DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO

PANEL: Tanya Dion, RN Chairperson Lynda Carpenter Public Member Sylvia Douglas Public Member Ahamad Mohammed, RPN Member Kimberley Wagg, RPN Member

BETWEEN:

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

• and - )

SEENA THUNDATHIL JOSEPH ) MICHELLE GIBBS for Registration No. 19202104 ) Seena Thundathil Joseph

) ELYSE SUNSHINE ) Independent Legal Counsel

) Heard: May 12, 2025, ) via videoconference

DECISION AND REASONS

Publication Ban

By Order of the Discipline Panel dated May 12, 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 Seena Thundathil Joseph.

This matter was heard by a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the College of Nurses of Ontario (the “College”) on May 12, 2025.

The Allegations

The allegations against Seena Thundathil Joseph (the “Member”) as stated in the Notice of Hearing dated March 27, 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 the Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that, while working as a Registered Nurse at St. Joseph’s Health Care London, 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 from on or about December 11, 2021 to on or about August 27, 2023, you accessed the personal health information of 23 patients, listed at Appendix A, without consent and/or authorization and/or professional purpose.

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(37) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that, while working as a Registered Nurse at St. Joseph’s Health Care London, 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 from on or about December 11, 2021 to on or about August 27, 2023, you accessed the personal health information of 23 patients, listed at Appendix A, without consent and/or authorization and/or professional purpose.

Appendix A

#	Patient	Date(s) of Access
1	Patient A	December 11, 2021
2	Patient B	December 16, 2021
3	Patient C	December 21, 2021
4	Patient D	December 21, 2021
5	Patient E	January 17, 2022
6	Patient F	January 17, 2022; April 13, 2022
7	Patient G	February 9, 2022
8	Patient H	February 15, 2022
9	Patient I	February 15, 2022
10	Patient J	February 15, 2022
11	Patient K	February 20, 2022
12	Patient L	March 3, 2022; March 9, 2022
13	Patient M	March 18, 2022
14	Patient N	March 19, 2022; March 20, 2022; March 28, 2022
15	Patient O	April 13, 2022
16	Patient P	April 13, 2022
17	Patient Q	April 13, 2022
18	Patient R	April 16, 2022
19	Patient S	December 14, 2022
20	Patient T	December 18, 2022
21	Patient U	January 29, 2023
22	Patient V	August 16, 2023
23	Patient W	August 27, 2023

Member’s Plea

The Member admitted the allegations set out in paragraphs #1 and #2 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 admission was voluntary, informed and unequivocal.

Agreed Statement of Facts

College Counsel and Member’s Counsel advised the Panel that agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts, which reads, unedited and without exhibits and appendices mentioned therein, as follows:

THE MEMBER

1. Seena Thundathil Joseph (the “Member”) first registered with the College of Nurses of Ontario (“CNO”) as a Registered Practical Nurse (“RPN”) on March 8, 2012. The Member subsequently registered with CNO as a Registered Nurse (“RN”) on August 28, 2019, and resigned her RPN certificate of registration on December 28, 2019.

2. The Member was employed at St. Joseph’s Health Care London, in London, Ontario (the “Facility”) from November 29, 2021, until October 5, 2023, when her employment was terminated because of the incidents described below.

3. The Member was initially employed at the Facility as a float nurse. As a float nurse, the Member would be assigned to different units at the Facility based on staffing needs. The Member later moved to a part-time RN role on the Facility’s Adult Mental Health Unit, around May 2022.

4. The Member completed education on privacy and confidentiality through the Facility’s e-learning platform in November 2021 and October 2022. This e-learning included a review of the Facility’s privacy and confidentiality policies and the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004.

5. As part of the Facility’s e-learning program, the Member confirmed that she read, understood and agreed to comply with the statements listed in the Facility’s “Privacy and Confidentiality Agreement” which included an affirmation that she would only collect, use and disclose personal health information, personal information or confidential business information required for the performance of her role.

