DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO
PANEL: Carly Gilchrist, RPN Chairperson
Amrutha Kumar, RN Member
Sandra Larmour Public Member
Shannon Mantha, RN Member
BETWEEN:
COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO ) JOSEPH BERGER for
) College of Nurses of Ontario
- and - )
KEVIN TRINH ) NO REPRESENTATION for
Registration No. AG308539 ) Kevin Trinh
) CHRISTOPHER WIRTH
) Independent Legal Counsel
) Heard: December 20, 2024
) via videoconference
DECISION AND REASONS
This matter was heard by a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the College of Nurses of Ontario (the “College”) on December 20, 2024.
The Allegations
The allegations against Kevin Trinh (the “Member”) as stated in the Notice of Hearing dated November 19, 2024 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 working as a Registered Practical Nurse at the Guelph General Hospital, in Guelph, Ontario (the “Facility”), you contravened a standard or practice of the profession or failed to meet the standards of practice of the profession, as follows:
a. Between on or about July 2022 and September 2022, you were paid for time that you had not worked at the Facility in respect of the seventeen dates listed at Appendix A;
b. Between on or about July 2022 and September 2022, you falsely recorded your time worked at the Facility in respect of the seventeen dates listed at Appendix A, by logging out of the Facility’s payroll system after you had already left the Facility or had not attended at the Facility;
c. In or about September 2022, you instructed your colleagues at the Facility how to log out of the Facility’s payroll system remotely when such conduct was not permitted by the Facility; 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(8) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that while working as Registered Practical Nurse at the Guelph General Hospital, in Guelph, Ontario (the “Facility”), you misappropriated property from a client or workplace, and in particular, between on or about July 2022 and September 2022, you were paid for times that you had not worked at the Facility in respect of the seventeen dates listed at Appendix A; 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(14) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that while working as a Registered Practical Nurse at the Guelph General Hospital, in Guelph, Ontario (the “Facility”), you falsified a record related to your practice, and in particular, on or about July 2022 and September 2022, you falsely recorded your time worked at the Facility in respect of the seventeen dates listed at Appendix A, by logging out of the Facility’s payroll system after you had already left the Facility or had not attended at the Facility; 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(37) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that while working as a Registered Practical Nurse at the Guelph General Hospital, in Guelph, Ontario (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, as follows:
a. Between on or about July 2022 and September 2022, you were paid for time that you had not worked at the Facility in respect of the seventeen dates listed at Appendix A; and/or
b. Between on or about July 2022 and September 2022, you falsely recorded your time worked at the Facility in respect of the seventeen dates listed at Appendix A, by logging out of the Facility’s payroll system after you had already left the Facility or had not attended at the Facility; and/or
c. In or about September 2022, you instructed your colleagues at the Facility how to log out of the Facility’s payroll system remotely, when such conduct was not permitted by the Facility.
Appendix A
Date
Time Theft
1
July 19, 2022
7 hours, 30 minutes
2
July 28, 2022
1 hour, 22 minutes
3
August 2, 2022
2 hours, 43 minutes
4
August 4, 2022
7 hours, 30 minutes
5
August 5, 2022
7 hours, 30 minutes
6
August 8, 2022
7 hours, 30 minutes
7
August 12, 2022
22 minutes
8
August 13, 2022
15 minutes
9
August 14, 2022
17 minutes
10
August 17, 2022,
28 minutes
11
August 22, 2022
4 hours, 18 minutes
12
August 23, 2022
2 hours, 58 minutes
13
August 26, 2022
3 hours, 57 minutes
14
August 27, 2022
5 hours, 46 minutes
15
August 28, 2022
3 hours, 33 minutes
16
September 3, 2022
28 minutes
17
September 6, 2022
1 hours, 28 minutes
Member’s Plea
The Member admitted the allegations set out in paragraphs #1(a), #1(b), #1(c), #2, #3 and #4(a), #4(b) and #4(c) 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 and without exhibits mentioned therein, as follows:
THE MEMBER
Kevin Trinh (the “Member”) registered with the College of Nurses of Ontario (“CNO”) as a Registered Practical Nurse (“RPN”) on November 3, 2017.
