DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO
PANEL: Susan Roger, RN Chairperson Randall Burke Public Member Lynda Carpenter Public Member Grace Fox, NP Member
BETWEEN:
COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO ) DENISE COONEY for ) College of Nurses of Ontario
- and - )
JOSSETT LANGLEY ) NO REPRESENTATION for Registration No. AI151203 ) Jossett Langley
) LONNY ROSEN ) Independent Legal Counsel
) Heard: October 27, 2025 ) via videoconference
DECISION AND REASONS
Publication Ban
By Order of the Discipline Panel dated October 27, 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 name(s) of the patient(s), or any information that could disclose the identity(ies) of the patient(s), referred to orally or in any documents presented at the Discipline hearing of Jossett Langley.
This matter was heard by a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the College of Nurses of Ontario (the “College”) on October 27, 2025.
The Allegations
The allegations against Jossett Langley (the “Member”) as stated in the Notice of Hearing dated June 25, 2025 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 Saint Elizabeth Healthcare, you contravened a standard of practice of the profession or failed to meet the standards of practice of the profession in that between December 2021 and March 2022, you documented that COVID-19 vaccines were administered to patients, when no vaccine was administered, including but not limited to the patients set out at Appendix A.
- You 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 Saint Elizabeth Healthcare, you falsified a record relating to your practice, in that between December 2021 and March 2022, you documented that COVID-19 vaccines were administered to patients, when no vaccine was administered, including but not limited to the patients set out at Appendix A.
- You committed an act of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 32, as amended, and defined in subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that while working as a Registered Practical Nurse at Saint Elizabeth Healthcare, you signed or issued, in your professional capacity, a document that you knew or ought to have known contained a false or misleading statement, in that between December 2021 and March 2022, you documented that COVID-19 vaccines were administered to patients, when no vaccine was administered, including but not limited to the patients set out at Appendix A.
- You 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 Saint Elizabeth Healthcare, 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, between December 2021 and March 2022, you documented that COVID-19 vaccines were administered to patients, when no vaccine was administered, including but not limited to the patients set out at Appendix A.
Member’s Plea
The Member admitted the allegations set out in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 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 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
Jossett Langley (the “Member”) registered with the College of Nurses of Ontario (“CNO”) as a Registered Practical Nurse (“RPN”) on April 9, 2019.
The Member was employed at Saint Elizabeth Health Care (the “Agency”) from December 14, 2021 to June 16, 2022. The Agency deployed the Member to work at the Durham Region Health Department’s (the “Region”) COVID-19 immunization clinics between December 23, 2021 and February 18, 2022.
PRIOR HISTORY
- The Member has no prior disciplinary findings with CNO.
THE REGION’S COVID-19 VACCINATION CLINICS
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Region operated several mass vaccination clinics offering COVID-19 vaccines.
The Region used the COVax system to log all COVID-19 vaccinations given at its clinics. COVax is the electronic documentation system used for documenting COVID-19 vaccinations across Ontario.
The Member was assigned to work in one of two roles at the Region’s clinics: she was assigned either as an immunizer, or as a recovery room nurse.
Clinic immunizers would administer the vaccine to a client and log the administration in COVax using a Region-issued tablet.
After receiving the vaccine, the client would go to a recovery room, which was staffed by a nurse. After waiting for the recovery period, the client would be checked out by administrative staff who would also print and/or email vaccine receipts.
INCIDENTS RELEVANT TO ALLEGATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
On March 14, 2022, as part of a regular audit, Region staff found that the Member had recorded three vaccine dose administrations in COVax on March 11, 2022, a day when the Member was not scheduled to work. Two of the doses were recorded as having been administered at the Whitby location and the third was recorded as having been administered at the Pickering location, which had been closed that day. All three doses were recorded as having been administered by immunizers other than the Member, none of whom were scheduled to work that day.
On March 21, 2022, Region staff identified further doses recorded through the Member’s COVax account on days the Member was not scheduled to work. These doses were similarly attributed to immunizers other than the Member, who were also not scheduled to work on the days the doses were recorded.
The Region notified the Ministry of Health (“MOH”). The Member’s COVax account was deactivated on March 22, 2022, and the suspicious doses identified by the Region were marked as “invalid”.
The Region, using data provided by MOH, conducted a further review of the Member’s COVax activity dating back to December 2021, and identified concerns with additional immunizations she recorded while working at the Region’s COVID-19 immunization clinics.
The Member admits that she falsely documented that COVID-19 vaccines were administered to at least 16 patients, including those patients listed in Appendix “A” to the Notice of Hearing, when in fact no vaccine had been administered to those patients.