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

INCIDENTS RELEVANT TO ALLEGATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

7. In early 2022, a high-profile client (“Patient K”) was admitted to the Facility. The Facility’s privacy office conducted an audit of staff’s access to Patient K’s electronic medical record (“EMR”) on April 29, 2022.

8. This audit revealed that the Member had accessed Patient K’s EMR on February 20, 2022, despite not being in Patient K’s circle of care.

9. Based on the Member’s inappropriate access of Patient K’s EMR, the privacy office conducted further audits of the Member’s historical EMR access in May 2022. These audits revealed that the Member had inappropriately accessed the EMRs of other patients between December 2021 and April 2022. While the Member had previously provided care to some of the patients involved, on the dates of her access of the EMRs, the Member was no longer in any of the patients’ circle of care.

10. On May 6, 2022, Facility management met with the Member to discuss her unauthorized access of the EMRs. The Member told the Facility that she had accessed patient charts because she wanted to get to know how she could help them when they were assigned to her in the future. The Facility advised the Member that this is not an appropriate reason to review a patient’s chart and constitutes a breach of privacy. The Member acknowledged that her accesses were a “big mistake” and stated that this conduct would never occur again.

11. The Facility reported to CNO that the Member was given one-on-one “circle of care” education by a Facility privacy consultant and was informed that the Facility’s privacy office would continue to monitor her adherence to the Facility’s privacy and confidentiality policies. If the Member were to testify, she would deny that the Facility provided her with any one-on-one “circle of care” education or any additional training on the Facility’s privacy and confidentiality policies.

12. In September 2023, the Facility conducted additional audits of the Member’s access of EMRs between November 1, 2022, and September 1, 2023. These audits identified the Member’s access of an additional five patient EMRs, when she was not in those patients’ circle of care.

13. On September 8, 2023, the Facility’s management held a fact-finding meeting with the Member to discuss the results of the Facility’s audits. The Member acknowledged accessing the EMRs of five identified patients in respect of whom she was not in their circle of care. The Member explained that in some circumstances she had accessed the EMRs because she had heard that the patients may be transferred to her care, or she had previously cared for the patient. The Member informed her employer that if the Facility conducted additional audits, it would likely find additional cases where she had accessed the EMRs of patients for whom she was not in their circle of care.

14. A final Facility audit identified that, in total, the Member accessed the EMR of 23 patients (“the Patients”), whose circle of care she was not in, over the course of 21 different dates between December 11, 2021, and August 27, 2023.

15. Appendix A of the Agreed Statement of Facts details each instance where the Member accessed the EMR of a patient whose circle of care she was not in, without the Patient’s consent, authorization, or any professional purpose.

16. If the Member were to testify, she would express her profound regret for her actions. Her actions were never intended to be malicious, and she was always motivated to provide the best possible care at the Facility and to be as prepared as possible for incoming transfers and new admissions to her unit(s) and patients for whom she might return to their circle of care in the near future. Nonetheless, the Member fully understands that it was improper of her to access the EMRs of all patients listed in Appendix A, and she apologizes for her poor judgment for breaching their privacy.

CNO STANDARDS

Professional Standards

17. CNO’s Professional Standards, Revised 2002 (“Professional Standards”) provides an overall framework for the practice of nursing and a link with other standards, guidelines and competencies developed by CNO. It describes in broad terms the professional expectations of nurses and applies to all nurses, in every area of practice.

18. CNO’s Professional Standards provides that each nurse is accountable to the public and responsible for ensuring that her/his practice and conduct meets legislative requirements and the standards of the profession.

19. Two versions of CNO’s Professional Standards were in force over the relevant time period. Copies of each version of CNO’s Professional Standards, in force during the relevant time period, are attached as Exhibit “A”.

Code of Conduct

20. CNO’s Code of Conduct, in effect from 2019 to June 2023, explains the behaviours that the public can expect from nurses when receiving care. 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.

