Sheila Riddell

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct relating to his care of two psychiatric patients.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member failed to discontinue a patient's seclusion in a timely manner, used improper physical restraint techniques on another patient, and made unprofessional comments about a colleague.

The Member admitted to the allegations and permanently resigned his certificate of registration.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a registered nurse for professional misconduct, alleging she sexually abused two patients and breached therapeutic boundaries.

The member admitted to engaging in sexual relationships, including sexual intercourse, with both patients while they were under her care.

The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct, noting her actions constituted a severe breach of the Therapeutic Nurse-Client Relationship standard.

Pursuant to a joint submission, the Committee ordered the mandatory revocation of the member's certificate of registration, an oral reprimand, and reimbursement of up to $10,000 for patient counselling.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct after failing to complete required 15-minute observation checks on a psychiatric patient who subsequently died by suicide.

The Member also falsely documented that the checks had been completed.

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

Accepting a Joint Submission on Order, the Committee imposed a penalty including an oral reprimand, a two-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against a registered nurse working on a schizophrenia inpatient unit.

The member admitted to failing to appropriately follow up after a client discussed suicide (the client subsequently committed suicide), blessing water for a client to address evil spirits without consulting the interdisciplinary team, and bringing therapeutically inappropriate horror movies to the unit.

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

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and terms and conditions including meetings with a nursing expert and employer notification.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced disciplinary proceedings for stealing narcotics from her hospital employer, falsifying medication administration records, and failing to report her subsequent criminal charges and conviction for theft to the College.

The Member admitted to the allegations of professional misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order, finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a five-month suspension, terms and conditions including meetings with a nursing expert, and a 24-month employer notification requirement.

The Member, a Registered Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct after failing to complete required 15-minute close observation checks on a vulnerable psychiatric patient, napping on duty, and falsifying records to indicate the checks were completed.

During the unmonitored period, the patient committed suicide.

The Member admitted to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a three-month suspension, a reprimand, and terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct involving multiple incidents of physical and emotional abuse, failing to follow care plans, and inappropriate communication with patients' families.

The Member admitted to the allegations, including bending a patient's finger back, hitting a patient across the mouth, and leaving a patient in an unsafe bed position.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order, finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a six-month suspension, and imposed terms and conditions on the Member's certificate of registration.

In a grievance arbitration where the Grievor alleged the Employer's actions caused her harm, a dispute arose over the disclosure of the Grievor's medical records from 2004 to 2007.

The Union consented to provide records from 2007 onwards but objected to earlier records.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the disputed medical records be made available exclusively to the Employer's counsel to determine if they are useful and necessary to the substantive issues.

The Board reasoned that the Employer was entitled to review the records given the allegations of harm and indications of pre-existing issues, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The parties agreed to consolidate nine grievances before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Board issued a procedural order establishing a timetable for the union to deliver written particulars of its allegations of fact and for the employer to provide notice of any preliminary objections.

The Union grieved that the Employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by paying the grievor at her current rate of pay rather than placing her on the wage grid corresponding to her agreed-upon continuous service date.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the clear and unambiguous language of the settlement agreement expressly preserved the grievor's current conditions of employment, which included her current rate of pay and progression.

The Employer raised an issue regarding the grievor's ability to participate in the hearing.

The Union provided a medical note strongly recommending the grievor not have face-to-face meetings with managers or staff.

The Vice-Chair found the note insufficient to determine if the grievor could testify or what accommodations were needed.

The Union was ordered to obtain clarification from the doctor regarding the grievor's ability to participate, the specific individuals she should avoid, and any necessary accommodations.

In a grievance arbitration, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered that all particulars concerning matters that had been withdrawn, settled, or subject to a prior decision be stricken.

The Board further ordered that all generalized particulars alleging discrimination and harassment must be particularized (who, what, where, and when) by a specified date, failing which they may be stricken.

The Employer sought the release of the Grievor's Independent Medical Examination Report and Long Term Insurance Plan file in a dispute over the Grievor's medical condition.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the Union to provide the documents to the Employer's counsel, subject to strict privacy conditions limiting their use and disclosure to specific individuals involved in the litigation.

The employer brought two preliminary motions in a grievance arbitration concerning the grievor's surplus and layoff.

The first motion sought to dismiss the union's claim of prohibited discrimination under the Human Rights Code for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The second motion sought to restrict the scope of evidence to events occurring after the departure of the grievor's former manager, or alternatively, to exclude evidence of a 2005 assessment report.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the first motion, finding that the pleaded facts did not support an inference that the employer perceived the grievor to have a disability.

On the second motion, the Board applied its three-year 'rule of thumb' for evidentiary scope, restricting evidence to events within three years of the grievance filing, but permitted the 2005 assessment report to be entered as an exhibit without hearing evidence regarding its accuracy or implementation.

The union referred two grievances to arbitration nearly two years after the employer denied them at Stage Two.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the referral was outside the 15-day time limit in the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that, pursuant to section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act and established jurisprudence, it has no jurisdiction to extend the time limits for referring a grievance to arbitration.

The employer's motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

The employer sought to sever the Papple grievance from the Malboeuf and group grievances, arguing it should be heard first.

The union submitted all three should be heard together.

The Board found that while all grievances broadly raised the issue of whether travel was personal or business, the legal issues and required interpretations differed significantly.

The Board concluded that efficiency favoured the employer's position and ordered the Papple grievance to be heard first.

The employer brought a motion to consolidate the discharge grievance of one employee with the grievance of another employee who alleged the employer failed to provide a safe workplace.

Both grievances arose from the same incident where the discharged employee allegedly assaulted the other employee.

The union opposed consolidation on behalf of the assaulted employee, arguing it would cause delay and stress.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the matters shared common questions of fact and arose from the same occurrence.

To avoid inconsistent findings of fact, the Board ordered that the matters be heard together, though they would retain their individual identities rather than being strictly consolidated.

The grievors filed multiple grievances alleging denial of sick leave, harassment, and discriminatory treatment.

They also filed complaints with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

Following unsuccessful mediation, the parties agreed to have the Grievance Settlement Board determine the outstanding human rights issues.

The Board issued this decision to formalize the agreement, directed the union to provide full particulars of the human rights issues, and noted that the Human Rights Tribunal had deferred its proceedings.

The union sought an adjournment of the grievance arbitration hearing because the grievor was ill and unable to attend.

The employer did not object to the adjournment but sought terms.

The arbitrator granted the adjournment, ordering the grievor to provide independent medical documentation supporting his absence and directing the union to provide full written particulars of its claim prior to the next hearing date.

The union sought to withdraw a grievance alleging unjust dismissal on a 'without prejudice' basis, intending to pursue a related complaint before the Human Rights Tribunal.

The employer opposed the 'without prejudice' condition, arguing it was an abuse of process given the late stage of proceedings and previous rulings.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the union was entitled to withdraw the grievance, but declined to attach either a 'with prejudice' or 'without prejudice' condition, leaving the consequences of the withdrawal to be determined by any future tribunal.