that she falsified documents and in doing this she committed professional misconduct as set out in all of the allegations. College Counsel went on to say that all of the witnesses provided evidence that was reliable, credible and none had any interest in the outcome of this hearing.

Allegation #1

College Counsel referenced the following standards of practice:

Professional Standards (Exhibit #30) and Ethics Standard (Exhibit #31)

The Professional Standards on Ethics states “respecting truthfulness and ensuring fairness in the use of resources. It also includes acting with integrity, honesty and professionalism in all dealings with the client and other health care members.” Respect and being truthful are the cornerstones of nursing practice.

The Ethics Standard states that nurses must maintain truthfulness in all dealings. Falsifying, misleading, deceiving or misrepresenting goes against the Ethics Standard set out by the College.

Allegation #2

College Counsel submitted that the Member committed an act of professional misconduct in all of the allegations in the Notice of Hearing and expert evidence is not needed to prove this as the Member providing false/misleading records is clearly unprofessional and a breach of the Ethics Standard and the Professional Standards.

Allegation #2

Allegation #3

College Counsel submitted that the Member committed an act of professional misconduct in Allegation #2 when she falsified a record relating to her practice. The Member provided Scarborough Health Network with a 2018 renewal receipt that was falsified as well as a police record check that had been altered. The Member either altered or fabricated the document or knew it was altered or fabricated.

Allegation #3

College Counsel submitted that the Member committed an act of professional misconduct in Allegation #3 when she signed in her professional capacity a document that she knew or ought to have known contained a false or misleading statement. The Member submitted resumes for nursing employment which contained false information. The Member provided degree verifications that she knew contained false information.

Allegation #4

College Counsel submitted that the Member’s conduct is characterized as dishonourable, disgraceful and unprofessional.

The Member’s behaviour is dishonourable as she was dishonest when she intentionally provided false documents and even adopted a professional colleague’s academic/work history.

The Member’s behaviour is also disgraceful as she was fraudulent and dishonest in an attempt to conceal her true identity. This behaviour showed a lack of regard for her professional responsibilities and showed serious doubt on her ability to uphold the high expectations of the profession.

College Counsel provided another case from the Discipline Committee that is similar and where that panel found the member committed professional misconduct that would be considered disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

CNO v. Holmgren (Discipline Committee, 2018). This case was heard by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order. The member submitted falsified documents regarding his education, employment history and police records. The panel found the member’s behaviour to be unprofessional, dishonourable and disgraceful. The member agreed to have his certificate of registration revoked.

College Counsel asked that the Panel find the Member committed professional misconduct with respect to all of the allegations and make a finding of dishonourable, disgraceful and unprofessional conduct.

Decision

The College bears the onus of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof, that being the balance of probabilities based upon clear, cogent and convincing evidence.

Having considered the evidence and the onus and standard of proof, the Panel finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraphs 1(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), 2(a), (b), 3(a), (b), (c), 4(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g). As to Allegations #4(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g), the Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession to be disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

Reasons for Decision

The Panel assessed the credibility of all the witnesses and found them all to be clear and cogent. Their testimony was convincing and was supported by documentary evidence.

With respect to allegation #1(a) the Member’s resume submitted to Scarborough and Rouge Hospital was marked as Exhibit #4. [Witness 1], [Witness 2] and [Witness 6] provided evidence that showed the inconsistences in the resume submitted to Scarborough Health Network for application of employment. The Member had documented on her resume that she was working at [Employer A] and had completed her Bachelor’s and Master's of Nursing degrees at Ryerson University, all of which was false. [Witness 2] gave clear evidence that the Member had never worked at [Employer A] and [Witness 6] provided evidence to the Panel that the Member had never completed any courses at Ryerson University.

