DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO. PANEL: Spencer Dickson, RN Chairperson Cheryl Beemer, RN Member Tammy Hedge, RPN Member

Transcription

1 DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO PANEL: Spencer Dickson, RN Chairperson Cheryl Beemer, RN Member Tammy Hedge, RPN Member Linda Bracken Public Member Abdul Patel Public Member BETWEEN: COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO EMILY LAWRENCE for College of Nurses of Ontario - and - NO REPRESENTATION for Janet Philp JANET PHILP Registration No LUISA RITACCA Independent Legal Counsel Heard: November 21, 2012 DECISION AND REASONS This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee on November 21, 2012 at the College of Nurses of Ontario ( the College at Toronto. As Janet Philp (the Member was not present, the hearing recessed for thirty minutes to allow time for the Member to appear. Upon reconvening the panel noted that the Member was not in attendance. Counsel for the College provided the panel with the Notice of Hearing dated September 26, 2012 (Exhibit #1. Counsel for the College provided the panel with an Affidavit of [a College employee], affirmed November 20, 2012, [ ] as evidence that the Notice of Hearing was served. The panel was satisfied that the Member had received adequate notice and therefore proceeded with the hearing in the Member s absence.

2 The Allegations The allegations against Janet Philp (the Member as stated in the Notice of Hearing dated September 26, 2012, are as follows. IT IS ALLEGED THAT: 1. You have committed an act 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 on or about November 9, 2010, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in [], Ontario, you were found guilty of an offence relevant to your suitability to practise, and in particular, you were found guilty of the following: a. on or about the 15 th day of July in the year 2008 [ ], you did attempt to murder [an individual] by setting fire to a dwelling [ ], contrary to section 239(b of the Criminal Code of Canada; and/or b. on or about the 15 th day of July in the year 2008 [ ], you did commit arson with disregard for human life, in that you intentionally or recklessly cause damage by fire to a dwelling [ ], knowing that or being reckless with respect to whether the said property was inhabited or occupied, contrary to section 433(a of the Criminal Code of Canada. Member s Plea Given that the Member was not present nor represented, she was deemed to have denied the allegations in the Notice of Hearing. The Hearing proceeded on the basis that the College bore the onus of proving the allegations in the Notice of Hearing against the Member. Overview The Member is a Registered Nurse currently incarcerated [ ]. She was convicted of attempted murder and arson with disregard for human life on November 9, Subsequently, the Member was sentenced to a period of incarceration in relation to these convictions along with other ancillary orders. The issue for the panel s consideration is whether the offence[s] for which the Member has been found guilty relate to her suitability to practise. The Evidence The panel received a certified copy of the Indictment and Endorsement [ ] which evidenced the Member s conviction on the charges of attempted murder and arson with disregard for human life. College counsel further submitted [the judge] s Charge to the Jury [ ] and Sentencing Hearing [ ]. The Charge to the Jury evidenced the elements of attempted murder and the essential elements of arson with disregard to human life that the jury would have considered in reaching

3 its conviction decision. The Sentencing Hearing referenced the specific underlying facts that formed the basis of their findings of guilt. The College s counsel [led] evidence that these convictions were relevant to her suitability to practi[s]e. College counsel provided the panel with the Practice Standard Ethics dated June 2009 []. It was noted that one of the ethical values outlined in this standard is respect for life. It is defined that human life is precious and needs to be respected, protected and treated with consideration [ ]. The College s counsel also provided the panel with the Professional Conduct/Profession Misconduct reference document dated June 2009 [ ]. This document provides members with guidance as to conduct which may be considered professional misconduct. It specifically refers to the types of criminal convictions which would impact a member s suitability to practise. Witness #1 [ ], a College of Nurses Investigator, testified that the Member filed an appeal of her criminal convictions on January 9, [The witness] testified that to her knowledge, the Member had 90 days to perfect her appeal, which has lapsed. Final Submissions The College submitted that the evidence of the convictions is clear and uncontroversial. The Member is currently incarcerated for these offences. College counsel argued that the egregious nature of the offences committed obviously go directly to the Member s suitability to practise, as the offences are an affront to human life and are a serious breach of trust. In committing these offences, the Member put her [family], fire fighters and her neighbours in harm s way. Decision Having considered the evidence, the onus and standard of proof, the panel finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged in the Notice of Hearing. In particular, the Member was found guilty of offences that are relevant to her suitability to practise with respect to her conviction on November 9, 2010 of attempted murder and arson with a disregard for human life. As such, she committed an act of professional misconduct as provided in subsection 51(1 (a of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act 1991, S.O. 1991, c.32 (the Code. Reasons for Decision As set out above, the panel heard some evidence that the Member had taken steps to launch an appeal from her criminal convictions, but that she had failed to perfect her appeal in a timely fashion. As of the date of this hearing, there was nothing in the court record to indicate that an appeal was pending. The College submitted that despite this evidence, the panel ought to make findings pursuant to Section 51.1(a of the Code. College counsel also submitted that with the facts of this case, there does not appear to be a genuine or bonafide pending appeal.

4 The panel requested advice from Independent Legal Counsel (ILC regarding the appeal process and the potential impact on the panel s decision making authority. ILC provided the advice consistent with the College s submissions and confirmed that with no actual appeal pending, there is no impediment to this panel making findings as requested. The panel considered this advice and determined that it was able to make a decision in this matter. The panel finds that the Member committed professional misconduct as stated in allegation 1(a and 1 (b of the Notice of Hearing in that the offence showed an utter disrespect for human life contrary to the College s Ethics Standard [ ]. While the Member s conduct was not specifically manifested in the practice of nursing, her behaviour was contrary to respect of life, was harmful to the public, caused significant emotional trauma to others and threatens the public trust in the profession as a whole and in its ability to govern itself. Penalty Submissions Counsel for the College submitted that the only appropriate penalty in this case is revocation of the Member s certificate of registration. Supporting this position, College counsel provided two previous cases: College of Nurses of Ontario and Denise R. Jones [ ] and Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons and Robert A. McKnight [ ]. These cases supported revocation in similar findings of professional misconduct. The College submitted that the aggravating factors in this case were significant and that the panel should seriously consider the Member s risk of reoffending and the risk to the public. The report from [a doctor] dated June 1, 2011, [ ] to [the judge] advised that the Member should not be in any position, professional or otherwise, of trust with any vulnerable individual. [The doctor] suggested that this ban should be permanent. Further, [because the Member has] chosen not to participate in the College process, the panel is not in a position to assess whether the Member has any explanation for her actions or feels any remorse at this stage. The College submitted that by way of mitigating factors, [ ] the panel ought to consider the fact that the Member has no previous criminal convictions. Penalty Decision The panel makes the following order as to penalty: that the Executive Director is directed to immediately revoke the Member s certificate of registration. Reasons for Penalty Decision The penalty demonstrates to the public that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated by the profession. This behaviour is absolutely inconsistent with the values of the profession and the practi[c]e of nursing.

5 The penalty also sends a strong message to other members of the profession that this conduct is reprehensible and will not be tolerated. I, Spencer Dickson, RN, sign this decision and reasons for the decision as Chairperson of this Discipline panel and on behalf of the members of the Discipline panel as listed below: Chairperson Date Panel Member: Cheryl Beemer, RN Tammy Hedge, RPN Linda Bracken, Public Member Abdul Patel, Public Member