Patricia Lynn Harper

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a Registered Practical Nurse for failing to implement a facility's bowel protocol, assess, monitor, and document care for a patient who subsequently died of a colon infection.

The Member admitted to the allegations and that her conduct was dishonourable and unprofessional.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand, noting that the Member had already signed an undertaking to permanently resign from the College and never reapply.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a Registered Practical Nurse for multiple allegations of professional misconduct, including failing to properly document patient information, altering a colleague's documentation, and misappropriating narcotic medications (Percocet and Oxycodone) from several patients.

The Discipline Committee found that the nurse had breached the standards of practice, falsified records, and misappropriated property, constituting disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

The nurse's certificate of registration was suspended for 8 months, and she was ordered to complete remedial education and be subject to employer notification and practice restrictions upon her return.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against the Member for practising nursing, falsifying records, and holding herself out as a nurse while her certificate of registration was suspended.

The Member also used a former name to obtain employment and conceal her suspended status.

The Discipline Committee found the allegations of practising while suspended, falsifying records, and unauthorized use of title were established and constituted disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

Allegations regarding taking supplies from a client were dismissed.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a 12-month suspension to take effect upon the Member obtaining an active certificate, and various terms, conditions, and limitations on her practice.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct for accessing the personal health information of 11 patients without consent or proper authorization, and for impersonating a family member in a voicemail to the hospital to excuse the unauthorized access.

The Member admitted to the allegations through an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct, characterizing her actions as disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand, a three-month suspension, and terms including meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a registered nurse for professional misconduct related to her wound care of two patients.

The nurse admitted to discontinuing a physician's order for negative pressure wound therapy without notifying the most responsible physician, and failing to properly document her care and assessments.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the nurse committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand, a two-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on her certificate of registration.

The member, a registered practical nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to monitor and de-escalate a psychiatric patient who was engaging in self-harm, and for using profanity when discussing the patient with a colleague.

The member admitted to the allegations via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found that the member's conduct fell below the standards of practice and constituted dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a Joint Submission on Order, the Committee ordered a verbal reprimand, noting the member had already permanently resigned her certificate of registration.

The Member, a Registered Nurse, appeared before the Discipline Committee on allegations of professional misconduct.

While working as a Charge Nurse, the Member became aware that a fellow nurse had engaged in sexual intercourse with a patient but failed to report the abuse to the Hospital or the College.

Furthermore, the Member failed to revise the patient assignment the following night, allowing the abuser to continue caring for the patient.

The Member admitted to the allegations via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and accepted a Joint Submission on Order, imposing a reprimand, a two-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on her certificate of registration.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a Registered Practical Nurse for borrowing money from the husband of a client with dementia.

The Member admitted to the allegations and agreed to a statement of facts.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member contravened standards of practice, practiced in a conflict of interest, and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand and noting the Member's undertaking to permanently resign his certificate of registration.

The Kingston Fire and Rescue Services (KFRS) issued an Inspection Order requiring the Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School Board to construct a fire separation in a school's stairwells.

The School Board appealed the order but completed the required work prior to the appeal's final disposition.

KFRS brought a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of mootness.

The Fire Safety Commission denied the motion, finding that the live controversy regarding KFRS's authority to issue the order remained unresolved.

The Commission further held that even if the matter were moot, it would exercise its discretion to hear the appeal due to the important public safety issues and broader implications for other schools.

Following a complex motion involving amendments to a statement of claim and issues relating to government funding of a transportation consortium’s defence, the court addressed costs among multiple parties.

The moving plaintiffs were successful in obtaining leave to amend their claim and to add the provincial government as a defendant, but were unsuccessful in obtaining litigation funding from the government.

The court applied the principles under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that costs must be fair and reasonable rather than reflective of actual legal fees incurred.

Costs of $150,000 were awarded to the plaintiffs payable by the Crown for the successful amendment issues, while the Crown was awarded $61,950 payable by the plaintiffs for the unsuccessful funding request.

The issue of the defendant consortium’s costs relating to funding was deferred to the trial judge or a future judicial review.

The plaintiffs, seven private school bus operators, brought a motion to amend their statement of claim and add the Ministry of Education as a party defendant in their action against a student transportation consortium regarding the use of Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for procurement.

The plaintiffs also sought an order declaring the Ministry's funding of the consortium's legal costs ultra vires and an interim costs funding order for their own legal fees.

The court granted leave to amend the pleadings and add the Ministry as a defendant, finding no non-compensable prejudice and that the Ministry was a necessary party given its role in directing the RFP process.

The court adjourned the issue of the consortium's funding to the trial judge, noting it required judicial review.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' request for interim costs funding, finding they had not established impecuniosity.

The defendant moved to strike the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b), arguing that sections 22 and 23 of the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act barred the action.

The plaintiffs, independent school bus operators, alleged the defendant breached common law duties and acted unlawfully in its procurement process for student transportation services.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that the Act immunized the defendant from unlawful acts or limited the plaintiffs' remedies solely to damages.

The court held that the novel legal issues raised required a complete evidentiary record.