Miriam London

Two registered nurses sought judicial review of decisions by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Nurses of Ontario requiring them to be cautioned and, in one case, to complete a remediation program.

The applicants argued the decisions were unreasonable because the ICRC failed to address their submissions regarding inordinate delay (over four years) and abuse of process.

One applicant also argued the ICRC failed to consider her mental health disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court granted the applications, quashed the decisions, and remitted the matters back to the ICRC, finding the decisions unreasonable because the ICRC failed to meaningfully grapple with the central issues of delay, abuse of process, and disability.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a registered nurse for disclosing a patient's personal health information to a colleague without consent or clinical purpose.

The nurse admitted to the allegations, acknowledging that her conduct breached confidentiality standards and constituted professional misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order.

The nurse was reprimanded, her certificate of registration was suspended for one month, and conditions were imposed requiring meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against a registered nurse for failing to maintain therapeutic boundaries and engaging in a romantic and sexual relationship with a vulnerable psychiatric patient.

The member admitted to the allegations, including emotional abuse and disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, noting the member had already signed an undertaking to permanently resign and never practice nursing again.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation.

The union had negotiated mid-term amendments to a collective agreement with Loblaws to address competition from Wal-Mart, without holding a ratification vote by the general membership.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness and found that the Board's interpretation of the Labour Relations Act and its conclusion that the union acted fairly and reasonably were not patently unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.