JC04618

Allegations and Plea

The College alleged that the Member maintained an inappropriate personal relationship with the Client, accepted and solicited gifts from him, exercised undue influence over him and misappropriated property from him. The College also alleged that this conduct would be regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

The Member denied the allegations.

Evidence

The Member worked at a retirement residence. The Client was admitted to the residence a week after the Member was hired. The Member had met him between one and three years earlier, when they both lived on the same street. The exact time of their meeting could not be established. They developed a friendship prior to his admission, and they continued this friendship after his admission. They would go out for coffee, or the Client would attend at the Member’s house for holidays. The Member and her children felt that the Client was a family member. The Client gave them gifts, including new bicycles, an air conditioner, a composter, lawn furniture, cheques totalling $2,100 and a car.

The Member admitted having received the gifts and having exchanged personal greeting cards with the Client. The Member testified that she did not know about the car purchase until the dealership notified her of it and told her to pick up the car. Records from the dealership and the Ministry of Transportation indicated that the Member, whose driver’s licence had been suspended for non-payment of a traffic ticket, paid the fine a few days before the car was purchased and her licence was reinstated the day the car was purchased.

The resident services manager at the residence testified that the Member told her of the pre-existing relationship, but denied that any meeting took place with the Client to define the boundaries of the relationship and review policies on accepting gifts from residents.

When the manager asked where the Member got the car, the Member said that she had received money from her father. The Member stated that she never documented any of the gifts she or her children received from the Client. According to an expert witness, this strongly suggested that the Member knew that it was wrong to accept the gifts; she was secretive and tried to deceive her supervisor.

Finding

The Panel found that the evidence supported findings of professional misconduct with regard to the allegations about failing to maintain appropriate boundaries, maintaining an inappropriate personal relationship and accepting gifts. The Panel did not find that the allegations about soliciting gifts, exercising undue influence or misappropriating property were supported by the evidence, and these allegations were dismissed.

The Panel also found that the Member lied during her testimony. She eventually admitted that, before submitting them to her legal representative, she had written the year on the back of cards purportedly given to her daughter by the Client, because she wanted proof that the Client gave her children cards before his admission to the residence.

Submissions on Order

The College sought an oral reprimand, a three-month suspension and payment of costs amounting to $10,000. The Member would be required to complete specified remediation activities in preparation for a series of meetings with a nursing expert. For 12 months from the date of the order, the Member would be required to advise the College of her employers, provide employers with a copy of the Panel’s decision and reasons, and only practise for an employer who agreed to advise the College if the Member breached the standards of practice of the profession.

Panel Order

The Panel accepted the submission. Breach of the therapeutic nurse-client relationship with an elderly, vulnerable client is of grave concern and warrants a significant penalty. The order protects the public, provides for general and specific deterrence, and allows for the Member's rehabilitation.

Given the extraordinary costs associated with the hearing, which took place in a distant location at the Member’s request and which required several days over two separate weeks, the Panel ordered that the Member should bear responsibility for a portion of the costs.

Read the full decision #1

Read the full decision #2