College of Nurses of Ontario v. Julie Bailey, 2025 CanLII 145959

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO

PANEL: Tanya Dion, RN Chairperson

Erin Cowan, RN Member Kimberly Wagg, RPN Member Lynda Carpenter Public Member

Patricia Pilon Public Member

BETWEEN:

COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO ) ALYSHA SHORE for

) College of Nurses of Ontario

• and - )

JULIE BAILEY ) NO REPRESENTATION for

Registration No. 0280800 ) Julie Bailey

) LONNY ROSEN

) Independent Legal Counsel

) Heard: June 11, 2025,

) 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 June 11, 2025.

The Member’s Non-Attendance at the Hearing

As Julie Bailey (the “Member”) was not present at the start time of the hearing, the hearing recessed for 15 minutes to allow time for the Member to appear. Upon reconvening, the Panel noted that the Member was still not in attendance.

College Counsel provided the Panel with evidence, by way of an affidavit (Exhibit 1) from Alexandra Covriga affirmed June 10, 2025, that on February 24, 2025, she sent correspondence enclosing the Notice of Hearing to the Member’s last known home and email address which the Member had provided to the College. The same material was resent via Purolator Express to the Member’s home address on March 11, 2025, and Purolator’s tracking records confirmed that the correspondence was delivered to the Member’s mailing address. The Notice of Hearing included the statement that if the Member failed to participate in the hearing, the Panel could proceed in her absence.

Pursuant to College By-law 44.2, members of the College are required to complete annually and return to the College a form containing information including the member’s home address, primary telephone number and primary email address checked personally by the member on a regular basis.

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 attend, the hearing may proceed in her absence. The Member did not attend the videoconference hearing and did not request an in-person hearing. Accordingly, the Panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the Member’s absence under the authority of sections 6(5)(d) and 7(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (the “SPPA”). The Panel notes that the videoconference line remained open until the end of the hearing and the Member did not join the hearing before its conclusion.

The Allegations

The allegation against Julie Bailey (the “Member”) as stated in the Notice of Hearing dated February 24, 2025, is 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(37) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that while registered 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 of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, and, in particular, you failed to comply with an Inquiry, Complaints, and Reports Committee decision, dated May 17, 2023, and signed June 12, 2023, that ordered you to complete a Specified Continuing Education or Remediation Program and receive a caution.

Member’s Plea

Given that the Member was not present and was not represented, she was deemed to have denied the allegation in the Notice of Hearing. The Hearing proceeded on the basis that the College bore the onus of proving the allegation in the Notice of Hearing against the Member.

Overview

There is one allegation before the Panel: that the Member engaged in conduct that members of the profession would reasonably regard as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. It is alleged that the Member failed to comply with an order of the the Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee (the “ICRC” or the “Committee”). Specifically, she was ordered to complete a remedial training program and to receive an oral caution. In the College’s submission, her failure to comply with the Committee’s order reflects on her ability and willingness to respect the College’s authority over her practice as a nurse.

On May 17, 2023, the ICRC ordered the Member to complete a Specified Continuing Education or Remediation Program (“SCERP”) within three months and to appear before the Committee to be cautioned. This was communicated to the Member's then counsel in June 2023 and then directly to the Member, and the College followed up with the Member several times.

As set out below, the Panel found that the Member’s conduct in failing to comply with the ICRC’s order constituted professional misconduct as alleged in the Notice of Hearing.

The Evidence

College Counsel called one witness, Ella Bull, who was an investigator with the College and was appointed to investigate the Member’s conduct.

Ms. Bull’s role as an investigator was to collect relevant documents and information from facilities, review documents, contact witnesses, follow-up with employers and disclose findings to the Member for her review and response. Ms. Bull explained that she was assigned to the Member’s case due to the Member’s failure to complete the SCERP ordered by the ICRC in May 2023. Ms. Bull testified that she followed standard practice in her investigation and follow-up of the Member.

On May 17, 2023, the ICRC delivered a decision (Exhibit 4) (the “Decision”) which included an order requiring the Member to complete a SCERP within three months and appear before the Committee to be cautioned (the “Order”). This decision was received by the Member’s counsel at the time on June 15, 2023 (Exhibit 5). The College’s correspondence enclosing the Decision included all supporting documents to ensure completion of Order.

On August 15, 2023, the College sent a reminder letter to the Member’s counsel (Exhibit 6) regarding the upcoming deadline for the Member’s completion of the SCERP and advising that a date to receive a caution would be scheduled upon completion of the SCERP. Ms. Bull testified that, had any correspondence from the Member been received, her file would have been updated to reflect that.

On August 31, 2023, the Member’s counsel advised the College that they were no longer representing the Member (Exhibit 7) and to direct correspondence to the Member directly. The College then provided the August 15, 2023, communication to the Member directly upon receipt of her former counsel’s letter. The Member responded that she was appealing the decision (Exhibit 9). Ms. Bull confirmed the Member did not take any steps to appeal the Decision.

