College of Nurses of Ontario v. Jason Araujo, 2025 ONCNO 149896

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO

PANEL: Lalitha Poonasamy Public Member, Chairperson Sylvia Douglas Public Member Fred Kim, RN Member Emilija Stojsavljevic, RPN Member Samuel Jennings, RPN Member

BETWEEN:

COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO ) GLYNNIS HAWE for ) College of Nurses of Ontario

• and - )

JASON ARAUJO ) CHRISTOPHER BRYDEN for Registration No. 15093685 ) Jason Araujo ) ELYSE SUNSHINE ) Independent Legal Counsel ) Heard: August 26, 2025 ) via videoconference

DECISION AND REASONS

Publication Ban

By Order of the Discipline Panel dated August 26, 2025 pursuant to subsection s.45(3) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act, 1991, no one shall disclose, publish or broadcast the names of the patients, or any information that identifies or may tend to identify the patients and/or their personal health information, referred to orally or in any documents presented at the Discipline hearing of Jason Araujo.

This matter was heard by a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the College of Nurses of Ontario (the “College”) on August 26, 2025.

The Allegations

The allegations against Jason Araujo (the “Member”) as stated in the Notice of Hearing dated June 16, 2025 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 during your employment as a Registered Nurse at London Health Sciences Centre – Victoria Hospital in London, Ontario, you contravened a standard of practice of the profession or failed to meet the standards of practice of the profession, in that on or about January 15, 2023:

a. you made remarks to Patient A when, in respect of a catheter insertion you were performing and/or had just performed, you said “a little foreplay for ya”, or words to that effect; and/or

b. you failed to document Patient A’s catheterization; and/or

2. You have committed an act of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 32, as amended, and defined in subsection 1(13) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that during your employment as a Registered Nurse at London Health Sciences Centre – Victoria Hospital in London, Ontario, you failed to keep records as required, in that on or about January 15, 2023, you failed to document Patient A’s catheterization.

3. 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 during your employment as a Registered Nurse at London Health Sciences Centre – Victoria Hospital in London, Ontario, 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 on or about January 15, 2023:

a. you made remarks to Patient A when, in respect of a catheter insertion you were performing and/or had just performed, you said “a little foreplay for ya”, or words to that effect; and/or

b. you failed to document Patient A’s catheterization.

Member’s Plea

The Member admitted the allegations set out in paragraphs 1(a), 1(b), 2, 3(a), & 3(b) 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’s Counsel advised the Panel that agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts, which as amended reads, unedited and without exhibits mentioned therein, as follows:

THE MEMBER

1. Jason Araujo (the “Member”) registered with the College of Nurses of Ontario (“CNO”) as a Registered Nurse (“RN”) on June 16, 2015. His certificate of registration remains active.

2. The Member worked at London Health Sciences Centre – Victoria Hospital in London, Ontario (the “Hospital”) from 2015 to 2024.

PRIOR HISTORY

3. The Member has no prior disciplinary findings with CNO.

PATIENT’S ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL

4. (“Patient A”) was 62 years old at the time of the incident.

5. Patient A was admitted to the Hospital’s Emergency Department (“ED” or “ER”) in the afternoon of January 15, 2023, after a fall at home the night prior. She arrived at the ED complaining of rib pain on her right side.

6. A CT scan conducted at the Hospital determined that Patient A had sustained rib fractures and had severe bilateral hydronephrosis (a condition where both kidneys become stretched and swollen as a result of a build-up of urine).

7. Patient A was assessed by a physician in the ED, and noted to have a distended bladder, at around 21:00 on January 15, 2023. A urology consult and catheter insertion for Patient A was ordered, although the order was not documented.

8. One of the Member’s RN colleagues, Colleague A, was assigned to be Patient A’s primary nurse when Patient A arrived at the Hospital’s ED.

9. The Member and another one of his RN colleagues, Colleague B, were also on duty in the ED, with the Member providing staffing coverage and assistance where needed.