With respect to allegations #1(b) and (c) that the Member held herself out as having academic credentials and/or employment of another College member with the similar name, the Panel found the allegation was proven to be true by exhibits and witnesses called by College Counsel. On the resume the Member submitted to Scarborough Health Network (Exhibit #4) for employment she had documented having a Bachelor and Master's degree in Nursing. She did not have either, but another College member named [Nurse A] did. The Member provided altered documentation to her potential employer in an attempt to prove that she attended Ryerson University as shown in Exhibit #7. On this same resume the Member also indicated that at the time of her application she was working at [Employer A]. [Witness 2] testified that [Nurse A] was a [ ] at [Employer A], whereas the Member was not. The evidence provided through exhibits and witness testimony proved that the Member had held herself out as another College member and altered documents while applying for employment.

With respect to allegation #1(d) that documented the Member provided altered police reference check documents while applying for employment. The Panel found the allegation was proven when [Witness 1] testified that she was very familiar with police reference check documents and when she received the Member’s Police Vulnerable Sector Check (Exhibit #10) she immediately identified concerns with the whiteout on the document as well as the middle name scratched off. [Witness 1] contacted the Durham Police Services and was informed that they would not issue such a document with the modifications described.

The Panel found that allegation #1(e) (i.e. that around May 2018 the Member provided a 2018 Renewal Proof of Payment Receipt to a Facility that she knew was altered) was proven through the evidence provided by [Witness 1] and [Witness 5]. [Witness 1] testified that she requested the document in her follow up to the many inconsistencies the HR team was finding during the Member’s employment application. [Witness 5] identified many errors in this document (Exhibit #13) provided to Scarborough Health Network including: the fact that the payment date of January 2, 2018 should have triggered an automatic late fee charge of $100, which it did not on this document; that the receipt is pulled from a database in which the address of [Address A] was not found and the order number that is automatically populated was the same as another Renewal Receipt (Exhibit #23) provided during this hearing. [Witness 5] went on to testify that the nurse Registration Number was incorrect for KIMBERLEE Camille Davis, and rather, as set out at Exhibit #13 provided to Scarborough Health Network, was for [Nurse A].

Allegations #1(f) and (g) assert that the Member submitted a resume for full-time employment to Humber River Hospital which she knew contained false or misleading academic credentials and that the Member held herself out as another College member with a similar name. The Panel found that both of these allegations were proven by the College with the evidence provided by [Witness 3] and [Witness 6]. [Witness 3] testified that the resume the Member submitted (Exhibit #19) to Humber Hospital for the full-time employment she had documented having a Bachelor's degree in Nursing, which she did not have, but which another College member named [Nurse A] did. [Witness 6] provided testimony that a [person with Nurse A's name and spelling] was successful in obtaining her Bachelor's degree in Nursing from Ryerson University (Exhibit #25) but the Member, KIMBERLEE Camille Davis had not completed any courses at Ryerson University (Exhibits #26 and #27). The evidence provided through exhibits and witness testimony proved that the Member had held herself out as another College member and provided false information on her resume while applying for full-time employment at Humber Hospital.

In review of all the evidence provided for allegations #1(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g), the Panel concluded that the Member committed an act of professional misconduct when she failed to meet the standards of practice when she provided false and misleading information on her resume and in the documents she provided to employers while attempting to secure a nursing position. The College’s Ethics Standard documents a member is to act with integrity, honesty and professionalism in all dealings and it was clear from this Member’s behaviour she failed to meet this standard. In holding herself out as another College member she failed to meet the Professional Standards that documents the need to respect each other’s knowledge, expertise, and unique contribution to the health care team.

