DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO. PANEL: Lois Vanson, RPN Chairperson

Transcription

1 DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO PANEL: Lois Vanson, RPN Chairperson Kelly Kay, RPN Member Margaret McGinn, RN Member Marilyn Bestwick Public Member Betty Hill Public Member BETWEEN: ) ) COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO ) GLYNNIS BURT for ) College of Nurses of Ontario - and - ) ) ANGIE JOAN GAUTHIER, RPN ) NO REPRESENTATION for Registration No. IB06566 ) Angie Joan Gauthier ) ) Heard: July 2-3, 2003 DECISION AND REASONS This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee on July 2, 2003 at 0900hrs at the College of Nurses of Ontario in Toronto to hear allegations against Angie Joan Gauthier (nee Brant), RPN (the Member ). The Member was not represented by legal counsel, nor was the Member in attendance for the hearing. Counsel for the College of Nurses of Ontario (the College ) entered into evidence the Notice of Hearing and the Affidavit of Service of the Notice of Hearing on the Member as Exhibits # 1 and # 2 respectively. The panel recessed for 30 minutes to give the Member the opportunity to appear for the hearing. During this time a voice mail was received by the Hearings Administrator from the Member. The Member did not request an adjournment. She indicated that she would not be attending but that she could be reached at home. The panel waited until 1002 hrs to give the Hearings Administrator an opportunity to contact the Member for clarification at the phone numbers provided. The Member could not be reached at either of two phone numbers provided. Counsel for the College of Nurses of Ontario requested the hearing proceed under section 7(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act ( SPPA ).

2 [ ], who is employed at the College of Nurses of Ontario as a Hearings Administrator, Investigations & Hearings, gave evidence. She testified that numerous attempts to contact the Member by letter and telephone had been made. [The Hearings Administrator] produced Exhibits # 3 through 17 as listed below, which showed the numerous attempts to contact the Member with regard to a hearing to be held at the College of Nurses, Toronto ON, on July 2 through July 4, At no time was College staff successful in making direct contact with the Member. Communication consisted of voice mail messages by both parties. In addition there was written correspondence from College staff, but at no time was there any written correspondence by the Member. The Ontario Process Server attempted unsuccessfully to serve the Member at 4 known addresses with the Notice of Hearing. On May 7, 2003, the College of Nurses provided the Ontario Process Server with 5 addresses to assist in locating the Member. The process server was finally successful in serving the Member with the Notice of Hearing together with Disclosure Material on May 7, Counsel for the College entered into evidence exhibits # 3-17 which showed the attempts to contact the Member. [ ], Discipline Committee Administrator, who is employed at the College of Nurses of Ontario gave evidence. She testified that numerous attempts to contact the Member by letter and telephone had been made. [The Discipline Committee Administrator] further testified that attempts were made to reach the Member by telephone on March 10, 11 and 18, On those dates, telephone messages were left and were not returned by the Member. [The Discipline Committee Administrator] produced Exhibits # 18 through 21, which showed the numerous attempts to contact the Member with regard to the hearing. Exhibit # 21, is a memo of a voic from the Member to [the Discipline Committee Administrator] in which she stated that she was experiencing [health-related issues]. The Member was informed that the hearing could be adjourned until the Member was well enough to attend, however the Member would be required to produce a letter from her physician, on his or her letterhead providing the following information: doctor s name; business address; telephone number and information pertaining to her illness by June 27, No response was ever received regarding this request. Counsel for the College entered into evidence exhibits # which showed the attempts to contact the Member. Counsel for the College made submissions with respect to the Member s absence. It was noted that the Member had received a long period of notice regarding hearing dates. In addition, the Member has a long history of non-responsiveness to attempts to contact her. While the Member had claimed that she would not be able to attend the hearing due to [health issues], the Member failed to substantiate this claim with a physician s letter, despite notice from [the Discipline Committee Administrator] informing her that a letter from her physician would be required. Counsel for the College submitted that the Member had ample time to obtain appropriate documentation from her physician or an alternate, or arrange for counsel or an agent to appear on her behalf to request an adjournment. Counsel for the College stated all reasonable attempts were made to contact the Member prior to the commencement of the hearing. Counsel quoted Section 7(1) of the SPPA which states:

