The hearing committee acted within its authority, and the evidence supported its findings
The Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island has upheld a professional misconduct ruling against a registered nurse for displaying aggressive and non-therapeutic behavior during an incident at a care facility.
The dispute in Llewellyn v. College of Registered Nurses and Midwives of P.E.I., 2024 PESC 41 stemmed from a July 2021 incident at the South Shore Villa, where Tonya Llewelyn worked as the sole registered nurse. The situation involved a resident with a history of aggressive behaviour. Following a verbal altercation between the resident and staff, paramedics were called to transport the resident to the hospital. Upon his return to the facility, Llewellyn allegedly acted aggressively and non-therapeutically, leading to a complaint being filed by the paramedics.
The college’s hearing committee found Llewellyn guilty of professional misconduct, citing breaches of multiple standards of practice and ethics. As a result, the committee imposed several penalties, including a four-day suspension, completion of an anger management course, regular workplace audits for three years, and a $10,000 contribution to the costs of the hearing.
Llewellyn’s appeal argued that the committee had overstepped its authority by considering incidents not covered in the original complaint and relied on unreliable evidence. She also claimed that the penalties were excessive, particularly given that she had not yet completed conditions from a prior disciplinary case.
The Supreme Court reviewed the appeal under the legal standards in the Regulated Health Professions Act (RHPA) and the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in 2019. It determined that the College’s hearing committee had acted within its authority, providing Llewellyn with ample opportunity to respond to all allegations and that the committee’s findings were supported by evidence. The court also found that while the committee did exceed the 60-day statutory deadline for issuing its decision, this delay did not invalidate the ruling. In its conclusion, the court ruled that the penalties imposed were fair and consistent with previous cases.
