DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO PANEL: Carl Balcom, RN Chairperson Angela Verrier, RPN Member Joan King Public Member BETWEEN: COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO ) JEAN-CLAUDE KILLEY for ) College of Nurses of Ontario - and - ) ) MARK SONDY ) JANET BOROWY for Registration No. 9612664 ) Mark Sondy ) ) ) JOHANNA BRADEN ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) ) Heard: February 24, 2012 DECISION AND REASONS This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee on February 24, 2012 at the College of Nurses of Ontario ( the College ) at Toronto. Overview Mark Sondy (the Member ) received his nursing diploma in 1995 and became a member of the College, as a registered nurse, in 1996. Shortly thereafter, the Member moved to the United States and in 2002 was found to have committed an act of professional misconduct by the New Mexico Board of Nursing. Between 2002 and 2010, the Member pled guilty to, and was subsequently convicted of, eleven different criminal charges in relation to six separate incidents. The offen[c]es include driving under the influence of alcohol, aggravated battery, false imprisonment, uttering death threats, and breaching a probation order. As well, the Member failed to report various criminal convictions to the College.
In March 2010, the Member went on a medical leave from his place of employment and in September 2010, the Member made a submission to the College s Investigation, Complaints, and Reports Committee stating that he met the definition of incapacity. In November 2011, the Member voluntarily surrendered his certificate of registration pursuant to a Surrender Agreement with the Fitness to Practi[s]e Committee. The Member is currently enrolled in a comprehensive treatment program [ ] and remains on a medical leave at this time. The Allegations The allegations against the Member as stated in the Notice of Hearing dated December 14, 2011 are as follows. 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, as amended, in that you were found guilty of an offence that is relevant to your suitability to practise, with respect to the following incidents: a) on or about December 11, 2002, you were found guilty of the criminal offence of driving under the influence of liquor or drugs contrary to the laws of the State of New Mexico, USA; b) on or about March 3, 2005, you were found guilty of the criminal offence of aggravated battery against a household member, causing or threatening to cause great bodily harm, contrary to the laws of the State of New Mexico, USA; c) on or about March 3, 2005, you were found guilty of the criminal offence of false imprisonment, contrary to the laws of the State of New Mexico, USA; d) on or about March 3, 2005, you were found guilty of the criminal offence of battery against a household member, contrary to the laws of the State of New Mexico, USA; e) on or about November 25, 2009, you were found guilty of the criminal offence of assault, contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada; f) on or about November 25, 2009, you were found guilty of the criminal offence of operating a motor vehicle while your ability to do so was impaired by alcohol, contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada; g) on or about July 8, 2010, you were found guilty of the criminal offence of operating a motor vehicle while disqualified from doing so, contrary to section 259(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada;
h) on or about July 8, 2010, you were found guilty of the criminal offence of failing to comply with a probation order to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, contrary to section 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada; i) on or about December 9, 2010, you were found guilty of the criminal offence of uttering a death threat, contrary to section 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada; j) on or about December 9, 2010, you were found guilty of the criminal offence of breaching probation, contrary to section 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada with respect to an incident on April 20, 2010; and/or k) on or about December 9, 2010, you were found guilty of the criminal offence of breaching probation, contrary to section 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada with respect to an incident on November 16, 2010. 2. You have committed an act of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(b) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 32, as amended, in that you were found to have committed an act of professional misconduct by the governing body of the nursing profession in the State of New Mexico, USA, with respect to the following incidents: a) on or about February 20, 2003, you were found to have committed an act of professional misconduct by the Board of Nursing for the State of New Mexico, in that you: i) falsified or altered patient/client records or personnel records for the purpose of reflecting incorrect or incomplete information; and ii) failed to make or keep accurate, intelligible entries in records as required by law, policy and standards for the practice of nursing. 3. You have committed an act of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 32, as amended, and defined in subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that you signed or issued, in your professional capacity, a document that you knew or ought to have known contained a false or misleading statement, and in particular, you made false declarations on your 2006 application for reinstatement to the College with respect to the following incidents: a) the criminal offences for which you were found guilty on or about December 11, 2002 and March 3, 2005; and/or b) the professional misconduct you were found on or about February 20, 2003, to have committed.