In respect to allegation #2(a), the Panel found that the Member provided the Facility with an altered 2018 Renewal Proof of Payment Receipt from the College as [Witness 5] provided evidence that clearly laid out the discrepancies in the 2018 Renewal Proof of Payment Receipt (Exhibit #13) the Member provided to Scarborough Health Network when she was applying for a position. [Witness 5] was very familiar with this document from the College and gave evidence that the date of renewal documented (January 2, 2018) would be considered a late payment and $100 late fee would automatically be applied. No such late fee was indicated on the document provided by the Member. [Witness 5] also testified that the document is auto generated from the system and would pull addresses from the system. The address [Address A] is nowhere in the College’s system for it to be pulled from. Furthermore, the order number documented is the same as on Exhibit #23, which is another auto populated number. All receipts have unique order numbers. [Witness 5] also pointed out that the Registration numbers and names were different on Exhibit #13 and Exhibit #23.

In respect to allegation #2(b), the Panel found that the Member provided the Facility with a police reference check from Durham Police Services that she knew or ought to have known had been altered. [Witness 1] was clear in her evidence that the Durham Regional Vulnerable Sector Check (Exhibit #10) submitted to her by the Member had been altered. [Witness 1] testified that she received all of the police sector checks as a normal process, and she is familiar with them, and the one the member submitted had whiteout on it as well as the middle name being crossed off. [Witness 1] did contact the Durham police to inquire if they would provide a report with these changes and they indicated they would not.

In review of all the evidence provided for allegations #2(a) and (b), the Panel concluded that the Member committed an act of professional misconduct when she falsified a record relating to her practice.

In respect to allegations #3(a) and (c), the Panel found that the Member signed or issued in her professional capacity documents that she knew contained false or misleading statements. The Member was applying to nursing positions at both Scarborough Health Network and Humber Hospital, so it is clear the documents she was providing to both facilities was being done in a professional capacity. From the evidence documented from all 6 witnesses it is clear that the Member was aware of the documents she was submitting and that they contained false information such as her resumes (Exhibits #4 and #19), Ryerson Degree Verification (Exhibit #7), Durham Regional Police Vulnerable Sector Check (Exhibit #10) and the CNO 2018 Renewal Proof of Payment (Exhibit #13).

In respect to allegation #3(b), the Panel found that the Member submitted to a Facility a verification of a degree from Ryerson issued to another College member with a similar name and that she altered the document to conceal the fact that the document verified the degree of another College member. Evidence provided by [Witness 6] proved the Member did not have a degree or Master's from Ryerson University, but another College member, [Nurse A] did. The Ryerson Degree Verification (Exhibit #7) that the Member provided to Scarborough Health Network was altered to make it look like she had been successful in obtaining her Bachelor and Master's degree in Nursing from Ryerson University.

In review of all the evidence provided for allegations #3(a), (b) and (c), the Panel concluded that the Member committed an act of professional misconduct when she signed or issued documents in her professional capacity, documents that she knew or should have known contained false or misleading statements.

For allegations #4(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) the Panel found Member engaged in conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession to be disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. The Member intentionally falsified many documents, including academic credentials and adopted another professional member’s credentials for her own personal use in an attempt to be hired into a nursing position. This behaviour breached both the Professional Standards and the Ethics Standard. The Member’s behaviours were fraudulent and showed a serious disregard of her professional obligations. The Member’s conduct demonstrated an element of moral failing and the Member knew or ought to have known that her conduct was unacceptable and fell below the standards of a professional. The conduct demonstrated a pattern of deceit and brought shame to the Member and the profession.

The Panel found the evidence presented by College Counsel and the witnesses substantiated all of the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.

Penalty

Penalty Submissions

Penalty

College Counsel submitted that, in view of the Panel’s findings of professional misconduct, it should make an order as follows:

Requiring the Member to appear before the Panel to be reprimanded within 3 months of the date that this Order becomes final.
Directing the Executive Director to immediately revoke the Member’s certificate of registration.

College Counsel submitted that the proposed penalty reflects the seriousness of the Member’s conduct. The proposed penalty is appropriate, takes into account the aggravating circumstances, properly reflects the goals of penalty and is consistent with other similar decisions. The Member has already resigned her certificate of registration, but this was a unilateral act by the Member. The Panel has the right to make a regulatory response and revoke her certificate of registration due to the proven allegations of misconduct.