3 Where notice of an oral hearing has been given to a party to a proceeding in accordance with this Act and the party does not attend at the hearing, the tribunal may proceed in the absence of the party and her party is not entitled to any further notice in the proceeding. Counsel for the College also quoted Section 6, subsections (2) and (3) of the SPPA, which states: A notice of hearing shall include a reference to the statutory authority under which the hearing will be held. A notice of an oral hearing shall include, (a) a statement of the time, place and purpose of the hearing; and (b) a statement that if the party notified does not attend at the hearing, the tribunal may proceed in the party s absence and the party will not be entitled to any further notice in the proceeding. The panel was satisfied that the Member had received proper notice of the proceedings. The Affidavit of Service confirmed that the Member had been personally served with the Notice of Hearing which specifically set out the place and time for the hearing. The Member had indicated by voice mail message left for [the Hearings Administrator], July 2, 2003 that she did not plan to attend the hearing but wished to be kept informed. The panel deliberated and returned with the decision to proceed with the hearing. The Allegations The allegations against the Member as stated in the Notice of Hearing are as follows: IT IS ALLEGED THAT: 1. You have committed an act or acts of professional misconduct, as provided by subsection 51(1)(a) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 32, in that, while a member of the College of Nurses of Ontario, you were found guilty of an offence or offences relevant to your suitability to practise, the particulars of which are set out in paragraph 1 of Appendix A. 2. You have committed an act or acts of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, and defined in paragraph 1.15 of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that on or about December 20, 2001, while a member of the College of Nurses of Ontario, you signed or issued in your professional capacity a document that you knew or ought to have known contained a false or misleading statement, the particulars of which are set out in paragraph 2 of Appendix A. 3. You have committed an act or acts of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, and defined in paragraph 1.19 of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that on or about December 20, 2001, while a member of the College of Nurses of Ontario, you contravened section 5 (3) of Ontario Regulation 275/94, in that you failed or neglected to provide the CNO with details of findings of guilt for the criminal offences referred to in paragraph 1, above, which convictions occurred after your initial registration with the CNO, the particulars of which are set out in paragraph 2 of Appendix A.

4 4. You have committed an act or acts of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code and defined in paragraph 1.37 of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that in the period of April 1 to November 30, 2001, while employed as a Registered Practical Nurse at [the Nursing Home], you engaged in conduct or performed an act or acts relevant to the practice of nursing that, having regard to all circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, the particulars of which are set out in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Appendix A. Particulars to Specified Allegations APPENDIX A ANGIE J. BRANT GAUTHIER Ontario Registration No. IB On or about October 21, 1999, you pleaded guilty to and were convicted on four counts of fraud and one count of false pretences with intent to defraud pursuant to sections 380(1) and 362(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. 2. On or about December 20, 2001, in your College of Nurses of Ontario ( CNO ) 2002 Annual Payment Form, you indicated that you had not been found guilty of a criminal offence since your initial registration with CNO when you had in fact been convicted of four counts of fraud and one count of false pretences with intent to defraud on or about October 21, In the period of May 1 to November 30, 2001, you submitted a false and/or fraudulent letter in the name of [ ], an administrator at [the Nursing Home], to Ontario Works for the purposes of receiving child care payments, all without the knowledge of [the Nursing Home Administrator]. 4. On or about October 26, 2001, you submitted a forged and/or fraudulent letter in the name of [Instructor A] an instructor at [college A] to Ontario Works for the purposes of receiving child care payments. 5. On or about October 26, 2001, you submitted a forged and/or fraudulent letter in the name of [Instructor B], an instructor at [college B], to Ontario Works for the purposes of receiving childcare payments. Member s Plea The Member did not attend the hearing nor was the Member represented by legal counsel. The hearing proceeded on the basis that she had denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. Overview The Member is a registered practical nurse, who graduated from [ ] in The Member has had a history of suspension and reinstatements of her registration related to late payments of annual fees

