The court underscored the relevance of a health professional's off-duty conduct to public trust
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has upheld a decision mandating a nurse to participate in a specific continuing education or remediation program (SCERP).
The challenged decision was issued by the College of Nurses of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC). The ICRC also required the nurse’s appearance before it for a caution, without referring the case to the Discipline Committee.
Originating from events in May 2021, the controversy involved the nurse's concurrent employment with Toronto Public Health (TPH) and Peel Public Health, which became a subject of complaint by Peel. Peel Public Health accused the nurse of working for TPH during her scheduled shifts for Peel and failing to adequately engage in work communications, training sessions, and the timely completion of COVID-19 assignments.
Following an investigation prompted by Peel's report, the College of Nurses directed the case to the ICRC, which subsequently decided on educational and cautionary measures. The nurse contested this decision, alleging ineffective counsel and unreasonable decision-making by the ICRC.
The Superior Court rejected the nurse's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, pointing to substantial evidence to the contrary provided by the nurse's former counsel. The court noted that this evidence demonstrated her involvement in preparing responses to the College, including her admission of dual employment at TPH and Peel, contradicting her allegations.
Addressing the reasonableness of the ICRC's decision, the court found the committee had properly considered the nurse's submissions and the investigation's findings. It noted the nurse's admission to simultaneous employment, deemed by the ICRC as dishonest and conflicting, highlighting a deliberate act and serious lapse of judgment.
The court also dismissed the nurse's argument that her role at Peel was non-nursing and thus outside the ICRC's concern. Instead, the court affirmed the relevance of a regulated health professional's off-duty conduct to public trust. Additionally, the court dismissed concerns over potential evidence omissions and the procedural delay in reporting and investigating, underlining the ICRC's screening function that does not necessitate a comprehensive review of evidence or credibility assessments.
Ultimately, the court affirmed the ICRC's decision as reasonable and dismissed the nurse's judicial review application. It ordered the nurse to cover costs totalling $12,500 to the College and the intervenor.