The aggravating factors in this case were:

The Member’s deception strikes at the cornerstone of the nursing practice, which requires being ethical, truthful, and having integrity;
The Member’s conduct was persistent and demonstrates a pattern of dishonesty;
The Member’s conduct was intentional and calculating;
The Member took steps to continue this deception in documents she provided to potential employers and her employer;
The Member continued the deception even after being confronted by a potential employer;
All allegations were of a serious nature.

College Counsel submitted that the Member’s actions were not a memory lapse, her actions were deliberate and thought through. This was not the first time this Member was dishonest in relation to her role as a nurse. College Counsel provided two previous cases that had been brought to the Discipline Committee in the past with respect to this same Member.

CNO v. Davis (Discipline Committee, 1999). The Member’s name at this time was documented as Camille F. Davis on the College registration. This hearing was heard by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order. The Member admitted to misappropriating property from a colleague. The Member memorized the colleague's bank card PIN, stole the bank card and withdrew $2,250.00 in total and returned the bank card to the colleague’s bag. The Member received an oral reprimand, a nine month suspension, terms, conditions and limitations on her certificate of registration, and was to meet with a counsellor.

CNO v. Williams (Discipline Committee, 2004). The Member’s name at this time was documented as Camille Williams on the College registration. This hearing was heard by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order. The Member admitted to claiming sick leave from one employer while working for another employer. The Member admitted her actions were dishonourable, disgraceful and unprofessional. The Member received an oral reprimand and was fined $2,000.00.

College Counsel submitted that this was the third time this Member has come before the Discipline Committee with serious, repeated and dishonest acts. All three discipline hearings have involved significant dishonesty and deception. The Member cannot be governed so the appropriate penalty is a reprimand and revocation.

As the Member did not attend the hearing, there is no evidence or information before the Panel regarding her personal circumstances.

The proposed penalty provides for general and specific deterrence through:

The oral reprimand;
Revocation of the Member’s certificate of registration.

This sends a message to the profession that this conduct will not be tolerated.

Overall, the public is protected because the Member is removed from practice and can no longer call herself a nurse.

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

CNO v. Charania (Discipline Committee, 2014). In this case, the member falsified his resume and fraudulently used a computer system with an intent to commit an offence. The member was given an oral reprimand, a four month suspension, two meetings with a Nursing Expert and 24 months of employer notification.

CNO v. Richer (Discipline Committee, 2019). In this case, the member charged personal expenses to the workplace credit card, falsified her credentials on her resume when applying for a job as well as provided a false transcript and letter from a university. The member was given an oral reprimand, a ten month suspension, two meetings with a Regulatory Expert and 24 months of employer notification.

Penalty Decision

The Panel accepts the College’s Submission on Order and accordingly orders:

The Member is required to appear before the Panel to be reprimanded within 3 months of the date that this Order becomes final.
The Executive Director is directed 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. This is achieved through a penalty that addresses specific deterrence, general deterrence and where appropriate rehabilitation and remediation.

The Member’s action violated the cornerstone values of the nursing profession which include honesty, integrity, and truthfulness. This penalty sends a strong message to the Member and the membership that falsifying documents, misrepresenting professional credentials, and using another College member’s name and credentials for their own personal use will not be tolerated.

The Panel concluded that the proposed penalty is reasonable and in the public interest and satisfies the principles of specific and general deterrence and public protection. General and specific deterrence are provided through the oral reprimand and revocation. The public is protected through the revocation as this Member will not be able to practice nursing.

The penalty sends a clear message to the profession about the seriousness of this type of conduct.

The penalty is also consistent with previous decisions of this Discipline Committee for similar misconduct.

I, Dawn Cutler, RN, sign this decision and reasons for the decision as Chairperson of this Discipline Panel and on behalf of the members of the Discipline Panel.