5 from 1994 to In October, 1999, the Member pleaded guilty to and was convicted on four counts of fraud, one count of false pretence with intent to defraud. The Member had been employed with the [the Nursing Home] with termination of employment in October The allegations concern incidents occurring between October 1999 and October The Evidence [Nursing Home Administrator] [The Nursing Home Administrator] is a registered nurse, former Administrator of [the Nursing Home]. [The Nursing Home Administrator] testified she was responsible for overall management of the facility, overseeing construction and opening of the retirement home, which occurred in She knew the Member as she was part of the hiring process for the Member in June The Member was terminated on October 18, 2001 and the witness testified that this was because the Member had sent five letters to Ontario Works in the name of [the Nursing Home Administrator] (Exhibit # 22).Exhibit #22 consisted of five letters alleged to have been written by [the Nursing Home Administrator] at the time. Each letter documented the Member s participation in training, seminars and courses on various dates, that the Member claimed to have attended. [The Nursing Home Administrator] denied writing, authorizing, or giving permission for the letters to be sent. [The Nursing Home Administrator] testified that the statements in the letters were not true and they were not written on the official letterhead of [the Nursing Home]. She stated that the Member had not asked her to write any of the letters in Exhibit # 22. Counsel for the College presented Exhibit # 23, the timesheets recording hours worked by the Member at [the Nursing Home] December 21, 2000 to September 13, [The Nursing Home Administrator] testified and highlighted numerous examples where, according to the timesheets, (Exhibit # 23), the Member was working, while claiming to be attending education sessions as outlined in the letters of Exhibit # 22. [The Nursing Home Administrator] further identified that the Member was on [ ] leave during the period where she had claimed to be attending education courses as outlined in the letters of Exhibit # 22. Contrary to the dates and times of education sessions listed in Exhibit # 22, [the Nursing Home Administrator] testified that the average in-service offered at [the Nursing Home] lasted one hour. Counsel for the College presented Exhibit # 24, the letter from [the Nursing Home Administrator] to Ontario Works, which supported testimony that the letters of Exhibit # 22 were fictitious. Counsel for the College presented Exhibit # 25, the letter of termination to the Member. The panel found the witness to be unbiased and credible. [Director of Care] [ ] is a registered nurse, the Director of Care of [the Nursing Home], a position she has held since September [The Director of Care] testified that she is responsible for overseeing resident care and provides direct resident care two shifts per pay period. Further, she has responsibility for arranging education in-services. She knew the Member as she was her direct supervisor from September 2000 until the

6 Member s termination in October [The Director of Care] testified that she was called by [ ], Caseworker of Ontario Works, in September 2001 to verify dates for in-services provided by [the Nursing Home]. [The Director of Care] testified she was surprised to learn about letters written to Ontario Works regarding in-services/seminars that the Member claimed to have attended and requested that these letters be faxed to her. These five letters, entered as Exhibited # 22 were faxed by Ontario Works to [the Nursing Home] and reviewed by [the Director of Care] and [the Nursing Home Administrator]. Counsel for the College presented Exhibit # 26 [Nursing Home] in-service sign up forms for the year [The Director of Care] testified that according to these in-service sign up sheets, the Member attended one day long seminar and two one-hour in-services in 2001, contrary to the claims by the Member to Ontario Works in Exhibit # 22. Contrary to the dates and times of education sessions listed in Exhibit # 22, [the Director of Care] testified that the average inservice offered at [the Nursing Home] lasted one hour, with the occasional one-day seminar, never a two-day or longer seminar. Counsel for the College presented Exhibit # 27 [Nursing Home] printed registered staff schedule and sign-in sheet for April 2001 to November 7, She testified that she was responsible for creating the schedule. [The Director of Care] verified that the Member was on [ ] leave until May 22, 2001 and that she received a one-day paid orientation on May 22, 2001 upon return to work, as per agency policy. [The Director of Care] reviewed the schedule shift by shift and indicated the dates the Member was working, as verified by the Member s own initials. The witness s testimony was verified by the documentary evidence presented. [Instructor B] [Instructor B] is a retired registered nurse and a former instructor from [college B]. She wrote and instructed the distance education Psychiatric Nursing Program for RPNs. [Instructor B] knew the Member because she was enrolled in the [college B] distance education Psychiatric Nursing Program for RPNs in September 2001, of which she was the instructor. [Instructor B] testified that while she had not met the Member in person, she attempted to contact the Member twenty to thirty times, and that the Member responded only two to three times. Counsel for the College presented Exhibit # 28, a copy of letter in the name of [Instructor B] received from [the Caseworker] of Ontario Works, which was sent to [Instructor B] for verification. [Instructor B] testified that the signature was not hers and that the letter contained a number of inaccuracies including: There are only 2 exams (Oct & Dec) in this program The entire program is 240 hours which included 120 hours of clinical, done on a part-time basis Placement is concurrent and usually finished by December. Placement is not at the end of the program The instructor s phone number was incorrect This testimony was verified by Exhibit # 30, letter to [the Caseworker] from [Instructor B], including a description of the Psychiatric Nursing for the RPN program She further testified that she did not write the letter (Exhibit # 28), send this letter to any government program or authorize any one to do this. [Instructor B] testified that much of what was contained in Exhibit # 28 was not true. Counsel