10. The Member regularly worked in other units of the Hospital.

11. At some point around Patient A’s move from Bed 6 to Bed 9 in the ED in the early hours of January 16, 2023, the Member became Patient A’s primary nurse.

12. On January 16, 2023, at approximately 20:00, Patient A left the Hospital against medical advice. On follow-up, the Hospital determined that Patent A was safe in her home with her husband, with plans to see her family physician the next day. Patient A reported that she left the Hospital because she felt her pain was not being managed adequately.

13. On January 17, 2023, Patient A contacted the Hospital with a complaint about the care she received while in the ED on January 15, 2023. The Hospital initiated an investigation.

INCIDENTS RELEVANT TO ALLEGATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

14. The Member performed Patient A’s catheterization at some point between approximately 2100 and 22:58 on January 15, 2023.

15. Colleague A helped to set up a tray with supplies for the Member to perform the catheterization but was not present for the entirety of the procedure. No other Hospital staff recalled being present for the duration of Patient A’s catheterization.

16. Patient A’s husband left the curtained area and was also not present for the catheterization.

17. If the Member were to testify, he would state that at least one other staff member was present throughout the procedure, though he cannot recall who the staff member was. The Member would further testify that he would not have been able to complete the procedure on his own and without at least one other person present.

18. The Member was able to insert the catheter successfully. Patient A reported to the Hospital and CNO that she found the Member to be very competent clinically.

19. The Member then washed and changed Patient A as she had been incontinent.

20. At the conclusion of the procedure and provision of care, Patient A asked the Member, “are you done with me” and/or “is that all” and the Member replied “that was just foreplay” or words to that effect. If the Member were to testify, the Member would acknowledge that this was not an appropriate comment or choice of words in the context of the physically intimate care provided to Patient A, while in a vulnerable state.

21. If Patient A were to testify, Patient A would state that:

• after the Member cleaned her, he wiggled his fingers between her labia for approximately two to three seconds and then commented “a little foreplay for ya”;

• neither Colleague A nor Colleague B were present to witness what the Member did after cleaning Patient A or to overhear the comment he made to her as they were in and out of the bedside area multiple times throughout the Member’s care;

• Patient A was feeling impacted by pain medication she had received earlier that night; and

• Patient A was shocked and disturbed by the interaction with the Member and that it brought up memories of sexual assault experienced as a child.

22. The Member denies wiggling his fingers in or around Patient A’s genitalia as described by Patient A, or at all. He denies inappropriately touching Patient A in any manner.

23. The Member acknowledges that he did not document the catheterization in Patient’s A’s records. The Member initially had assumed this would be done by Patient A’s primary nurse, Colleague A, but acknowledges that this was an improper assumption. The Member admits that it was his responsibility to document the nursing care provided in a complete and timely manner.

24. The Member completed a learning plan at the request of the Hospital, in which he reviewed the principles of trauma-informed care and reflected on how his actions could impact patients. He has also completed further remedial work at his own initiative including course work in emergency department nursing care and mental health.

25. The Member was forthright and transparent during the Hospital and CNO investigation. He is remorseful for the comment he made to Patient A and acknowledges that it was insensitive and unprofessional.

CNO STANDARDS

Code of Conduct

26. The Code of Conduct (the “Code”) is a practice standard describing the accountabilities all nurses registered in Ontario have to the public. The Code describes what nurses must do to maintain professionalism, competence and ethical behaviour to deliver safe client care.