• Nurses maintain public confidence in the nursing profession.

21. In relation to the principle requiring nurses to maintain patients’ trust by providing safe and competent care, CNO’s Code of Conduct provides that nurses are accountable to, and practice under, relevant law and CNO’s standards of practice.

22. In relation to the principle requiring nurses to act with integrity to maintain patients’ trust, CNO’s Code of Conduct provides that nurses protect the privacy and confidentiality of patients’ personal health information.

23. In relation to the principle requiring nurses to maintain public confidence in the nursing profession, CNO’s Code of Conduct provides that nurses are accountable for their own actions and decisions.

24. A copy of CNO’s Code of Conduct in force from 2019 to June 2023, is attached as Exhibit “B”.

25. On June 5, 2023, CNO’s revised Code of Conduct came into effect. The revised Code of Conduct sets out the behaviours and conduct all nurses are expected to follow. It also tells the public what to expect from nurses when receiving care.

26. CNO’s revised Code of Conduct consists of six principles:

• Nurses respect clients’ dignity.

• Nurses provide inclusive and culturally safe care by practicing cultural humility.

• Nurses provide safe and competent care.

• Nurses work respectfully with the health care team.

• Nurses act with integrity in clients’ best interests.

• Nurses maintain public confidence in the nursing profession.

27. In relation to the principle requiring that nurses respect clients’ dignity, CNO’s revised Code of Conduct provides that nurses treat clients with respect, empathy and compassion.

28. In relation to the principle requiring that nurses act with integrity in clients’ best interests, CNO’s revised Code of Conduct provides that nurses protect the privacy and confidentiality of clients’ personal health information as set out in CNO’s Confidentiality & Privacy – Personal Health Information practice standard and the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004.

29. In relation to the principle requiring that nurses maintain public confidence in the nursing profession, CNO’s revised Code of Conduct provides that nurses understand and practice in compliance with relevant laws and standards of practice and do not breach them; nurses are accountable for their own decisions, actions, omissions and related outcomes; and nurses take accountability for their errors and learn from them.

30. A copy of CNO’s revised Code of Conduct in force from June 2023, is attached as Exhibit “C”.

Confidentiality and Privacy – Personal Health Information

31. CNO’s Confidentiality and Privacy – Personal Health Information standard (“Confidentiality and Privacy Standard”) largely incorporates the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 and clarifies nursing standards for confidentiality and privacy of personal health information. CNO’s Confidentiality and Privacy Standard provides that nurses have ethical and legal responsibilities to maintain the confidentiality and privacy of client health information.

32. CNO’s Confidentiality and Privacy Standard provides that nurses comply with the standard by seeking information about issues of privacy and confidentiality of personal health information; accessing information for her/his clients only and not accessing information for which there is not professional purpose; and notifying the contact person within the practice setting when he/she becomes aware that there has been a breach of confidentiality.

33. Two versions of CNO’s Confidentiality and Privacy Standard were in force over the relevant time period. Copies of each version of CNO’s Confidentiality and Privacy Standard, in force during the relevant time period, are attached as Exhibit “D”.

ADMISSIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

34. The Member admits and acknowledges that accessing the personal health information of the Patients without consent, authorization or professional purpose was a breach of CNO’s Professional Standards, Code of Conduct, revised Code of Conduct and Confidentiality and Privacy – Personal Health Information practice standards, in force during the relevant time period.

35. The Member admits that she committed the acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraph 1 of the Notice of Hearing, as described in paragraphs 7-33 above.

36. The Member admits that she committed the acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraph 2 of the Notice of Hearing, and in particular her conduct was dishonourable and unprofessional, as described in paragraphs 7-33 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 and #2 of the Notice of Hearing. As to allegation #2, the Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession to be dishonourable and unprofessional.

Reasons for Decision

The Panel considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and the Member’s plea and finds that this evidence supports findings of professional misconduct as alleged in the Notice of Hearing.

