College of Nurses of Ontario v. Shirley Anne Taasin, 2024 CanLII 120506

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO

PANEL: Tyler Hands, RN Chairperson Carly Gilchrist, RPN Member Lalitha Poonasamy Public Member Andrew Sharpe, NP Member

BETWEEN:

COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO DOUGLAS MONTGOMERY for College of Nurses of Ontario

• and -

SHIRLEY ANNE TAASIN Registration No. JG676491 NO REPRESENTATION for Shirley Anne Taasin

CHRISTOPHER WIRTH Independent Legal Counsel

Heard: February 8, 2024

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”) on February 8, 2024, via videoconference.

The Allegations

College Counsel advised the Panel that the College was requesting leave to withdraw the allegations set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 in the Notice of Hearing dated December 18, 2023. The Panel granted this request. The remaining allegations against Shirley Anne Taasin (the “Member”) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED THAT:

1. You have committed an act of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 32, as amended, and defined in subsection 1(1) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that while working as a Registered Practical Nurse at Baycrest Hospital in Toronto, Ontario (the “Facility”), you contravened a standard of practice of the profession or failed to meet the standards of practice of the profession, and in particular, in or around 2011 to 2015, you submitted and/or accepted payment for false claims under the Facility’s employee group benefit plan (the “Benefit Plan”).

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(8) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that while working as a Registered Practical Nurse at the Facility, you misappropriated property from a client or workplace, and in particular, in or around 2011 to 2015, you submitted and/or accepted payment for false claims under the Benefit Plan.

3. [Withdrawn].

4. [Withdrawn].

5. 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 working as a Registered Practical Nurse at the Facility, 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, and in particular, in or around 2011 to 2015, you submitted and/or accepted payment for false claims under the Benefit Plan.

Member’s Plea

The Member admitted the allegations set out in paragraphs 1, 2 and 5 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 admissions were voluntary, informed and unequivocal.

Agreed Statement of Facts

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

MEMBER

1. Shirley Anne Taasin (the “Member”) registered with the College of Nurses of Ontario (“CNO”) as a Registered Practical Nurse (“RPN”) on January 2, 2007.

2. The Member was employed as a Staffing Coordinator at Baycrest Health Sciences, in Toronto, Ontario (the “Facility”) at the time of the incidents described below. The Member was not engaged in health care activities during this time, but had an active certificate of registration.

3. The Facility terminated the Member’s employment on July 10, 2019, as a result of the incidents.

BENEFIT PLAN

4. The Facility offers coverage to its employees for extended health care, dental, and other insurance benefits through a self-insured group insurance policy (the “Benefit Plan”). Coughlin & Associates Ltd (“Coughlin”) administers the Benefit Plan on behalf of the Facility. The Facility, however, is the plan sponsor for the Benefit Plan, and therefore funds the cost of claims paid out to employees under the plan. Employees contribute to the cost of the Benefit Plan as set out in their employment agreement and/or collective agreement, based on their election for individual or family coverage.

5. To submit a benefit claim, members of the Benefit Plan would complete a medical expense claim form provided by Coughlin. The medical expense claim form requires certain information, including information on the plan member, any dependents, and the nature of the claim. The plan member must certify “that the information given is true, correct and complete to the best of [their] knowledge”.

INCIDENTS RELEVANT TO ALLEGATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

6. Between 2011 to 2015, the Member submitted claims for compression stockings, orthopaedic products and physiotherapy. However, the Member had not received any of the products or services as claimed. The total value of the improper claims amounted to $7,170.

7. In January 2019, the Facility uncovered benefits irregularities and conducted an internal investigation. On April 4, 2019, the Facility interviewed the Member regarding her claims. The Member admitted that a Baycrest employee named “Elizabeth” would facilitate the completion of benefit claim forms, and once Coughlin had reimbursed the Member for the claim, the Member would split the proceeds with “Elizabeth”. The Member confirmed that she had never visited any of the practitioners or service providers in the false claims, which included Shaun Freeman, Noble Med Care, Med Care Treatment & Supplies.

8. The Facility terminated the Member’s employment on July 10, 2019, as a result of this conduct. The Member did not make restitution.