4. You have committed an act of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 32, as amended, and defined in subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that you contravened a term, condition or limitation on your certificate of registration, as provided in section 5(3) of Ontario Regulation 275/94, with respect to failing to provide the College with details regarding the findings of guilt for criminal offences, and the findings of professional misconduct, with respect to the following instances: a) on or about December 11, 2002, you were found guilty of the criminal offence of driving under the influence of liquor or drugs, contrary to the laws of the State of New Mexico, USA; b) on or about March 3, 2005, you were found guilty of the criminal offence of aggravated battery against a household member causing or threatening to cause great bodily harm, contrary to the laws of the State of New Mexico, USA; c) on or about March 3, 2005, you were found guilty of the criminal offence of false imprisonment, contrary to the laws of the State of New Mexico, USA; d) on or about March 3, 2005, you were found guilty of the criminal offence of battery against a household member, contrary to the laws of the State of New Mexico, USA; e) on or about November 25, 2009, you were found guilty of the criminal offence of assault, contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada; f) on or about November 25, 2009, you were found guilty of the criminal offence of operating a motor vehicle while your ability to do so was impaired by alcohol, contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada; and/or g) on or about February 20, 2003, you were found to have committed an act of professional misconduct by the Board of Nursing for the State of New Mexico, in that you falsified or altered patient/client records or personnel records for the purpose of reflecting incorrect or incomplete information, and failed to make or keep accurate, intelligible entries in records as required by law, policy and standards for the practice of nursing. 5. You have committed an act of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 32, as amended, and defined in subsection 1(37) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that you engaged in conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional with respect to the following incidents: a) making a false declaration on your 2006 application for reinstatement regarding criminal offences and professional misconduct findings; and/or
b) failing to provide the College with details of the findings of guilt for criminal offences, and the findings of professional misconduct, made against you in each of the following instances: i) on or about December 11, 2002, you were found guilty of the criminal offence of driving under the influence of liquor or drugs, contrary to the laws of the State of New Mexico, USA; ii) iii) iv) on or about March 3, 2005, you were found guilty of the criminal offence of aggravated battery against a household member causing or threatening to cause great bodily harm, contrary to the laws of the State of New Mexico, USA; on or about March 3, 2005, you were found guilty of the criminal offence of false imprisonment, contrary to the laws of the State of New Mexico, USA; on or about March 3, 2005, you were found guilty of the criminal offence of battery against a household member, contrary to the laws of the State of New Mexico, USA; v) on or about November 25, 2009, you were found guilty of the criminal offence of assault, contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada; vi) vii) on or about November 25, 2009, you were found guilty of the criminal offence of operating a motor vehicle while your ability to do so was impaired by alcohol, contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada; and on or about February 20, 2003, you were found to have committed an act of professional misconduct by the Board of Nursing for the State of New Mexico, in that you falsified or altered patient/client records or personnel records for the purpose of reflecting incorrect or incomplete information, and failed to make or keep accurate, intelligible entries in records as required by law, policy and standards for the practice of nursing. Member s Plea The Member admitted the allegations set out in paragraphs numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the Notice of Hearing. The panel received a written plea inquiry which was signed by the Member. The panel also conducted an oral plea inquiry and was satisfied that the Member s admission was voluntary, informed and unequivocal.
Agreed Statement of Facts Counsel for the College advised the panel that agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts which provided as follows. THE MEMBER 1. Mark Sondy (the Member ) completed his Nursing Diploma [ ] in 1995. 2. The Member was initially registered with the College of Nurses of Ontario (the College ) as a Registered Nurse ( RN ) in 1996. 3. Shortly thereafter, the Member moved to New Mexico, where he remained until 2006. During that period, he was employed primarily as a full-time RN in acute care hospitals. 4. The Member returned to Canada in 2006, and in April of that year applied to the College for the reinstatement of his certificate of registration, which had been suspended while he was in New Mexico for non-payment of fees. The College granted his application, and the Member resumed practice as an RN in Ontario that year. He started working as an RN [ ] in a contract position. 5. In December 2006, he secured full-time permanent employment as an RN in [a] critical care unit [ ]. While employed there, the Member s nursing skills or practice were not at issue and he was not disciplined by his employer. 6. In or around March 3, 2010, the Member went on a medical leave. 7. On or about September 10, 2010, the Member submitted to the College s ICRC that he met the definition of incapacity. On or about July 18, 2011, the Member was referred to the Fitness to Practi[s]e Committee by a panel of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (the ICRC ). 8. On or about November 30, 2011, the Member voluntarily surrendered his certificate of registration pursuant to a Surrender Agreement requiring the Member to complete certain counselling and rehabilitation, and to provide the College with a satisfactory assessment of his capacity to resume the practi[c]e of nursing, before his certificate of registration would be reinstated. 9. The Member is currently on a medical leave of absence from his employment, [ ] and involved in a comprehensive treatment program for the first time.