CNO STANDARDS
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:
Nurses respect the dignity of patients and treat them as individuals;
Nurses work together to promote patient well-being;
Nurses maintain patients’ trust by providing safe and competent care;
Nurses work respectfully with colleagues to best meet patients’ needs;
Nurses act with integrity to maintain patients’ trust; and
Nurses maintain public confidence in the nursing profession.
The Code of Conduct provides, with respect to the principle that nurses maintain patients’ trust by providing safe and competent care, that nurses maintain complete, accurate and timely documentation in their practice.
Regarding the principle requiring nurses to act with integrity to maintain patients’ trust, the Code of Conduct provides that nurses maintain integrity and do not use their position for personal gain.
Regarding the principle requiring nurses to maintain public confidence in the nursing profession, the Code of Conduct provides that nurses are accountable for their own actions and decisions.
Attached as Exhibit “A” is a copy of CNO’s Code of Conduct as it was in force at the time of the incidents described above.
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 pertaining to accountability, continuing competence, ethics, knowledge, knowledge application, leadership and relationships.
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.
Lastly, CNO’s Professional Standards provides, in relation to the ethics standard, that nurses are accountable for understanding, upholding, and promoting the values and beliefs described in CNO’s Ethics practice standard. Ethical nursing care means promoting values including, among other things, respecting truthfulness and acting with integrity, honesty, and professionalism in all dealings with the client and other health care team members. Nurses demonstrate this standard by actions such as identifying personal values and ensuring that they do not conflict with professional practice.
Attached as Exhibit “B” is a copy of CNO’s Professional Standards as it was 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 truthfulness and fairness. It describes truthfulness as speaking and acting without intending to deceive.
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 and to conduct themselves in a manner that reflects well on the profession.
Attached as Exhibit “C” is a copy of CNO’s Ethics standard as it was in force at the time of the incidents.
Documentation
CNO’s Documentation standard states that nursing documentation is an important component of nursing practice and that nurses are accountable for ensuring that their documentation is accurate and meets CNO’s practice standards.
The Documentation standard indicates that nurses meet the standard by, in part, demonstrating the following:
ensuring that documentation presents an accurate, clear and comprehensive picture of the client’s needs, the nurse’s interventions and the client’s outcomes; and
ensuring that documentation of client care is accurate, timely and complete.
Attached as Exhibit “D” is a copy of CNO’s Documentation standard as it was in force at the time of the incidents.
The Member admits and acknowledges that in engaging in the conduct described above she breached CNO’s Code of Conduct, Professional Standards, the Documentation standard and the Ethics standard.
ADMISSIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
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 9 to 29 above.
The Member admits that she committed the acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraph 2 of the Notice of Hearing, in that she falsified records relating to her practice, as described in paragraphs 9 to 13 above.
The Member admits that she committed the acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraph 3 of the Notice of Hearing, in that she signed or issued, in her professional capacity, a document that she knew or ought to have known contained a false or misleading statement, as described in paragraphs 9 to 13 above.
The Member admits that she committed the acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Notice of Hearing, and in particular that her conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, as described in paragraphs 9 to 13 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, 2, 3 and 4 of the Notice of Hearing. As to allegation #4, the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, 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, regarding the contravention of standards, is supported by paragraphs 9 to 29 and 30 in the Agreed Statement of Facts. While working as an RPN at the Agency, the Member was deployed to work at regional COVID-19 immunization clinics between December 23, 2021 and February 18, 2022. In this capacity, the Member admitted that she falsely documented that COVID-19 vaccines were administered to at least 16 patients, when in fact no vaccine had been administered to those patients. The Member accessed the COVax system and documented that vaccines were given at clinics which, in some instances, were not open on the day that the dose was recorded and documented that another immunizer administered vaccines on days when the immunizer was not working. In so doing, the Member breached multiple standards of the profession, including the Code of Conduct, the Professional Standards, the Ethics Standard, and the Documentation Standard. These standards have fundamental expectations of accountability to the profession and to the public for a member’s own practice, integrity and truthfulness, and complete accurate and timely documentation of interactions and care. The Member’s conduct, which included falsely documenting the administration of vaccines, and documenting that another immunizer had administered vaccines when they had not done so (and were not working), breached these standards, which require nurses to be truthful and accurate in documentation.
Allegation #2 in the Notice of Hearing, regarding the falsification of records, is supported by paragraphs 9 to 13 and 31 in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Member falsified patient records by documenting in the COVax system that COVID-19 vaccines had been administered to these patients when she knew that these patients had not received vaccinations.