7 for the College presented Exhibit # 29 which verified that the Member wrote her exam in December 2001 which is contrary to the dates provided by the Member in Exhibit # 28. [Instructor B] also stated that the Member had not requested her to write the letter in Exhibit # 28. The panel found [Instructor B] to be confident and her testimony was consistent and her recall of the events was excellent [Instructor A] [Instructor A] is a registered nurse who graduated from [ ] in 1980 and in 2002 received a BA in Health Studies from [ ]. In October 2001 [Instructor A] was employed full time in the operating room at [ ] and taught part time at [college A]. Angie J. Gauthier was enrolled as a student in the OR course taught by [Instructor A] in September, The course ran from September, 2001 to May, 2002 with a five week clinical component. Evaluation was comprised of frequent testing with exams at the end of every module, the mid-term being held in October. [Instructor A] stated that she was responsible for grading the test written sometime between the end of September and early October. The first exam was held in December. She further testified that she often wrote encouraging remarks and comments on the test papers and she always signed her name. The witness testified that she did not know the Member in any other capacity than as a student registered in this course. [Instructor A] testified that she knew the Member as Angela Gauthier, not as Angela Brant. [Instructor A] was shown Exhibit # 31, a letter dated October 26, 2001 in her name, and recognized it as a letter she received from [the Caseworker] at Workfare (Ontario Works) with a request for verification that she had written the letter. [Instructor A] testified that she did not send this letter to Ontario Works. She did not authorize the letter and it is not her signature on the letter. The Member had never asked [Instructor A] for a letter. [Instructor A] identified Exhibit # 32 as a letter she had written to [the Caseworker] in response to her request to verify Exhibit # 31. [Instructor A] identified seven discrepancies which indicated that she was not the author of the letter. When [Instructor A] approached the Member asking whether she had written the letter, the Member denied writing it stating that a [ ] at Workfare may have written it as the Member had dictated the parameters of the course to her. After some discussion with the Member, [Instructor A] stated that she had dismissed her from the course until she could provide the name of the person who wrote the letter and forged the signature. [Instructor A] did not hear anything further from the Member. The panel found this witness to be credible and consistent in her testimony. [Social Services Worker] [ ] is a social services worker, who graduated with a social services worker diploma in 1985, from [ ].