INCIDENTS RELEVANT TO ALLEGATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT (A) Findings of Professional Misconduct by Another Governing Body 10. As a result of a documentation incident in March 2002, the Member was found to have committed an act of professional misconduct by the governing body of the nursing profession in the State of New Mexico on February 20, 2003. 11. In particular, the Member admitted to falsifying a professional record for the purpose of reflecting incorrect or incomplete information and failing to make or keep accurate, intelligible entries in records as required by law, policy and standards for the practice of nursing. 12. As a result, a letter of reprimand was issued to the Member on February 20, 2003. 13. The Member admits that the conduct at issue before the New Mexico Board of Nursing would also be considered professional misconduct in Ontario had it occurred here. (B) Findings of Guilt Relevant to Suitability to Practise 14. Between 2002 and 2010, the Member pled guilty to, and was found guilty of, 11 criminal offences in relation to six separate incidents that occurred in both United States and Canada as follows: Incident One a. On December 11, 2002, the Member was found guilty of driving under the influence of liquor or drugs contrary to the laws of the State of New Mexico, USA. Incident Two b. The second incident related to a domestic altercation with the Member s former partner. Each was under a restraining order requiring them not to see each other. The Member would testify that he was intoxicated during the course of this incident. As a result of the incident, on March 3, 2005, the Member was found guilty of: i. Aggravated battery against a household member causing or threatening to cause great bodily harm contrary to the laws of the State of New Mexico, USA. ii. False imprisonment contrary to the laws of the State of New Mexico, USA; and iii. Battery against a household member contrary to the laws of the State of New Mexico, USA.
Incident Three c. The third incident took place about five years later in 2009, in [ ] Ontario, and related to another domestic altercation between the Member and his thendomestic partner (a different person than in Incident Two). The Member would testify that he was also intoxicated by alcohol during the course of this incident. As a result of the incident, on November 25, 2009, the Member was found guilty of: i. Assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The Member was imposed a suspended sentence, 18 months probation and substance abuse counselling; and ii. Operating a motor vehicle while his ability to do so was impaired by alcohol contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The Member was sentenced to pay [a] $1,500.00 fine and prohibited [from] driving for a period of 24 months. Incident Four d. While under a prohibition from driving (imposed as part of the sentence stemming from Incident Three), the Member drove a car. The Member would testify that this was an exercise in poor judgment on his part, and that he was en route to see his priest at the time. As a result of this incident, on July 8, 2010, the Member was found guilty of: i. Operating a motor vehicle while disqualified from doing so contrary to section 259(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada; and ii. Failing to comply with a probation order to keep the peace and be of good behaviour contrary to section 733.1 (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The Member was sentenced to imprisonment and prohibited [from] driving for a period of 24 months for these two convictions. Incidents Five and Six e. In two separate incidents, the Member was found to have uttered a death threat toward his probation officer (the probation being that imposed in relation to Incident Three), and was apprehended in a licensed establishment drinking beer, contrary to the terms of his probation order. The Member would testify that he was intoxicated by alcohol [ ]. As a result of these incidents, on December 9, 2010, the Member was found guilty of: i. Uttering a death threat contrary to section 264.1 (1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. ii. Breaching probation contrary to section 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada with respect to an incident that occurred on April 20, 2010; and
iii. Breaching probation contrary to section 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada with respect to an incident that occurred on November 16, 2010. As a result, the Member was sentenced to imprisonment and under probation for a period of two years. 15. The Member s criminal misconduct is relevant to his suitability to practise as it involved conduct that caused, or carried a serious risk of causing, harm to others. 16. None of the incidents which led to these findings of guilt involved [client] care, and none took place at the Member s place of work. (C) Failure to Report 17. The Member did not report: a) the 2003 finding of professional misconduct from the New Mexico Board of Nursing; b) the December 11, 2002 finding of guilt for the offence of driving under the influence of liquor or drugs; c) the March 3, 2005 findings of guilt for aggravated battery, battery, and false imprisonment; or d) the November 25, 2009 findings of guilt for assault and operating a motor vehicle while impaired; to the College at the time they occurred, although he was required to do so. The Member first reported these findings to the College on March 3, 2010, on a Self-Reporting Form, after he was instructed to do so by his probation officer. The Member then complied and disclosed these findings to the College and his employer. 