Court File and Parties
CITATION: College of Nurses of Ontario v. Manning, 2010 ONSC 1510
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 210/09
DATE: 20100310
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
JENNINGS, MCCOMBS AND MOLLOY JJ.
BETWEEN:
COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO Respondent
– and –
ROBERT MANNING Appellant
COUNSEL:
Linda Rothstein and Emily C. Lawrence, for the Respondent
Timothy C. Flannery, for the Appellant
HEARD at Toronto: March 10, 2010
Oral Reasons for Judgment
MOLLOY J. (orally)
[1] The appellant, Robert Manning, appeals the decision of the Panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses (the “Panel”) dated January 27, 2009. The Panel concluded that Mr. Manning committed professional misconduct while providing in-home nursing care to a client by:
(a) failing to maintain nursing standards;
(b) administering a liquid without patient consent; and,
(c) acting in a manner that members of the profession would consider disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.
[2] The Panel imposed a penalty that included a six month suspension and an oral reprimand.
[3] The parties agree that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness. They further agree that the standard of proof required to be applied by the Panel was proof on a balance of probabilities. The consequences for the nurse subject to discipline are serious. It is therefore appropriate that the quality of the evidence should be clear, cogent and compelling, but the standard of proof remains throughout the balance of probability.
[4] This Court has broad powers on appeal including the right to substitute its own findings for those of the Panel. However, that does not change the reasonableness standard of review nor does it mean that the Panel is not entitled to deference. In particular, where the Panel’s findings are based on viva voce evidence and findings of credibility and where the Panel is ruling on matters of professional standards and practice, considerable deference will be afforded to its conclusions.
[5] The essence of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant nurse invite this Court to disregard findings of fact made by the Panel and substitute its own. The Panel had the singular advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses. The Panel made findings of fact that were open to it on the evidence before it. Those findings were supported by fulsome reasons justifying the conclusions reached. Moreover, the finding by the Panel that the member was not a credible witness was amply supported by evidence and justified in the reasons. The factual findings by the Panel were reasonable and entitled to deference. This Court will not intervene.
[6] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
JENNINGS J.
[7] I have endorsed the Appeal Book, “This appeal is dismissed for oral reasons delivered today. Costs fixed at $8,500.00, payable to the College forthwith.”
MOLLOY J.
JENNINGS J.
MCCOMBS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 10, 2010
Date of Release: March 15, 2010
CITATION: College of Nurses of Ontario v. Manning, 2010 ONSC 1510
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 210/09
DATE: 20100310
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
JENNINGS, MCCOMBS AND MOLLOY JJ.
BETWEEN:
COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO Respondent
– and –
ROBERT MANNING Appellant
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MOLLOY J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 10, 2010
Date of Release: March 15, 2010