27. The Code consists of the following six principles with each one supported by a set of statements of core behaviours all nurses are accountable for:

28. Nurses respect the dignity of patients and treat them as individuals

29. Nurses work together to promote patient well-being

30. Nurses maintain patients’ trust by providing safe and competent care

31. Nurses work respectfully with colleagues to best meet patients’ needs

32. Nurses act with integrity to maintain patients’ trust

33. Nurses maintain public confidence in the nursing profession.

34. Regarding the first principle, “Nurses respect the dignity of patients and treat them as individuals,” the Code specifies, in part, that:

1.1 Nurses treat patients with care and compassion.

1.2 Nurses show respect to patients’ culture, identity, beliefs, values and goals.

1.6 Nurses reflect on and address their own practice and values that may affect their nursing care.

29. Regarding the third principle, “Nurses maintain patients’ trust by providing safe and competent care,” the Code specifies that:

3.8 Nurses maintain complete, accurate and timely documentation in their practice.

3.9 Nurses are accountable to, and practice under, relevant laws and CNO’s standards of practice.

30. Regarding the sixth principle, “Nurses maintain public confidence in the nursing profession,” the Code specifies that nurses are accountable for their own actions and decisions.

31. Attached as Exhibit “A” is a copy of CNO’s Code of Conduct in force at the time of the incident.

Documentation Standard

32. CNO’s Documentation standard explains the regulatory and legislative requirements for nursing documentation.

33. Nurses ensure that documentation presents an accurate, clear and comprehensive picture of the patient’s needs, the nurse’s interventions and the patient’s outcomes. A nurse meets this standard by ensuring that documentation is a complete record of nursing care provided and reflects all aspects of the nursing process, including assessment, planning, intervention (independent and collaborative) and evaluation.

34. Nurses are accountable for ensuring their documentation of patient care is accurate, timely and complete. A nurse meets this standard by documenting in a timely manner and completing documentation during, or as soon as possible after, the care or event. In addition, a nurse meets this standard by ensuring that documentation is completed by the individual who performed the action or observed the event, except when there is a designated recorder, who must sign and indicate the circumstances.

35. Attached as Exhibit “B” is a copy of CNO’s Documentation standard in force at the time of the incident.

Therapeutic Nurse-Client Relationship Standard

36. CNO’s Therapeutic Nurse-Client Relationship standard (“TNCR standard”), contains four standard statements which describe nurses’ accountabilities with respect to therapeutic communication, patient-centred care, maintaining boundaries and protecting the patient from abuse. The TNCR standard provides that the nurse-patient relationship is built on trust, respect, empathy and professional intimacy and requires the appropriate use of power inherent in the care provider’s role.

37. With respect to therapeutic communication, the TNCR standard states that nurses use a wide range of effective communication strategies and interpersonal skills to appropriately establish, maintain, re-establish, and terminate the nurse-patient relationship. The nurse meets the standard by being aware of her/his verbal and non-verbal communication style and how patients might perceive it.

38. Nurses are expected to reflect on interactions with a patient and the healthcare team and invest time and effort to continually improve communication skills.

39. Attached as Exhibit “C” is a copy of CNO’s TNCR standard in force at the time of the incident.

ADMISSIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

40. The Member admits that he committed the acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraphs 1 a) and b) of the Notice of Hearing, in that he contravened a standard of practice of the profession or failed to meet the standards of practice of the profession, as described in paragraphs 4 – 39 above.

41. The Member admits that he committed the acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraph 2 of the Notice of Hearing, in that he failed to keep records as required, as described in paragraphs 4 – 39 above.

42. The Member admits that he committed the acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraphs 3 a) and b) of the Notice of Hearing, and in particular his conduct was dishonourable and unprofessional, as described in paragraphs 4 – 39 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), 2, 3(a), and 3(b) of the Notice of Hearing. With respect to allegations #3(a) and #3(b), the Panel finds the Member’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as 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) and #1(b) in the Notice of Hearing, relating to the contravention of standards, are supported by paragraphs 4 – 40 in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Member admitted that while employed as a RN at the Facility, when Patient A asked him “are you done with me" and/or “is that all”, the Member replied “that was just foreplay” or words to that effect. The Member admitted this occurred and acknowledged that it was not an appropriate comment or choice of words. The Member’s conduct contravened the Code of Conduct and the TCNR Standard. The Member also admitted that he breached the standards of the profession when he failed to document Patient A’s catheterization. The Panel found the Member’s failure to document this procedure was a breach of the Code of Conduct and the Documentation Standard.