The Member became employed at the Guelph General Hospital, in Guelph, Ontario (the “Facility”) in a casual position in 2020. The Member was subsequently hired by the Facility into a temporary, full-time role as a medication safety “super user” of the Facility’s electronic Medication Administration Record (“eMAR”) system on August 1, 2022. The Facility terminated the Member’s employment for cause effective September 29, 2022, in connection with the incidents described below.
The Member has no prior CNO disciplinary history.
INCIDENTS RELEVANT TO ALLEGATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
Background to Allegations of Misconduct
Employees throughout the Facility swiped electronic badges to enter and exit different areas of the Facility, such as the Facility parking lot, elevators and staff entrances.
The Facility used a payroll system called Kronos to track employees’ hours for payment; this system was not connected to the employee badge swipe system.
The Kronos system operated by having Facility employees use touchscreen machines when they entered and left the Facility, to track their time worked. Kronos touchscreens were located at all Facility entrances.
The Kronos system also included a weblink and a phone application, which certain Facility employees were given access to. Using either the app or the weblink, employees could manually enter their log-in and log-out times on the Kronos system via their computers or cell phones, as opposed to using the touchscreens physically located throughout the Facility.
At points during the pandemic, the Member had worked in certain areas of the Facility that did not use Kronos touch screens, and the Member was therefore given access to the Kronos weblink to log his working hours. However, the Member’s full-time position in August 2022 required that he work full-time, on site, in the Facility’s main hospital. In this role, the Member was not permitted to work remotely and/or from home. As a full-time employee of the Facility, the Member was expected to log all his hours using the Kronos touchscreens, rather than the Kronos weblink.
The Member Engaged in Time Theft
On August 4, 2022, the Member’s acting supervisor was unable to verify the Member’s whereabouts throughout parts of the morning. When she later questioned the Member about his whereabouts that morning, the Member gave vague responses. The Member’s acting supervisor initiated a review of the Member’s electronic badge swipes and Kronos system logins and logouts to determine where the Member had been throughout various areas of the Facility, and at what times. Through this review, the Facility discovered that there were several days on which it appeared that the Member had remotely logged out of the Kronos payroll system, via the Kronos app or weblink, at times after he had already used his badge to exit from the Facility’s parking lot.
The Facility subsequently reviewed all of the Member’s badge swipes and Kronos data from July 10, 2022 to September 9, 2022 and compared the information from each source of data.
Based on discrepancies in the times the Member recorded leaving work on the Kronos payroll system and the times the Member’s badge swipes indicated that the Member entered and exited the Facility’s parking lot, the Facility determined that the Member had committed time theft from the Facility on 17 days between July 19 and September 6, 2022.
Specifically, the Facility determined that the Member had committed time theft on the days and for the durations of time listed in the table below:
Date
Time Theft
1
July 19, 2022
7 hours, 30 minutes
2
July 28, 2022
1 hour, 22 minutes
3
August 2, 2022
2 hours, 43 minutes
4
August 4, 2022
7 hours, 30 minutes
5
August 5, 2022
7 hours, 30 minutes
6
August 8, 2022
7 hours, 30 minutes
7
August 12, 2022
22 minutes
8
August 13, 2022
15 minutes
9
August 14, 2022
17 minutes
10
August 17, 2022,
28 minutes
11
August 22, 2022
4 hours, 18 minutes
12
August 23, 2022
2 hours, 58 minutes
13
August 26, 2022
3 hours, 57 minutes
14
August 27, 2022
5 hours, 46 minutes
15
August 28, 2022
3 hours, 33 minutes
16
September 3, 2022
28 minutes
17
September 6, 2022
1 hours, 28 minutes
- On September 13, 2022, the Member was interviewed by the Facility regarding allegations of time theft. During this interview the Member admitted that while he did not recollect every specific day that he had committed time theft, he did acknowledge having frequently left the Facility early and signing out of the Kronos system later using his phone. The Member acknowledged that he knew his conduct was inappropriate.
The Member Instructed Other Employees How to Commit Time Theft
As part of an internal investigation, the Facility interviewed other employees who were also suspected of having committed time theft. During these interviews, two Facility employees, Colleague A and B, told the Facility that the Member had personally provided them with the Kronos weblink, to allow them to sign-out of work remotely.