Allegation #3 in the Notice of Hearing, regarding signing or issuing documents in the Member’s professional capacity that she knew to be false, is supported by paragraphs 9 to 13 and 32 in the Agreed Statement of Facts. In her professional capacity as an RPN working at immunization clinics, the Member documented that COVID-19 vaccines were administered when no vaccines were administered to patients. She also documented that another immunizer not working that day immunized the patients in three instances, which the Member knew to be false.
Allegation #4, regarding disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct, is supported by paragraphs 9 to 13 and 33 of the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Member’s conduct in falsifying the immunization records of at least 16 patients was relevant to the practice of nursing, as she had access to the COVax system in her professional capacity as an RPN. The Member’s conduct was unprofessional, as it demonstrated a serious and persistent disregard for her professional obligations, in violating the Code of Conduct, the Professional Standards, the Ethics Standard and the Documentation Standard.
The Panel also finds that the Member’s conduct was dishonourable. It demonstrated an element of dishonesty and deceit through the falsification of immunization records of at least 16 patients over several months, undermining the public health measures at that time. The Member was also dishonest, in documenting that a colleague who was not working had administered the vaccines. The Member knew or ought to have known that her conduct was unacceptable and fell well below the standards of a professional.
Finally, the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct was disgraceful, as it shames the Member and, by extension, the profession. During the COVID-19 pandemic, which was a public health crisis, the Member undermined the efforts by government and health care professionals and implicated other health care professionals in her dishonesty. The Member’s conduct casts serious doubt on her moral fitness and inherent ability to discharge the higher obligations the public expects professionals to meet.
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 5 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:
a) 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 of this Order. 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 of this Order. 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, and
CNO Statement Nurses Supporting Public Health Measures;
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.
Submissions on Penalty
College Counsel submitted that the Panel must accept the Joint Submission on Order unless the Panel finds that accepting it is contrary to public interest or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The Joint Submission on Order meets the goals of penalty, which are to protect the public and enhance confidence in the profession’s ability to self-regulate, and to address specific and general deterrence, as well as rehabilitation and remediation of the Member. College Counsel submitted that the proposed penalty protects the public, through all elements of the order, and particularly through the employer notification provision, which will limit the risk that the Member will repeat this conduct by providing increased oversight.
The aggravating factors in this case were:
The seriousness of the Member’s conduct, since the Member falsely documenting that COVID-19 vaccines were administered during an ongoing public health crisis in a mass vaccination clinic;
The conduct was repeated over a period of four months and for at least 16 patients;
The Member’s conduct implicated other health care professionals; and
The Member’s conduct was a serious breach of trust, in that the Member, as a member of the nursing profession, was trusted to accurately document the care she provided.
The mitigating factors were:
The Member took accountability for her conduct by admitting to her misconduct, and cooperating with the College by entering into an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Order; and
The Member has no prior disciplinary history with the College.
College Counsel submitted the following cases to the Panel, each of which proceeded through agreed statements of fact and joint submissions on order, to demonstrate that the proposed penalty fell within the range of similar cases from this Discipline Committee.
In CNO v. Soos, 2024 140477 (ON CNO), the member was a Nurse Practitioner who created false COVID-19 vaccination records for herself and family members. That member received a penalty that included a four-month suspension. In CNO v. Pomerleau, 2024 122854 (ON CNO), the member was a public health nurse who loaded her own vaccine syringe with saline and asked a colleague to administer it as a COVID-19 vaccine. The penalty in that case included a three-month suspension. In CNO v. Bianca, 2024 145647 (ON CNO), the member was a Communicable Disease Investigator at a public health agency. Among other things, the member falsified her COVID-19 vaccination record to her employer to satisfy the conditions of employment. The penalty included a six-month suspension.
The Member indicated that she agreed with the College’s submissions.
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 penalty 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. Specific deterrence is met through the five-month suspension, which will deter the Member from repeating her misconduct. The oral reprimand also serves as a specific deterrent, as it demonstrates to the Member how the membership and the public view her conduct. General deterrence is met through the lengthy suspension, which demonstrates that there will be serious consequences for conduct such as this, and especially conduct which includes breaches of trust. Remediation and rehabilitation are met through the meetings with the Regulatory Expert, which will give the Member a better understanding of her professional obligations and insight into her misconduct.
Overall, the public is protected through all the elements of the order, all of which will limit the risk of the Member engaging in similar conduct in the future. Public protection is specifically supported by the employer notification period, which will provide additional oversight of the Member’s conduct once she returns to practice.
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, Susan Roger, 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.