On This Page
Linda D. Smith
Allegations and Plea
The College alleged that the Member was found to have committed professional misconduct by another jurisdiction, failed to provide the College with details regarding the professional misconduct, and that these incidents constituted conduct that would reasonably be regarded as dishonourable and unprofessional.
The Member admitted to the allegations and the College and the Member jointly submitted an agreement to the following facts.
The Member, while employed as a nurse in another jurisdiction, asked if a client “talked in tongues,” told the client she needed “a cleansing,” and made reference to the Bible and prayer. The Member was terminated from her employment as a result of this conduct and found guilty of professional misconduct by the Board of Nursing of the State of Arizona (Board). The Member did not contest the findings and entered into a Consent Agreement, which she failed to comply with. As a result, the Board revoked her licence. The Member did not report the findings of professional misconduct to the College at the time of her reinstatement in Ontario or during subsequent registration renewals.
The Panel found that the Member committed professional misconduct as alleged, and that the Member’s conduct would be regarded as dishonourable and unprofessional. The Panel noted that the Member’s concealment of the professional misconduct findings raised concerns about her integrity and moral fitness.
Submissions on Order
The College and the Member jointly sought an oral reprimand and a three-month suspension as well as terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member’s certificate of registration. The Member would be required to complete specified remediation activities in preparation for a series of meetings with a nursing expert. For a period of 18 months from the date the Member returns to the practice of nursing, she 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. The Member would also be restricted from practising independently in the community for a period of 12 months.
The Panel accepted the joint submission as reasonable and in the public interest. The Member accepted responsibility for her actions and cooperated with the College by agreeing to the facts and proposed penalty. The Panel found that the penalty addressed the elements of general and specific deterrence, remediation, and public protection.