According to both Colleague A and B, in or around September 2022, the Member told a group of two to six nurses that they could log out of work by accessing the Kronos weblink from home using their laptops or personal phones. The Member then sent the Kronos weblink via WhatsApp to the same group of nurses.
During the Member’s meeting with the Facility on September 13, 2022, he admitted that he provided instructions to other Facility employees about how to remotely log-out of the Kronos payroll system.
CNO STANDARDS OF PRACTICE
Code of Conduct
CNO’s Code of Conduct is a standard of practice describing the accountabilities all Ontario nurses have to the public. The Code of Conduct consists of six principles that define the values nurses use to fulfil their professional obligations. The sixth principle is that nurses maintain public confidence in the nursing profession. This principle further provides that nurses are accountable for their own actions and decisions.
Attached as Exhibit “A” is a copy of CNO’s Code of Conduct in force at the time of the incidents.
Professional Standards
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 and indicators that illustrate how the standard may be demonstrated pertaining to accountability, continuing competence, ethics, knowledge, knowledge application, leadership and relationships.
CNO’s Professional Standards further 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.
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.
Attached as Exhibit “B” is a copy of CNO’s Professional Standards in force at the time of the incidents.
Ethics
CNO’s Ethics Standard describes ethical values that are important to the nursing profession in Ontario including maintaining commitments, truthfulness and fairness.
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.
CNO’s Ethics Standard also provides, in relation to truthfulness, that truthfulness means speaking and acting without intending to deceive.
Attached as Exhibit “C” is a copy of CNO’s Ethics Standard in force at the time of the incidents.
ADMISSIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
The Member admits that he committed the act of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraphs 1(a), 1(b), and 1(c) of the Notice of Hearing in that he contravened or failed to meet the standards of practice of the profession, as described in paragraphs 9 - 26 above.
The Member admits that he committed the act of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraph 2 of the Notice of Hearing in that he misappropriated property from a workplace, as described in paragraphs 9 - 13 above.
The Member admits that he committed the act of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraph 3 of the Notice of Hearing in that he falsified a record related to his practice, as described in paragraphs 9 - 13 above.
The Member admits that he committed the act of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraph 4(a), 4(b), and 4(c) of the Notice of Hearing in that he 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 dishonourable and unprofessional, as described in paragraphs 9 - 16 above.
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), #1(b), #1(c), #2, #3 and #4(a), #4(b) and #4(c) of the Notice of Hearing. As to allegations #4(a), #4(b) and #4(c), 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.
Allegations #1(a), #1(b) and #1(c) in the Notice of Hearing are supported by paragraphs 9 - 27 in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Member admitted that he contravened standards of practice of the profession when he engaged in time theft on 17 occasions between July 2022 and September 2022, at the Guelph General Hospital (the “Facility”) where he was employed as a Registered Practical Nurse (“RPN”). The Member falsely recorded his time worked at the Facility by logging out of the Facility’s payroll system after he had already left the Facility or had not attended the Facility. Additionally, the Member instructed colleagues at the Facility how to falsely record their time worked by logging out of the Facility’s payroll system remotely, when such conduct was not permitted at the Facility. The Member’s conduct was self-serving and demonstrated a lack of respect for the Facility’s property.
Principle 6 of the College’s Code of Conduct states that “Nurses maintain public confidence in the nursing profession”, that “Nurses are accountable for their own actions and decisions”, and “Nurses respect the property of their patients and employers.” The Member’s conduct clearly contravened the Code of Conduct.
The Member’s conduct also fell below the College’s Professional Standards, which holds nurses accountable to the public and ensures their practice and conduct meets legislative requirements and the standards of the profession. The Professional Standards state: “Each nurse demonstrates her/his leadership by providing, facilitating and promoting the best possible care/service to the public”, and that “Leadership requires self-knowledge …, respect, trust, integrity, shared vision, learning, participation, good communication techniques and the ability to be a change facilitator.” Furthermore, the College’s Ethics Standard states “Nurses have an obligation to maintain the commitments they assumed as regulated health professionals. Maintaining commitments means keeping promises, being honest and meeting implicit or explicit obligations towards their clients, themselves, each other, the nursing profession, other members of the health care team and quality practice settings.” The Member’s conduct of time theft, falsifying records and instructing colleagues on how to do same clearly contravened these practice standards.