8 He has been employed by Ontario Works [ ], [ ] Social Services for 16 years. He has been in his current position, case work coordinator, since 1991 and he manages the [ ] office. The witness testified that his responsibilities include overseeing nine case workers and other staff. Case worker responsibilities include processing applications for assistance and monitoring ongoing eligibility. Childcare assistance is provided to clients for formal and informal daycare, while clients are engaged in pursuing education, employment or skills training. Funds may be issued to the daycare provider or directly to the client. [The Social Services Worker] testified [the Caseworker] was employed as a case worker from 1997 to 2001 and reported to [him]. One of [the Caseworker s] clients included the Member. He testified that [the Caseworker s] responsibilities included providing financial assistance for daycare and for education/skill training courses. [The Social Services Worker] was shown Exhibit # 33, Case Worker Technology (CWT) narrative notes for Angie Brant dated November 1, He testified that Exhibit # 33 chronicled applications for financial assistance by the Member for the period 12/01/2001 to 05/11/2001, which formed part of the client s file. Counsel for the College asked [the Social Services Worker] to identify other components of the client s file. He testified that a client s file contains: the application, Form 1-Consent to Declare, Form 3 Rights and Responsibilities, a Partnership Agreements among other records, signed by the clients, outlining what is required of the person while on assistance. [The Social Services Worker] was shown Exhibit # 22 and produced all 5 original letters from the Members case file. These items were marked as Exhibit # 34. Counsel for the College also requested him to produce the original copies of Exhibits # 28 and # 31, which were marked Exhibits # 35 and # 36 respectively. The originals contained handwritten notes related to the authenticity of the claims and referencing notations made in Exhibit # 33. [The Social Services Worker] testified that the Member had received funds on the basis of the letters in Exhibit # 34 and that no restitution had been made up to the hearing date. The panel found this witness to be credible and consistent in his testimony. [Customer Service Manager] [ ] is an employee of the College of Nurses of Ontario. He is the Manager of Customer Service, a position he has held for 4 years. His responsibilities include overseeing registration, renewal and the call centre. His department maintains the AS400 registration database. [The Customer Service Manager] was shown Exhibit # 37, which he identified as the registration inquiry screen for Angie Gauthier. This exhibit showed that the Member s maiden name was Brant and establishing that Angie Joan Brant and Angie Joan Gauthier are one and the same. [The Customer Service Manager] testified that the Member initially registered with the College in He was shown Exhibit # 38, which he identified as the renewal and registration history screens for the Member. He testified that the record showed that the Member had been suspended for non payment of registration fees and reinstated a number of times. Counsel for College produced Exhibit # 39, CNO Annual Payment Form [The Customer Service Manager] testified that the Member s signature appears on the form and that the Member had indicated no in response to the question Since your initial registration with CNO have you been found guilty of a criminal offence or an offence under the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act (Canada).

9 Counsel for College produced Exhibit # 40, CNO Annual Payment Form Instruction Guide [The Customer Service Manager] testified that page 4 of the Exhibit indicated that members are required to provide complete and accurate information to CNO and that failure to do so could be considered professional misconduct. The panel found this witness to be credible and consistent in his testimony. Prior Conviction Counsel for College produced Exhibit # 41, Certified copies of two Informations pertaining to criminal convictions of Ms. Gauthier in It confirmed that on or about October 21, 1999, the Member pleaded guilty to and was convicted on four counts of fraud and one count of false pretences with intent to defraud pursuant to sections 380(1) and 362(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. These convictions were for fraud resulting from depositing or cashing worthless cheques to various banks and institutions. The convictions are unrelated to letters introduced in previous evidence. Certified copies of the transcript of proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice against the Member were entered as Exhibit # 42. The transcript of the court revealed the guilty plea and explained in depth the nature of the offences of fraud committed by the Member. The transcript further revealed that some restitution had been made to banks that been defrauded by the Member. Decision The College bears the onus of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof which the panel is familiar with, set out in Re: Bernstein and College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (1977) 15 O.R. (2d) 477. The standard of proof applied by the panel, in accordance with the Bernstein decision, was a balance of probabilities with the qualification that the proof must be clear and convincing and based upon cogent evidence accepted by the panel. The panel also recognized that the more serious the allegation to be proved, the more cogent must be the evidence. The panel viewed the allegations as particularly serious. Having considered the evidence and the onus and standard of proof, the panel deliberated and unanimously found the Member had committed acts of professional misconduct, as provided by subsections 51(1) (a) and (c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, as alleged in paragraphs 1 through 4 of the Notice of Hearing. The panel agreed that the conduct of the Member would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, the particulars of which are set out in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Appendix A. Reasons for Decision The panel came to its decision for the following reasons: 1. Evidence presented to the panel confirmed that the Member had pleaded guilty and was convicted on charges under the Criminal Code of Canada as set out above. Given the nature of these convictions, the panel finds the conduct of the Member demonstrates that she is unsuitable to the practice of nursing. 2. Furthermore the Member lied about the conviction when completing her Annual Payment Form. Evidence presented by the College of Nurses of Ontario showed that the Member should have been aware of the false statement. The panel considers lying to one s regulatory