Allegation #2 in the Notice of Hearing, regarding the failure to keep records as required, is supported by paragraphs 14, 18, 23, and 41 in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Member admitted that he performed a catheterization on Patient A, which he did not document. The Member failed to keep records as required when he failed to document Patient A’s catheterization. The Member further acknowledged that it was his responsibility to document his nursing care in a complete and timely fashion, and that he failed to do so.

With respect to allegations #3(a) and #3(b), that the Member engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct, the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct in failing to document Patient A’s catheterization was relevant to the practice of nursing as it occurred in the context of clinical care. The Member’s conduct in how he communicated with Patient A is also relevant to the practice of nursing as it occurred during a patient interaction.

The Member’s conduct was unprofessional as it demonstrated a serious and persistent disregard for his professional obligations. The Member’s communication and documentation were inconsistent with the expectations placed on nurses and constituted moments of poor judgement and a failure to live up to the standards expected of all nurses.

The Panel also finds that the Member’s conduct was dishonourable. The Member made comments of a sexual nature to Patient A when he said “it was just foreplay” or words to that effect after he had finished performing a catheterization. This interaction between Patient A and the Member was not only unprofessional, but it shocked Patient A and reminded her of sexual assault she experienced as a child. Comments of a sexual and inappropriate nature are a stark departure from the expectation of all nurses, and these comments demonstrated an element of moral failing. These comments eroded the trust between Patient A and the Member as well as failed to demonstrate the compassion, care, and respect expected of all nurses. 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’s Counsel advised that a Joint Submission on Order had been agreed upon and requested that the Panel make the following order:

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 3 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.

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 a minimum of 1 meeting 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. the Agreed Statement of Facts,

4. this Joint Submission on Order, and

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

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

1. Code of Conduct,

2. Therapeutic Nurse Client Relationship Standard, and

3. Documentation Standard;

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 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:

1. the Panel’s Order,

2. the Notice of Hearing,

3. the Agreed Statement of Facts,

4. this Joint Submission on Order, and

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

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 employer(s) will be delivered by verifiable method, the proof of which the Member will retain.

Submissions on Penalty

College Counsel submitted that in view of the particulars of this case, the proposed penalty is appropriate and should be accepted by the Panel. College Counsel submitted that the aggravating factors in this case were that Patient A was vulnerable, as she was in the Emergency Department for a serious injury. The Member’s conduct contributed to her feeling that she was unsafe.

The mitigating factors include that the Member has no prior disciplinary history with the College. The Member cooperated with the investigations undertaken by both the hospital and the College and expressed remorse throughout the disciplinary process.

College Counsel also submitted that the proposed penalty reflects the goals of penalty including protection of the public, specific and general deterrence, as well as rehabilitation and remediation.

College Counsel submitted the following cases to the Panel, which demonstrate that the proposed penalty falls within the range of similar cases from this Discipline Committee: CNO v Azza, 2023 149367 (ON CNO), and CNO v Isaac, 2019 74473 (ON CNO).

The Member’s Counsel indicated that they agreed with the College’s submissions and asked the Panel to accept the Joint Submission on Order.

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 and specific deterrence through the oral reprimand and three-month suspension of the Member’s certificate of registration, which send a strong signal to the Member and membership at large that this conduct is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

The proposed penalty provides for remediation and rehabilitation through the meetings with a Regulatory Expert and the completion of self-study modules. These will help the Member better understand his conduct and aid him in preventing it from being repeated in the future.

The public is protected through the employer notification provision. Employer notification adds a layer of oversight and supervision of the Member’s behaviour and conduct. This is an added protection of the public to support safe practice by the Member,

Overall, the public is protected by the penalty order as a whole, which achieves specific and general deterrence as well as remediation and rehabilitation of the Member, as well as the additional oversight provided through the employer notification provision.

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, Lalitha Poonasamy, Public Member sign this decision and reasons for the decision as Chairperson of this Discipline Panel and on behalf of the members of the Discipline Panel.