Allegation #2 in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 9 - 13 and 28 in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Member used the employer’s Kronos system to log-in and out of work. The Member admitted that he would use either the app or the weblink, and employees could manually enter their log-in and log-out times on the Kronos system via their computers or cell phones. The Member could remotely log his hours. Based on his badge swipes, it was determined that he was paid on 17 instances that were determined to be discrepancies. By being paid for time that he knew he did not work, the Member misappropriated property from the Facility.
Allegation #3 in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 9 - 13 and 29 in the Agreed Statement of Facts. Based on discrepancies in the times the Member recorded leaving work on the Kronos payroll system and the times the Member’s badge swipes indicated that the Member entered and exited the Facility’s parking lot, the Facility determined that the Member had committed time theft on 17 days between July 19 and September 6, 2022. Additionally, the Member was interviewed by the Facility regarding allegations of time theft. During this interview, the Member admitted that while he did not recollect every specific day that he had committed time theft, he did acknowledge having frequently left the Facility early while signing out of the Kronos system later using his phone. This constituted falsification of records related to the Member’s nursing practice. The Member acknowledged that he knew his conduct was inappropriate. The Member admitted he falsified a record related to his nursing practice, in that he falsely recorded his time worked on 17 different occasions, sometimes falsely recording a full shift.
Allegations #4(a), #4(b) and #4(c) in the Notice of Hearing are supported by paragraphs 9 - 16 and 30 in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct was relevant to the practice of nursing as the conduct was directly related to his employment as an RPN at the Facility, and that the Member’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as dishonourable and unprofessional. The Member’s conduct was unprofessional, as it demonstrated a serious and persistent disregard for his professional obligations, in contravening the Code of Conduct, the 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 through repeatedly engaging in time theft, falsifying records and instructing colleagues on how to do same. The Member knew or ought to have known that his conduct was unacceptable and fell well below the standards of a professional.
Penalty
College Counsel and the Member advised that a Joint Submission on Order had been agreed upon and requested that the Panel make the following order:
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 suspend the Member’s certificate of registration for 4 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 a practicing class.
Directing the Executive Director to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s certificate of registration:
The Member will attend a minimum of 2 meetings with a Regulatory Expert (the “Expert”) at the Member’s own expense and within 6 months from the date that this Order becomes final. If the Expert determines that a greater number of sessions are required, the Expert will advise CNO regarding the total number of sessions that are required and the length of time required to complete the additional sessions, but in any event, all sessions shall be completed within 12 months from the date that this Order becomes final. To comply, the Member is required to ensure that:
i. The Expert has expertise in nursing regulation and has been approved by 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:
the Panel’s Order,
the Notice of Hearing,
the Agreed Statement of Facts,
this Joint Submission on Order, and
if available, a copy of the Panel’s Decision and Reasons;
iii. Before the first meeting, the Member reviews the following CNO publications and completes the associated Practice Reflection Worksheets, online learning modules and decision tools (where applicable):
Code of Conduct,
Professional Standards, and
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 Practice Reflection Worksheets;
v. The subject of the sessions with the Expert will include:
the acts or omissions for which the Member was found to have committed professional misconduct,
the potential consequences of the misconduct to the Member’s patients, colleagues, profession and self,
strategies for preventing the misconduct from recurring,
the publications, questionnaires and modules set out above, and
the development of a learning plan in collaboration with the Expert;
vi. Within 30 days after the Member has completed the last session, the Member will confirm that the Expert forwards their report to CNO, in which the Expert will confirm:
the dates the Member attended the sessions,
that the Expert received the required documents from the Member,
that the Expert reviewed the required documents and subjects with the Member, and
the Expert’s assessment of the Member’s insight into 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 employers 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:
the Panel’s Order,
the Notice of Hearing,
the Agreed Statement of Facts,
this Joint Submission on Order, and
a copy of the Panel’s Decision and Reasons, once available;
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:
that they received a copy of the required documents, and
that they agree to notify CNO immediately upon receipt of any information that the Member has breached the standards of practice of the profession.