BENEFIT FRAUD CASES

9. To date, at least 82 benefit fraud cases involving substantially similar schemes as the one identified in this case, involving either cash or products not covered by the benefit plan, have been referred to the Discipline Committee. The dollar amounts of the false claims involved range from under $500 to over $45,000.

CNO STANDARDS

10. CNO’s practice standards outline the expectations for nurses, including how nurses are accountable and what the public expects of nurses. CNO’s standards apply to all nurses regardless of their role, job description or area of practice.

Professional Standards

11. CNO’s Professional Standards provides an overall framework for the practice of nursing and a link with other standards, guidelines and competencies developed by CNO. It includes seven broad standard statements pertaining to accountability, continuing competence, ethics, knowledge, knowledge application, leadership and relationships.

12. CNO’s Professional Standards provides, in relation to the accountability standard, that nurses are accountable to the public and responsible for ensuring their practice and conduct meets the legislative requirements and the standards of the profession. Nurses are responsible for their actions and the consequences of those actions as well as for conducting themselves in ways that promote respect for the profession. Nurses demonstrate this standard by actions such as ensuring their practice is consistent with CNO’s standards of practice and guidelines as well as legislation.

13. CNO’s Professional Standards provides, in relation to the leadership standard, that leadership requires self-knowledge (understanding one’s beliefs and values and being aware of how one’s behaviour affects others), respect, trust, integrity, shared vision, learning, participation, good communication techniques and the ability to be a change facilitator. The leadership expectation is not limited to nurses in formal leadership positions and all nurses, regardless of their position, have opportunities for leadership. Nurses demonstrate this standard by actions such as role-modelling professional values, beliefs and attributes.

Ethics

14. CNO’s Ethics Standard describes ethical values that are important to the nursing profession in Ontario including patient well-being, patient choice, privacy and confidentiality, respect for life, maintaining commitments, truthfulness and fairness.

15. CNO’s Ethics Standard provides, in relation to maintaining commitments, that nurses have a commitment to the nursing profession and being a member of the profession brings with it the respect and trust of the public. To continue to deserve this respect, nurses have a duty to uphold the standards of the profession, conduct themselves in a manner that reflects well on the profession, and to participate in and promote the growth of the profession.

16. CNO’s Ethics Standard also provides, in relation to truthfulness, that truthfulness means speaking and acting without intending to deceive.

17. The Member admits and acknowledges that she contravened CNO’s Professional Standards and Ethics Standard.

ADMISSIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

18. The Member admits that she committed the acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraph 1 of the Notice of Hearing in that she contravened a standard of practice of the profession or failed to meet the standards of practice of the profession, as described in paragraphs 6 to 8 and 10 to 17 above.

19. The Member admits that she committed the acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraph 2 of the Notice of Hearing in that she misappropriated property from a workplace, as described in paragraphs 6 to 8 above.

20. The Member admits that she committed the acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraph 5 of the Notice of Hearing, and in particular her conduct was dishonourable and unprofessional, as described in paragraphs 6 to 8 above.

Liability Submissions

Submissions were made by College Counsel.

College Counsel submitted that the Panel should accept the facts as set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts, as well as the Member’s admissions and that the Panel should make findings of professional misconduct with respect to allegations #1, #2 and #5 in the Notice of Hearing. College Counsel submitted that the Panel has heard that the Member has admitted to the three allegations and that the Member’s plea was voluntary and informed. College Counsel submitted that in particular paragraphs 18-20 in the Agreed Statement of Facts sets out the Member’s admissions and supporting paragraphs for each allegation.

College Counsel submitted that with respect to allegation #1, the parties have placed into evidence the relevant College standards which are the Ethics Standard and the Professional Standards through the Agreed Statement of Facts. College Counsel submitted that the Member’s admissions that the standards were breached provides a basis for which the Panel can make a finding of professional misconduct.