18. In addition, on his 2006 Reinstatement Application which he submitted to the College, the Member indicated that he had not been involved in any disciplinary proceedings or been found guilty of any criminal offences since his last reporting to the College, when in fact he had. 19. If the Member were to testify, he would say that he did not report these matters to the College until March 3, 2010 because: a) he was under the mistaken impression that the New Mexico Board of Nursing matter was settled, concluded and resolved three years prior to the renewal of his registration in Ontario, and that he did not realize that he was required to report this to the College;
b) he had received mistaken advice from a criminal lawyer that he could satisfy his disclosure obligation related to his criminal convictions by providing a Canadian Police Information Centre check; c) he was under the mistaken belief that he was required to report findings of guilt at the time of annual registration and not at the time immediately following the findings; and d) he suffered from an untreated disability [ ]. 20. The Member self-reported the July 8, 2010, and the December 9, 2010, findings of guilt to the College in a timely way. ADMISSIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT 21. The Member admits that he committed the acts of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraphs 1 to 5 of the Notice of Hearing, as described above. 22. If the Member were to testify, he would say that he is deeply remorseful and apologetic to the College for the incidents. Decision The panel considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct and, in particular, finds that the Member committed an act of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Notice of Hearing. With respect to allegation #5, the panel found that the Member s conduct would reasonably be considered by members to be [disgraceful, dishonourable,] and unprofessional. Reasons for Decision The panel found the Agreed Statement of Facts was clear and supported the allegations made against the Member. Moreover, the Member admitted to the allegations against him. With respect to allegation #1, the panel agreed that the offences are relevant to the Member s suitability to practi[s]e nursing. Specifically, the panel found that the Member s conduct placed the safety of others in peril and demonstrated a lack of regard for the well-being of others, which is contrary to the values of the nursing profession. As to allegation #5, the panel heard submissions from both parties. Counsel for the College submitted that the Member s conduct bore all of the hallmarks of [disgraceful, dishonourable,] and unprofessional conduct. Counsel for the Member submitted that the Member admitted to all of the allegations and acknowledged that the Member s conduct was unbecoming for a nurse. The panel found that members of the profession would reasonably regard the Member s conduct as [disgraceful, dishonourable,] and unprofessional.
Evidence on Penalty The parties agreed to admit into evidence [the following evidence on penalty]. 1. If Mark Sondy ( the Member ) were to testify, he would say that at the time of the incidents in New Mexico and in Ontario that gave rise to the findings of guilt, and the findings of professional misconduct, for which he is being sanctioned, the Member suffered from [a condition]. 2. The Member would further testify that this [condition] is the significant contributing factor of his misconduct and that he is currently in treatment. 3. The Member would testify that [ ] the majority of incidents and altercations for which there are findings of guilt and findings of professional misconduct are directly related to [his condition]. 4. On September 10, 2010, the Member voluntarily submitted to the College s ICRC that he met the definition of incapacity [ ]. 5. On or about November 30, 2011, after being referred to the Fitness to Practise Committee by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee, the Member voluntarily surrendered his certificate of registration and admitted to being incapacitated. [ ] 6. The Surrender Agreement requires that the Member must provide the College with a satisfactory assessment of his capacity to resume the practi[c]e of nursing before his certificate of registration would be reinstated. 7. The Member would testify that he is currently under supervised medical care for the treatment of his disability, he has complied fully with the Surrender Agreement, and he is deeply committed to his comprehensive rehabilitation program. 8. If the Member testified, he would say that he has been compliant with all terms of his conditional sentence and probation. 9. The Member is currently on a medical leave of absence from [his employer]. 10. The Member would testify that he is extremely remorseful and deeply regrets [ ] his actions and omissions in respect of the College. Penalty Submissions Counsel for the College advised the panel that a Joint Submission as to Order had been agreed upon. The Joint Submission as to Order acknowledges that the Member has voluntarily surrendered his certificate of registration pursuant to the agreement ratified by the Fitness to Practi[s]e Committee of the College. The Joint Submission requests that, in light of that fact, the panel make an order as follows.