All documents delivered by the Member to CNO, the Expert, or the employer(s) will be delivered by verifiable method, the proof of which the Member will retain.
College Submissions on Penalty
College Counsel made submissions which included the following.
The aggravating factors in this case were:
The seriousness of the Member’s misconduct as it involved time theft on 17 separate occasions;
The Member demonstrated a blatant disregard for the College’s Code of Conduct, Professional Standards and Ethics Standard, bringing discredit to the nursing profession;
The Member’s conduct breached the trust of the Facility;
The Member’s conduct demonstrated a clear element of intentionality and was for his own personal gain; and
The Member instructed colleagues how to commit time theft.
The mitigating factors in this case were:
The Member had no prior disciplinary history with the College;
The Member admitted to the misconduct, took responsibility at an early stage, and cooperated with the College by entering into an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order with the College; and
The Member was remorseful.
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. Ventenilla (Discipline Committee, 2022): This case proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order. In this case, the member was employed as a Registered Nurse in home health care and documented 13 visits to provide home care that he never attended. The penalty included an oral reprimand, a 3-month suspension of the member’s certificate of registration, 2 meetings with a Regulatory Expert, 12 months of employer notification, and 6 months of no independent practice in the community.
CNO v. Frater (Discipline Committee, 2020): This case proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts on some of the facts and the member denied the remaining allegations. In this case, the member was employed as a Registered Nurse at a hospital and a detention centre and committed time theft on approximately 43 occasions over a period of 8 months. Additionally, the member was found to have failed to carry out nursing obligations which directly impacted patient care. The penalty included an oral reprimand, a 4-month suspension of the member’s certificate of registration, a minimum of 2 meetings with a Regulatory Expert and 18 months of employer notification.
CNO v. Binns (Discipline Committee, 2024): This case proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order. In this case, the member was employed as a Registered Nurse at a hospital and committed time theft on 10 occasions, breached patient privacy and/or confidentiality by accessing approximately 75 patient records on several occasions. The penalty included an oral reprimand, a 4-month suspension of the member’s certificate of registration, 2 meetings with a Regulatory Expert, 12 months of employer notification and 12 months of no independent practice in the community.
Additionally, College Counsel noted that while some previous decisions of the Discipline Committee included a prohibition on independent practice, such an order would not be responsive to the facts in this case.
Member’s Submissions on Penalty
The Member made no submissions on penalty.
Penalty Decision
The Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Order and made the order requested.
Reasons for Penalty Decision
There is a high threshold for departing from a Joint Submission on Order established by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43. Departing from a joint submission would require a finding that the proposed penalty would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest.
The Panel concluded that the proposed penalty is not contrary to the public interest and does not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The Panel concluded that the proposed penalty is reasonable and in the public interest. It promotes public confidence in the ability of the College to regulate nurses.
The Panel finds that the proposed penalty satisfies the penalty goals 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, which sends a message to other members of the profession that there are serious consequences to professional misconduct.
The proposed penalty provides for specific deterrence through the oral reprimand which allows the Member to gain insight into the impact of his conduct through the lens of the public and members of the profession. Additionally, the 4-month suspension of the Member’s certificate of registration is a clear indicator that his conduct was unacceptable.
The proposed penalty provides for remediation and rehabilitation through a minimum of 2 meetings with a Regulatory Expert focusing on the College’s Code of Conduct, Professional Standards, and Ethics Standard. Meetings with a Regulatory Expert help prevent a recurrence of misconduct through the Member’s self-reflection and learning. Notification to the College upon completion of these meetings adds an additional layer of protection to the public.
Overall, the public is protected because of the 12 months of employer notification which provides transparency within the profession.
The Panel acknowledges that the Member has co-operated with the College and, by agreeing to the facts and a proposed penalty, has accepted responsibility, which is a mitigating factor.
The penalty is in line with the range of what has been ordered in previous similar cases.
I, Carly Gilchrist, RPN, sign this decision and reasons for the decision as Chairperson of this Discipline Panel and on behalf of the members of the Discipline Panel.