Allegation #1 in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 7 - 35 in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Member admitted that, while she was employed as an RN at St. Joseph’s Health Care London (the “Facility”), she accessed the electronic medical records (EMRs) of multiple patients on at least 23 dates between December 2021 and August 2023 while outside of their circle of care and without any clinical justification. Despite being counselled on this issue by the Facility in May 2022 and acknowledging that her actions were inappropriate, the Member continued to engage in the same conduct for over a year. While the Member would have testified that her intent was to be prepared for potential patient transfers or new admissions, this rationale does not justify the unauthorized access to confidential patient information. This was a clear breach of privacy and confidentiality standards.

The Panel finds that this conduct breached the standards of the profession. The Member failed to adhere to the College’s Confidentiality and Privacy Standard applicable at the relevant times, the Professional Standards in force at the relevant times, and the Code of Conduct. These standards emphasize a nurse’s responsibility to maintain client confidentiality, comply with legislation, and uphold the public’s trust. The repeated and intentional access to health records without authorization demonstrated conduct that fell well below what is expected of a member of the nursing profession.

The College’s expectations are clear: nurses must access personal health information only when they are directly involved in the patient’s care. The Member’s conduct breached this fundamental requirement.

Allegation #2 in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 7 - 34 and 36 in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Member’s conduct in accessing the personal health information of patients outside of the Member’s circle of care was clearly relevant to the practise of nursing and was unprofessional. The ongoing nature of the privacy breaches, despite prior warnings and remedial efforts, demonstrated a serious and persistent disregard for the Member’s professional obligations. The conduct fell significantly below the standards of integrity, accountability, and judgment expected of a nurse.

The Panel also finds that the Member’s conduct was dishonourable. It demonstrated an element of moral failing in that the Member knowingly accessed confidential information to which she was not entitled and continued to do so even after being explicitly advised of the impropriety of the conduct. Whether or not her intentions were malicious, the conduct reflected a disregard for the ethical and legal responsibilities entrusted to her by virtue of her professional role. The Member knew, or ought to have known, that her conduct was unacceptable and would erode the trust placed in her by patients, employers, and the profession at large.

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

2. Directing the Executive Director to suspend the Member’s certificate of registration for 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. 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 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. Confidentiality and Privacy – Personal Health Information; and

3. Circle of Care: Sharing Personal Health Information for Health-Care Purposes as released by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario;

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,

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, and

3. that if the Member has access to electronic health records, they agree to perform 3 random spot audits of the Member’s accesses to electronic health records at the following intervals and provide a report to CNO regarding the Member’s practice after each audit:

a. the first audit shall take place within 4 months from the date the Member begins or resumes employment with the employer,

b. the second audit shall take place within 8 months from the date the Member begins or resumes employment with the employer,

c. the third audit shall take place within 12 months from the date the Member begins or resumes employment with the employer;

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

College Submissions on Penalty

College Counsel made submissions which addressed the seriousness of the Member’s conduct and emphasized the importance of imposing a penalty that reflects the principles of public protection, specific and general deterrence, and remediation. Counsel submitted that the proposed penalty, including an oral reprimand, a three-month suspension, regulatory education, employer notification, and random audits, appropriately meets these objectives.

In support of the proposed penalty, College Counsel identified several aggravating factors, including the sensitive nature of the personal health information accessed, the repeated nature of the misconduct over an extended period of nearly two years, and the fact that the Member continued the behavior even after being counselled and advised of the inappropriateness of her actions.

College Counsel submitted as mitigating factors for the Panel’s consideration, the fact that the Member has no prior disciplinary history with the College, her cooperation with both her employer and the College throughout the investigation, and her willingness to admit to the allegations at an early stage, which avoided the need for a contested hearing. College Counsel also noted the Member’s expression of sincere remorse and acceptance of responsibility as factors that supported rehabilitation.