1. Requiring the Member to appear before the Panel to be reprimanded within three (3) months of the date of this Order. 2. Directing the Executive Director to suspend the Member s certificate of registration for five (5) months. This suspension shall take effect from the date the Member obtains an active Certificate of Registration. 3. Directing the Executive Director to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations when he obtains an active certificate of registration: a) The Member will attend two (2) sessions with a Nursing Expert (the Expert ), at his own expense, within 6 months of the date on which he obtains an active certificate of registration. To comply, the Member is required to ensure that: i. The Expert has expertise in Professional Standards, has been approved by the Director of Professional Conduct (the Director ) in advance of the meetings, and has confirmed he/she will provide a report following the sessions; ii. At least [seven] (7) days before the first meeting, the Member provides the Expert with a copy of: 1. the Panel s Order, 2. the Notice of Hearing, 3. the Agreed Statement of Facts, 4. this Joint Submission on Penalty, and 5. if available, a copy of the Panel s Decision and Reasons; iii. Before the first meeting, the Member reviews the following College publications and completes the associated Reflective Questionnaire and online learning module: 1. Professional Standards (Revised 2002), 2. Professional Conduct, Professional Misconduct Reference Document iv. At least [seven] (7) days before the first meeting, the Member provides the Expert with a copy of the completed Reflective Questionnaire and online participation form; v. The subject of the sessions with the Expert will include: 1. the acts or omissions for which the Member was found to have committed professional misconduct, 2. the potential consequences of the misconduct to the Member s clients, colleagues, profession and self, and 3. the publications, questionnaire and module set out above.
vi. Within [thirty] (30) days after the Member has completed the last session, the Expert forwards his/her report to the Director, in which the Expert will confirm: 1. the dates the Member attended the sessions, 2. that the Expert received the required documents from the Member, 3. that the Expert reviewed the required documents and subjects with the Member, and 4. the Expert s assessment of the Member s insight into his behaviour; vii. If the Member does not comply with any of the requirements above, the Expert may cancel any session scheduled, even if that results in the Member breaching a term, condition or limitation[ ] on his certificate of registration. Counsel for the College submitted that the factors relevant to penalty include specific and general deterrence, protection of the public, and remediation. Counsel for the College submitted that the two main foci of the proposed penalty were: 1) the criminal conduct that the Member engaged in, and 2) the Member s failure to disclose his criminal convictions. With respect to the criminal conduct that the Member engaged in, counsel for the College submitted that the conduct was relevant to the Member s suitability to practi[s]e, showed that the Member had on more than one occasion demonstrated conduct that was reckless and violent, and had caused both actual and potential harm to others. With respect to the Member s failure to disclose his criminal convictions, counsel for the College submitted that this failure to disclose was serious because the College s requirement to selfreport supports the proper administration of public protection. College counsel submitted several mitigating factors in this case, including the fact that the Member had fully cooperated with the College through both the Fitness to Practi[s]e and Discipline processes, that the Member was suffering from, and being actively treated for, an illness and that the Member s illness bears relation to the professional misconduct [ ] which he was found to have committed. College counsel provided the panel with two prior decisions of this Discipline Committee that support the proposed penalty: CNO v. Anthony Morris (2010) and CNO vs. Carman Tugwood (2010). Both cases deal with similar facts, notably serious and criminal conduct that did not directly involve care of clients. However, they are also dissimilar in significant ways. College counsel submitted that neither case involved a member suffering from illness [ ], and neither case involved a member who had surrendered his certificate of registration through another statutory committee of the College. Furthermore, neither case demonstrated evidence of good faith and an acknowledgement of the unacceptable conduct on the part of the members.
