Crime Diary - Saskatchewan nurse's $26K fine is a travesty of justice

In a civilized society, whether it is in the official justice system, public institutions, professional organizations, businesses, or even families, justice should be proportional.

In the vernacular, the punishment should fit the crime.

There is nothing even approaching proportional in the case of Saskatchewan nurse Carolyn Strom. After finding Strom guilty of “professional misconduct” in October, the Saskatchewan Registered Nurse’s Association decided last week the appropriate penalty would be a $1,000 fine, $25,000 in cost recovery from the investigation, a reprimand, writing a “self-reflective essay” and completing an online ethics course.

And what was the egregious crime for which such a draconian penalty would be warranted?

She embarrassed some unnamed colleagues in a Facebook post.

After hearing about her recently deceased grandfather’s and her family’s experience at St. Joseph’s Health Facility in Macklin, Strom wrote: “it is evident that not everyone is ‘up to speed’ on how to approach end of life care or how to help maintain an aging senior’s dignity.

“I challenge the people involved in decision making with that facility to please get all your staff a refresher on this topic and more. Don’t get me wrong, ‘some’ people have provided excellent care so I thank you so very much for your efforts, but to those who made Grandpa’s last years less than desirable, please do better next time.”

Apparently, when you join the nursing profession, you give up your constitutional right to free speech under Section 2, subsection b of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Perhaps it is fair enough for a self-regulated profession to impose ethical standards on its membership more rigourous than those to which the general public might be held.

In this case, the key provision was Section 26 of the Saskatchewan Registered Nurses Act, which defines professional misconduct as “any matter, conduct or thing, whether or not disgraceful or dishonourable, that is contrary to the best interests of the public or nurses or tends to harm the standing of the profession of nursing.”

Specifically SRNA charged that Strom: failed to respect patient confidentiality by identifying her grandfather; failed to follow proper channels in making a complaint; made comments that had a negative impact on the reputation of staff and a facility; failed to first obtain all the facts; and used her status of registered nurse for personal purposes.

To its credit, the disciplinary committee dropped the breach of privacy charge. Indiscriminately hiding behind patient confidentiality is a favourite trick of the health care industry in general to avoid airing its dirty laundry in public.

I think we can all agree, and Strom herself has admitted, she crossed a line here. SRNA should have proceeded with the educational aspects of the discipline, to which Strom and her lawyer were agreeable, and moved on.

The $150,000 they wasted on the investigation could then have been used to investigate the allegations about the treatment of patients at the facility. Even if Strom did not follow proper channels, the complaint remains and it is of far graver concern than a lapse of judgment of a grieving granddaughter who happens to be a nurse. Do the families of the patients at St. Joseph’s not have a right to know that their loved ones are being treated properly?

This case was an overzealous prosecution and a travesty of justice. In fact, it is more like persecution really. But the SRNA discipline committee felt the egregious financial penalty was necessary because “deterrence is an important consideration.”

The problem here is that a punishment so disproportionate with the offence does not just say ‘don’t air your grievances on social media,’ it says, ‘turn a blind eye, keep your head down, shut the hell up, and hold on for dear life until you are eligible for retirement’ because there is no protection for whistle-blowers in your profession and your professional organization does not have your back.

There is currently a Go Fund Me campaign to cover the cost of the fines. In my opinion, those funds should go toward fighting this decision in the courts. It may not have been an infringement of Strom’s right to free speech, but it is almost certainly an infringement of her right under Section 12 of the Charter, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.