On September 19, 2023, the College’s Monitoring Team communicated to the Member that she had not completed the required SCERP within the prescribed three months and informed the Member that she had the option to request an extension until October 10, 2023 (Exhibit 10) to comply with the Order. Ms. Bull clarified that a reminder email like this one is sent whenever a member is required to complete a SCERP and the College has not received any indication that the SCERP has been completed by the deadline.

On October 6, 2023, the Member emailed the College to express her displeasure with the Decision and the College’s process, and to advise that she had “no intention of complying” (Exhibit 11). Ms. Bull confirmed the Member had not requested an extension of time to complete the SCERP. Ms. Bull explained that had the Member made such a request, the Monitoring Team would have shared this with the Investigation Team.

Accordingly, on November 23, 2023, Ms. Bull informed the Member that the College had authorized an investigation into her practice and that she was the investigator assigned to her case (Exhibits 12 & 13). Ms. Bull asked the Member to provide information regarding all of her current employers by December 24, 2023, to facilitate the investigation. Ms. Bull’s assistant disclosed the Investigation Record to the Member, along with Ms. Bull’s correspondence, via email link and by Purolator. Ms. Bull did not receive a response to this request; however, the Member signed for the correspondence and Investigation Record sent to her by Purolator (Exhibit 14). Ms. Bull’s assistant followed up with the Member on January 9, 2024 (Exhibit 15).

On January 10, 2024, the Member emailed Ms. Bull’s assistant indicating that she would not be cooperating with the investigation (Exhibit 16). Ms. Bull testified that this email correspondence was additional confirmation that the Member had received disclosure. Through her email, the Member advised the College that she intended to retain legal counsel and indicated that she would not be complying with the ICRC’s order. The Member’s email contained various expletives and aggressive language.

Ms. Bull testified that she emailed the Member on January 18, 2024, and proposed to grant the Member two weeks to retain counsel. The Member accepted this proposal, and Ms. Bull extended the deadline for the Member’s response to the investigation to February 9, 2024. The Member emailed Ms. Bull on February 6, 2024, indicating she was temporarily unwell (Exhibit 17). Ms. Bull testified that the Member did not provide any further information or response thereafter.

Liability Submissions

College Counsel submitted that the Panel should find that the Member committed professional misconduct as alleged in the Notice of Hearing. College Counsel submitted that the Member’s conduct in failing to comply with the ICRC’s order was relevant to the practice of nursing and would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as dishonourable and unprofessional, thereby meeting the criteria for a finding of misconduct as alleged. College Counsel submitted that the exhibits and Ms. Bull’s testimony make it clear that the Member was ordered to complete the SCERP and had not done so. In fact, the Member expressly indicated her intention to blatantly disregard the Order in her correspondence with the College.

Despite the nature and tone of the Member’s emails to the College, the College provided the Member with numerous opportunities to respond, request extensions of deadlines, and otherwise engage in remediation. As of the date of the hearing, the Member had not complied with any component of the Order, which was issued by the ICRC in 2023.

College Counsel submitted that this conduct is relevant to the practice of nursing, as it relates to an order issued by the regulator following concerns with the Member’s practice. Further, members of the profession would view this conduct as dishonourable due to the Member’s disregard of the regulatory process, as indicated by her refusal to comply with an order of the ICRC. In a self-governing profession, this conduct has an element of moral failing. College Counsel further submitted that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional, due to her serious and persistent disregard for her professional obligations.

College Counsel submitted that the Member was disrespectful and offensive in her communications with the College despite multiple offers of extensions and accommodation. The Member did not comply with an order of the ICRC and thus has failed to respect her regulator, and this conduct should be regarded as both dishonourable and unprofessional.

College Counsel submitted case law to support the College’s position that the Member’s conduct constituted professional misconduct. In CNO v Blasco, 2024 131748 (ON CNO), the College alleged that the member failed to appear to receive a caution and failed to complete a SCERP as ordered. The member did not attend the hearing and was deemed to have denied the allegations. The panel in that case found that the member’s failure to comply with the ICRC’s order was dishonourable and unprofessional.

In CNO v Watson, 2023 149350 (ON CNO), the hearing proceeded by way of an agreed statement of facts and joint submission on order. The panel found that the member failed to comply with an order of the ICRC by failing to complete a SCERP, and that this conduct would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as dishonourable and unprofessional.

Decision

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 the Notice of Hearing. In particular, the Member engaged in conduct, by failing to comply with an order of the ICRC, that would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as dishonourable and unprofessional.

Reasons for 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.

The Panel finds that College has established, based on clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, that the Member engaged in professional misconduct by failing to comply with the ICRC’s order to complete a SCERP and attend before the Committee to be cautioned.

The Panel found that the College’s witness was credible. The witness’ testimony was supported by and consistent with the documentary evidence. She testified in a forthright manner, and there was no basis to question the honesty or reliability of her evidence. The witness followed standard practice in her investigation and maintained decorum both in the emails shared in the evidence and during her cross examination. The evidence presented by the College was uncontroverted. Since the Member chose not to participate in the hearing, there was no evidence before the Panel to dispute the allegation or to explain the Member’s conduct.