Counsel for the Member submitted that the Member has been diagnosed with a disability that was left untreated for a number of years, and that the findings of professional misconduct are directly related to this disability. Counsel for the Member further submitted that the events of March 2010 served as a wake up call to the Member, that the Member has fully cooperated with the College, and that the Member is remorseful, and regrets and apologizes for his conduct. Counsel for the Member submitted that the proposed penalty is the result of extensive negotiations between both parties, and that the elements of deterrence, public protection, and remediation are all well addressed by the penalty. Counsel for the Member submitted several mitigating factors, including the fact that the Member wishes to deal with the allegations against him in a forthright manner, and that the Member s diagnosed illness is a significant factor in the allegations that led to the finding of professional misconduct. Counsel further submitted that the Member has been cooperating with the College in this matter since March 2010, and in doing so has saved time and money by avoiding a contested hearing. Counsel for the Member reiterated that none of the incidents leading to findings of professional misconduct occurred in the Member s places of employment, and that client care was never compromised by the Member s actions. Counsel submitted that the Member is remorseful and apologetic and [ ] committed to a fresh start. Counsel for the Member submitted a prior decision of this Discipline Committee, CNO v. Brenda Lacroix (2007), which she said supports the proposed penalty. This case deals with serious and criminal conduct that occurred outside of the practice setting and the [Lacroix order] has a significant rehabilitation approach. She submitted that many of the provisions of the order were applied in the Member s surrender agreement. Counsel for the Member provided the panel with three additional cases: R. v. Prince, 2004 CanLII 11503 (ON CA); R. v. Bosklopper, [1995] O.J. No. 4125 (C.A.); and Argiris v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [1998] O.J. No. 239 (Gen. Div.). These cases outline the relevant principles when a panel is faced with a joint submission on order. Counsel submitted that the panel should only deviate from a joint submission on order if the order would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Penalty Decision The panel accepts the Joint Submission as to Order and accordingly orders: 1. The Member shall appear before the Panel to be reprimanded within three (3) months of the date of this Order. 2. The Executive Director is directed to suspend the Member s certificate of registration for five (5) months. This suspension shall take effect from the date the Member obtains an active certificate of registration. 3. The Executive Director is directed to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations when he obtains an active certificate of registration:
a) The Member will attend two (2) sessions with a Nursing Expert (the Expert ), at his own expense, within 6 months of the date on which he obtains an active certificate of registration. To comply, the Member is required to ensure that: i. The Expert has expertise in Professional Standards, has been approved by the Director of Professional Conduct (the Director ) in advance of the meetings, and has confirmed he/she will provide a report following the sessions; ii. At least [seven] (7) days before the first meeting, the Member provides the Expert with a copy of: 1. the Panel s Order, 2. the Notice of Hearing, 3. the Agreed Statement of Facts, 4. this Joint Submission on Penalty, and 5. if available, a copy of the Panel s Decision and Reasons; iii. Before the first meeting, the Member reviews the following College publications and completes the associated Reflective Questionnaire and online learning module: 1. Professional Standards (Revised 2002), 2. Professional Conduct, Professional Misconduct Reference Document. iv. At least [seven] (7) days before the first meeting, the Member provides the Expert with a copy of the completed Reflective Questionnaire and online participation form; v. The subject of the sessions with the Expert will include: 1. the acts or omissions for which the Member was found to have committed professional misconduct, 2. the potential consequences of the misconduct to the Member s clients, colleagues, profession and self, and 3. the publications, questionnaire and module set out above. vi. Within [thirty] (30) days after the Member has completed the last session, the Expert forwards his/her report to the Director, in which the Expert will confirm: 1. the dates the Member attended the sessions, 2. that the Expert received the required documents from the Member, 3. that the Expert reviewed the required documents and subjects with the Member, and
Reasons for Penalty Decision 4. the Expert s assessment of the Member s insight into his behaviour; vii. If the Member does not comply with any of the requirements above, the Expert may cancel any session scheduled, even if that results in the Member breaching a term, condition or limitation[ ] on his certificate of registration. The panel concluded that the proposed penalty is reasonable and in the public interest. The Member has cooperated with the College and, by agreeing to the facts and a proposed penalty, has accepted responsibility for his actions. The panel relied on the fact that the Member has cooperated fully with the College throughout this process, thereby demonstrating accountability for his actions, and has been diagnosed with and is being actively treated for a serious health condition to address the conduct that led to the conviction. The panel found that while the term of the suspension was on the higher end of the appropriate range, it was not outside the range of acceptable outcomes such that it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. As stated in R. v. Prince, supra, the test for rejecting a joint submission on order has a very high threshold and the panel did not find that this threshold was met. The penalty is significant and sends a strong message to both the Member and to the nursing profession, and has been carefully considered and negotiated by both parties. The panel finds that the penalty order provides for specific and general deterrence, protection of the public, and remediation. It therefore meets the objectives of a penalty order. I, Carl Balcom, 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 Members: Angela Verrier, RPN Joan King, Public Member