College Counsel submitted that with respect to allegation #5, the misconduct must have the following two elements: 1) it has to be relevant to the practice of nursing; and 2) it has to be conduct that would be reasonably regarded as dishonourable, disgraceful or unprofessional. College Counsel submitted that the Member’s conduct is relevant to the practice of nursing. College Counsel submitted that there are strong expectations of nurses with respect to truthfulness and accuracy. College Counsel submitted that this is particularly heightened when nurses are making written representation in the context of their employment and generating reliable records. College Counsel submitted that having regard to all the circumstances members of the profession would consider this conduct to be dishonourable and unprofessional. College Counsel submitted that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional because it constitutes a marked and persistent disregard for the Member’s professional obligations to act with honesty and integrity. College Counsel submitted that the Member’s conduct was dishonourable because there was an element of moral failing which is the repeated acts of dishonesty.

College Counsel provided the Panel with a copy of the liability decision from CNO v. Verde-Balayo (Discipline Committee, 2021). College Counsel submitted that this was one of the first benefit fraud cases that came before the Discipline Committee. College Counsel submitted that this case involved the same type of misconduct; submitting false benefit claims to obtain monetary benefit. College Counsel submitted that the discipline panel conducted a robust analysis of how to characterize this type of misconduct. The panel found the member’s conduct to be dishonourable and unprofessional.

College Counsel submitted that in the case before this Panel the allegations are very similar and accepting the Agreed Statement of Facts would be consistent with previous decisions from the Discipline Committee when dealing with this type of misconduct. College Counsel submitted that there is a difference in the case before this Panel in that allegations #3 and #4 have been withdrawn as the Member was not working in a patient-care capacity but as a staffing coordinator.

The Member made no submissions on liability.

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, 2 and 5 of the Notice of Hearing. As to allegation #5, the Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession 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 in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 6-8, 10-18 in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Member was employed as a Staffing Coordinator at Baycrest Health Sciences (the “Facility”). The Member was not engaged in health care activities during this time but had an active certificate of registration. The Facility offers coverage to its employees for extended health care, dental, and other insurance benefits through a self-insured group insurance policy (the “Benefit Plan”). The Member admitted to submitting false claims through the Facility’s Benefit Plan between 2011 and 2015 for compression stockings, orthopaedic products and physiotherapy, which she did not receive and to receiving $7,170.00 in relation to those false claims. The Member admitted that an employee at the Facility would facilitate the completion of the benefit claim forms, and once Coughlin & Associates Ltd. had reimbursed the Member for the claim, she would split the proceeds with this employee.

The Member breached the College’s Professional Standards and the Ethics Standard. The College’s Professional Standards provide that nurses are responsible for ensuring that their practice and conduct meets legislative requirements and the standards of the profession. Nurses are responsible for their actions and the consequences of those actions and further provide that a nurse meets this standard by having self-knowledge, respect, trust and integrity. A nurse demonstrates this standard by actions such as role-modelling professional values, beliefs and attributes. The College’s Ethics Standard describes ethical values which are important to the nursing profession, which include but are not limited to maintaining commitments, truthfulness and fairness and also provides that being a member of this profession brings with it a certain level of trust and respect of the public. Truthfulness in the Ethics Standard means speaking or acting without intending to deceive.

Allegation #2 in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 6-8 and 19 in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Member admitted to misappropriating property from the Facility when she submitted false claims through the Facility’s Benefit Plan and received money for those false claims. Receiving money with respect to false benefit claims constitutes misappropriation of property.

Allegation #5 in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 6-8 and 20 in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct in submitting false benefit claims was clearly relevant to the practice of nursing. It was unprofessional as it demonstrated a serious and persistent disregard for her professional obligations in breaching the College’s Professional Standards and the Ethics Standard.

The Panel also finds that the Member’s conduct was dishonourable. It demonstrated an element of dishonesty and deceit when she submitted claims to the Facility’s Benefit Plan that she knew or ought to have known were false. Only when the Member’s conduct was investigated by the Facility did she acknowledge her misconduct. The Panel finds that the Member’s repeated misconduct demonstrated an element of moral failing and a lack of integrity. The Member also knew or ought to have known that her conduct was unacceptable and fell below the standards of a professional.

Penalty

College Counsel and the Member advised the Panel that a Joint Submission on Order had been agreed upon. The Joint Submission on Order requests that this Panel make an order as follows:

1. Requiring the Member to appear before the Panel to be reprimanded within 3 months of the date that this Order becomes final.