10 body reprehensible behaviour and an indication to the panel that the Member had the propensity to commit the other acts of fraud which are set out in the allegations. 3. The evidence presented by [the Nursing Home Administrator] was convincing and therefore the panel finds that [the Nursing Home Administrator] was not the author of the letters sent in her name. The panel was convinced that since the Member was the party who stood to gain by the false information in the letters it was reasonable to conclude the Member was the author. 4. Testimony given by [the Director of Care] corroborated the evidence of [the Nursing Home Administrator], convincing to the panel that the Member wrote the letters with the intent to defraud, claiming time for training, seminars and courses that she did not attend in order to obtain child care funds. 5. [Instructors B and A and the Social Services Worker] all presented testimony that further convinced the panel that the Member had written letters in the names of [Instructors B and A] with the intent to defraud Ontario Works and receive funds for child care to which she was not entitled. 6. It was clear to the panel that only the Member stood to gain from the letters written. They contain errors which would not have been written by the purported authors. Therefore on careful consideration of the testimony given by the witnesses, and in the absence of the Member or the Member s testimony or evidence to the contrary, the panel finds the Member committed the acts of professional misconduct as set out in the allegations. Penalty Counsel for the College made submission with respect to penalty and recommended that the Member s Certificate of Registration be revoked immediately. Penalty Decision The panel deliberated and unanimously accepted counsel s recommendation and directs the Registrar of the College to revoke the Member s Certificate of Registration, effective immediately. Reasons for Penalty Decision The panel agreed with Counsel for the College s submission that the Member committed multiple acts of dishonest behaviour and that trust, honesty and integrity are cornerstones of the nursing profession. These behaviours included: criminal convictions for fraud and false pretences passing NSF cheques fraudulently obtaining funds through ATMs misrepresentation on her 2002 registration form

11 fraudulent letters written to a government agency to receive funds to which she was not entitled, The panel agreed that the Member demonstrated that she was acting out of greed or her own personal interest. There were numerous incidents of dishonesty, rather than a single isolated incident, that have continued over a long period of time ( ). The acts of dishonesty were escalating and in the instance of fraudulent behaviour, were carried out at the expense of her employer, and therefore were directly related to the practice of nursing. The Member did not appear and provided no explanation for her conduct and no demonstration of remorse. The panel considered the mitigating factor that the Member has no previous history of disciplinary actions at the College. The panel deliberated and unanimously agreed with Counsel for the College s submission on penalty. Revocation of the Member s Certificate of Registration would provide a strong message and serve specific deterrence to the Member, who despite intervention by the criminal courts and subsequent penalties demonstrated no change in behaviour. Revocation would also provide general deterrence to other members of the College. Finally, this penalty would serve the public safety as it is linked to deterrence. The panel agreed that the Member has placed the public at risk by acting out of self interest and greed. If not revoked the public would continue to be at risk from the Member s escalating behaviour and trust in the profession could be eroded. Protecting the public is a core value of the profession I, Lois Vanson, RPN sign this Decision and Reasons for the decision as Chairperson of this Discipline panel and on behalf of the Discipline panel as listed below: Chairperson 0 Date Panel Members: Kelly Kay, RPN Margaret McGinn, RN Marilyn Bestwick, Public Member Betty Hill, Public Member