To demonstrate that the proposed penalty falls within an appropriate range for similar conduct, College Counsel submitted the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee to the Panel:

CNO v. Rodriguez Fargas (Discipline Committee, 2024): This case proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order. The member accessed 43 records outside the circle of care over several months. The penalty included an oral reprimand, three-month suspension, two regulatory expert meetings, a 12-month employer notification period, and three random audits.

CNO v. Murphy (Discipline Committee, 2024): This case proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order. The member accessed 11 records on multiple dates. A similar penalty was imposed, minus the audit requirement, highlighting that the volume and frequency of access can influence the scope of monitoring.

CNO v. Southwell (Discipline Committee, 2024): This case proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order. The member accessed a single patient record and disclosed information to a colleague. The penalty included a two-month suspension and regulatory education but no audits, illustrating how isolated incidents may warrant slightly reduced penalties.

College Counsel submitted that the proposed penalty in this matter is consistent with the outcomes in the cases above and appropriately reflects the serious and persistent nature of the Member’s misconduct, while also accounting for the mitigating factors. The penalty ensures accountability, protects the public, and maintains confidence in the nursing profession.

Member’s Submissions on Penalty

The Member’s Counsel agreed with the College’s submissions and asked the Panel to accept the Joint Submission on Order. She acknowledged the seriousness of the Member’s misconduct and emphasized that the Member takes full responsibility for her actions. The Member’s Counsel submitted that the proposed penalty appropriately balances the need for public protection, specific and general deterrence, and remediation.

The Member’s Counsel highlighted several mitigating factors, including the Member’s clean discipline history, her full cooperation with both the College and her employer, and her early and voluntary admission of professional misconduct. These actions demonstrated the Member’s insight and accountability and avoided the time and expense of a contested hearing.

The Member’s Counsel emphasized the Member’s genuine remorse and commitment to learning from this experience. She submitted that the oral reprimand provides a meaningful opportunity for the Member to hear directly from the Panel and reflect on her responsibilities to the public and the profession. The three-month suspension, coupled with regulatory education and employer oversight, was presented as a comprehensive approach to remediation that would allow the Member to return to practice safely and ethically.

The Member’s Counsel reiterated that the Member understands that self-regulation is a privilege and not a right, and that her conduct must align with the expectations of the nursing profession. The Member is prepared to engage in the proposed educational activities and undergo monitoring to ensure her ongoing compliance and safe return to practice.

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 imposition of a three-month suspension. This significant consequence sends a strong message to other members of the profession that breaches of privacy and repeated unauthorized access to personal health information will not be tolerated. It reinforces that serious professional misconduct, particularly involving sensitive health information, will attract serious disciplinary outcomes.

The proposed penalty provides for specific deterrence through both the oral reprimand and the suspension. The reprimand gives the Member the opportunity to hear directly from the Panel that her conduct was unacceptable and fell well below the standards expected of a regulated professional. The suspension removes the Member from practice for a period of time, serving as a concrete consequence that deters her from repeating this behavior.

The proposed penalty provides for remediation and rehabilitation through the requirement that the Member attend two meetings with a regulatory expert. These meetings offer an opportunity for reflection, education, and growth. The Member will be able to review the misconduct with an expert and develop strategies to ensure it is not repeated. The 12-month period of employer notification and three spot audits provide additional safeguards which protect the public and support the Member’s reintegration into practice while reinforcing her accountability.

Overall, the public is protected because the penalty addresses all facets of regulatory accountability. It provides safeguards against future risk and emphasizes the seriousness of privacy breaches. The Member’s acknowledgment of her misconduct, her agreement to the penalty, and her demonstrated remorse also support the likelihood of her return to safe and ethical practice in the future.

The Panel is satisfied that this penalty order is reasonable and proportionate, consistent with past decisions of this Committee, and upholds the public’s trust in the integrity of the nursing 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.

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.