Digest: Strom v Saskatchewan Registered Nurses' Assn., 2018 SKQB 110

• Date: April 11, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 110

Docket Number: QBG 597/17 JCS , QB17495

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-04-11

Judges:

• Currie

Subjects:

• Professions and Occupations � Registered Nurses - Discipline

Digest: The appellant appealed the decision of the discipline committee of the Saskatchewan Registered Nurses� Association (SNRA). It ruled that she had engaged in professional misconduct and that she should be fined. It ordered her to pay costs of the proceedings and set them at $25,000. The matter arose because the appellant posted comments on her Facebook page that criticized the care that her grandfather received at a care home. At the time she posted the comments, the appellant was on maternity leave. After the hearing, the committee concluded that the appellant had violated s. 26(1) and s. 26(2)(l) of The Registered Nurses Act, 1988. Under s. 26(2)(l), the appellant was found to have engaged in professional misconduct because she failed to comply with six clauses set out in the provisions of the Code of Ethics for Registered Nurses. The court determined that the committee had made four decisions that it was to review: 1) that the appellant�s off-duty conduct was subject to discipline; 2) that she engaged in professional misconduct; 2) that its decision infringed the appellant�s right to freedom of expression but that under s. 1 of the Charter, the infringement was justified; and 4) that the appellant should pay an award of costs.
HELD: The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the standard of review that applied to all four of the decisions made by the committee was reasonableness. It concluded that each of the committee�s decisions fell within the range of reasonable outcomes in the circumstances and found with respect to them that: 1) whether the off-duty conduct of the appellant was subject to discipline was the kind of decision that the Legislature had in mind when it empowered the SNRA under the Act in acknowledgement of its knowledge and expertise; 2) there was evidence before the committee from which it could infer that the appellant�s online comments harmed the reputation of the nursing staff of the care home and undermined public confidence in the staff. Further, the committee found that the appellant had made the comments without personal knowledge of the circumstances that she criticized and failed to follow the proper channels; 3) the committee considered the importance of the right to...