2. Directing the Executive Director to suspend the Member’s certificate of registration for 4 months. This suspension shall take effect from the date that the Member obtains an active certificate of registration in a practicing class and shall continue to run without interruption as long as the Member remains in a practicing 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 2 meetings with a Regulatory Expert (the “Expert”), at the Member’s own expense and within 6 months from the date that the Member obtains an active certificate of registration in a practicing class. To comply, the Member is required to ensure that:

i. The Expert has expertise in nursing regulation and has been approved by CNO in advance of the meetings;

ii. At least 5 days before the first meeting, or within another timeframe approved by the Expert, the Member provides the Expert with a copy of:

1. the Panel’s Order,

2. the Notice of Hearing, and

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

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

1. Code of Conduct,

2. Professional Standards, and

3. Ethics;

iv. At least 5 days before the first meeting, or within another timeframe approved by the Expert, the Member provides the Expert with a copy of the completed Reflective Questionnaires;

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 patients, 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 their report to CNO, 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 the Member’s 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 the Member’s 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 the Member’s employer(s) of the decision. To comply, the Member is required to:

i. Inform any employer of the decision prior to commencing or prior to resuming employment in any nursing position;

ii. Ensure that CNO 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;

iii. Provide the Member’s employer(s) with a copy of:

1. the Panel’s Order,

2. the Notice of Hearing, and

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

iv. 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 CNO, in which it will confirm:

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

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

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

Penalty Submissions

Submissions were made by College Counsel.

College Counsel submitted that the Panel should accept the penalty as set out in the Joint Submission on Order. College Counsel submitted that it is a product of negotiations between the College and the Member. College Counsel submitted that the Discipline Committee is generally expected to accept a Joint Submission on Order unless doing so would be contrary to the public interest or that it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. College Counsel submitted that this would be a very high threshold and is reserved for cases where the agreement clearly fails to be entirely responsive to the goals of penalty. College Counsel submitted that the penalty contained in the Joint Submission on Order will further the public interest and is appropriate with the three key considerations which are that it: 1) reflects the aggravating and mitigating factors of this case; 2) meets the goals of penalty; and 3) is consistent with prior decisions of the Discipline Committee.

The aggravating factors in this case were:

• The Member’s conduct involved serious and persistent dishonesty and deceit which came at the expense of her employer-funded Benefit Plan;

• The Member’s conduct was not a single lapse in judgement as it occurred over a span of 4 years; and

• The Member’s conduct took advantage of the trust placed in her by the Facility.

The mitigating factors in this case were:

• The Member took responsibility with her employer and the College by admitting to the allegations;

• The Member entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order with the College; and

• The Member has no prior discipline history with the College.

College Counsel submitted that the goals of penalty are to maintain high professional standards and enhance the public's confidence in the College’s ability to regulate nurses. College Counsel submitted that this is achieved through penalties that protect the public, address deterrence and provide for rehabilitation and remediation. College Counsel submitted that each of the elements proposed in this penalty serve one or more of the objectives of the penalty.

College Counsel submitted that specific deterrence refers to a penalty that will deter this particular Member from committing misconduct in the future. College Counsel submitted that the proposed penalty provides for specific deterrence through the oral reprimand and the 4-month suspension of the Member’s certificate of registration. The oral reprimand will assist the Member in understanding how her actions are perceived by both the profession and the public. The 4-month suspension of the Member’s certificate of registration sends a strong signal to the Member that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable.

College Counsel submitted that general deterrence refers to a penalty that will deter other members of the profession from engaging in similar misconduct. College Counsel submitted that there has been a significant number of benefit fraud cases before the Discipline Committee. College Counsel submitted that there is a clear need to send a signal to the profession that this type of misconduct is unacceptable, and it is not tolerated in the nursing profession. College Counsel submitted that the proposed penalty provides general deterrence through the 4-month suspension of the Member’s certificate of registration, which sends a strong message to other members of the profession and members of the public that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable.

College Counsel submitted that the proposed penalty provides for rehabilitation and remediation through the 2 meetings with a Regulatory Expert and review of the College’s Code of Conduct, Professional Standards and Ethics Standard, which will prepare the Member to return to ethical practice and a standard that is expected of nurses.