With regard to allegation #1 in the Notice of Hearing, the Panel finds the Member committed professional misconduct when she failed to comply with the ICRC order dated May 17, 2023, requiring her to complete a SCERP and receive a caution within three months. The Member received several extensions until February 9, 2024.

The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct in failing to comply with the Order was relevant to the practice of nursing because the Member has blatantly indicated her intention to disregard an order from a statutory committee of her professional regulator.

The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by other members of the profession to be dishonourable and unprofessional. The Member had numerous opportunities to respond, request extensions of deadlines, and otherwise engage in remediation. Her failure to do so was unprofessional, as it demonstrated a serious and persistent disregard for her professional obligations. Moreover, the Member’s disregard of the regulatory process and refusal to comply was dishonourable, as it demonstrated an element of moral failing and a lack of regard for professional obligations. Additionally, while not the basis of the finding of misconduct, the tone and content of her emails to the College had expletives and were disrespectful and unprofessional.

Previous panels of this Discipline Committee have found similar conduct to constitute professional misconduct, as set out in the Blasco and Watson cases above.

Penalty Submissions

The College submitted that an appropriate penalty in this case should include an oral reprimand, a suspension of the Member’s certificate of registration for at least four months or until such a time as the Member complies with the ICRC’s order, as well as a minimum of two meetings with a regulatory expert.

College Counsel submitted that penalty orders must protect the public and ensure public confidence in the College’s ability to regulate its members. Public protection is achieved through specific deterrence of the Member, general deterrence of the profession as a whole, as well as remediation and rehabilitation.

The aggravating factors in this case are that the Member very clearly and willfully refused to comply with an ICRC order. The breach remained ongoing at the time of the hearing and brought discredit to the profession. The Member’s conduct demonstrates serious disregard for the College’s self-regulatory process and undermines its ability to regulate in the public interest.

Since the Member did not participate in the hearing, no mitigating factors were presented to the Panel, except that the Member has no prior disciplinary history with the College.

College Counsel submitted that the proposed order meets the objectives of penalty:

• Specific deterrence will be achieved, by the fact that the Member would still be held to account for compliance with the ICRC’s order, in addition to an oral reprimand and a suspension. It is imperative that the Member still be compelled to comply with the Order, as it is not optional;

• General deterrence is met through the significant suspension of at least four months, demonstrating that there are serious consequences for breaching ICRC orders; and

• Remediation and rehabilitation are addressed through the meetings with a regulatory expert and the completion of the SCERP ordered by the ICRC.

The proposed penalty protects the public and maintains public confidence in the College’s ability to regulate its members. The proposed penalty is also consistent with the orders made by other panels of this Discipline Committee in Blasco and Watson, cited above.

Penalty Decision

The Panel makes the following order:

1. The Member, Julie Bailey 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 from the date this Order becomes final until the later of:

a) 4 months from the date the suspension commences; or

b) Such time as the Member completes the specified continuing education or remediation program (the “SCERP”), and appears before a panel of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (the “ICRC”) to be cautioned with respect to CNO’s Therapeutic-Nurse Client Relationship and Code of Conduct, as required by the ICRC’s Decision and Reasons dated May 17, 2023 (the “ICRC Order”).

3. The suspension described in term 2 above shall continue to run without interruption as long as the Member remains in a practising class.

4. The Executive Director is directed to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s certificate of registration:

a) The Member shall complete the SCERP and appear before a panel of the ICRC to be cautioned with respect to CNO’s Therapeutic-Nurse Client Relationship and Code of Conduct, as required by the ICRC Order; and

b) 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:

1. the Panel’s Order,

2. the Notice of Hearing,

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 Practice Reflection Worksheets, online learning modules and decision tools (where applicable):

1. Code of Conduct;

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:

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 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;

5. All documents delivered by the Member to CNO or the Expert will be delivered by verifiable method, the proof of which the Member will retain.

Reasons for Penalty Decision

The Panel accepts the penalty proposed by the College. The Panel finds that the penalty is appropriate, in that it is consistent with prior decisions of this Discipline Committee in Blasco and Watson, and it achieves the objectives of specific deterrence, general deterrence, rehabilitation and remediation, and protects the public.

The Panel was concerned by the Member’s tone in their communications with the College and considered this to be an aggravating factor in addition to failing to comply with the order. The Member willfully disregarded the professional obligations associated with self-regulation and displayed disrespect for her regulating body.

Specific deterrence is achieved through the oral reprimand, the requirement that the Member comply with the ICRC’s order of May 2023, and a suspension until this is achieved. The significant suspension also provides general deterrence and protects the public. General deterrence is also achieved by compelling the Member to complete the SCERP ordered by the ICRC as a condition of returning to practice, which demonstrates to the profession that orders made by the ICRC are not optional. The order also achieves rehabilitation and remediation through the requirement that the Member complete the SCERP, and through the meetings with a regulatory expert. The order protects the public through these measures by ensuring that if/when the Member returns to practice, she can do so ethically and with a better understanding of her professional obligations.

I, Tanya Dion, 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.