College Counsel submitted that the public is protected through the 12 months of employer notification, which will allow for employer oversight when the Member returns to practice.

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

CNO v. Verde-Balayo (Discipline Committee, 2021): In this case, the hearing proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Partial Joint Submission on Order. This case dealt with similar benefit fraud misconduct. The member submitted false claims to her employee group benefit plan in the amount of $7,982.50. The member did not make restitution. The penalty included an oral reprimand, a 4-month suspension of the member’s certificate of registration, 2 meetings with a Regulatory Expert and 12 months of employer notification.

CNO v. Pennant (Discipline Committee, 2022): In this case, the hearing proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order. This case dealt with similar benefit fraud misconduct. The member submitted false claims to her employee group benefit plan in the amount of $7,140.00. The member did not make restitution. The penalty included an oral reprimand, a 4-month suspension of the member’s certificate of registration, 2 meetings with a Regulatory Expert and 12 months of employer notification.

The Member made no submissions on penalty.

Penalty Decision

The Panel accepts the Joint Submission on Order and accordingly orders:

1. The Member is required to appear before the Panel to be reprimanded within 3 months of the date that this Order becomes final.

2. The Executive Director is directed to suspend the Member’s certificate of registration for 4 months. This suspension shall take effect from the date that the Member obtains an active certificate of registration in a practicing class and shall continue to run without interruption as long as the Member remains in a practicing 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 2 meetings with a Regulatory Expert (the “Expert”), at the Member’s own expense and within 6 months from the date that the Member obtains an active certificate of registration in a practicing class. To comply, the Member is required to ensure that:

i. The Expert has expertise in nursing regulation and has been approved by CNO in advance of the meetings;

ii. At least 5 days before the first meeting, or within another timeframe approved by the Expert, the Member provides the Expert with a copy of:

1. the Panel’s Order,

2. the Notice of Hearing, and

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

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

1. Code of Conduct,

2. Professional Standards, and

3. Ethics;

iv. At least 5 days before the first meeting, or within another timeframe approved by the Expert, the Member provides the Expert with a copy of the completed Reflective Questionnaires;

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 patients, 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 their report to CNO, 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 the Member’s 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 the Member’s 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 the Member’s employer(s) of the decision. To comply, the Member is required to:

i. Inform any employer of the decision prior to commencing or prior to resuming employment in any nursing position;

ii. Ensure that CNO 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;

iii. Provide the Member’s employer(s) with a copy of:

1. the Panel’s Order,

2. the Notice of Hearing, and

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

iv. 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 CNO, in which it will confirm:

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

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

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

Reasons for Penalty Decision

The Panel understands that the penalty ordered should protect the public and enhance public confidence in the ability of the College to regulate nurses. This is achieved through a penalty that addresses specific deterrence, general deterrence and, where appropriate, rehabilitation and remediation. The Panel also considered the penalty in light of the principle that joint submissions should not be interfered with lightly.

The Panel concluded that the proposed penalty is reasonable and in the public interest. The Member has co-operated with the College and, by agreeing to the facts and a proposed penalty, has accepted responsibility.

The Panel finds that the penalty satisfies the principles of specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation and remediation, and public protection.

The proposed penalty provides for general deterrence through:

• The 4-month suspension of the Member’s certificate of registration.

The proposed penalty provides for specific deterrence through:

• The oral reprimand; and

• The 4-month suspension of the Member’s certificate of registration.

The proposed penalty provides for remediation and rehabilitation through:

• The 2 meetings with a Regulatory Expert and review of the relevant standards of the profession.

Overall, the public is protected through the 12 months of employer notification, which will allow further oversight of the Member’s practice.

The penalty sends a strong message to the nursing profession and the public that benefit fraud is taken seriously, and it amounts to professional misconduct. When nurses act in a deceitful manner, trust is broken. The public needs to be able to trust the nursing profession to uphold honesty and high ethical integrity.

The penalty is also in line with what has been ordered in previous cases in similar circumstances as demonstrated by the cases submitted and referred to by College Counsel.

I, Tyler Hands, 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.

Chairperson