FILE PHOTO

Image Credit: ADOBE STOCK

We often write about how teachers, lawyers, real estate agents and others are governed and policed by their regulatory authorities.

We’ve often suspected there are far more to these stories than the paltry information they tell the public.

But a case wending its way through the BC Supreme Court gives us a rare look at what happens behind the scenes we can’t normally see and the immense power these authorities have to pressure, intimidate and cajole their members into submission.

Alice Thmbran is suing the BC College of Nurses and Midwives, acting for herself in the case which has not yet gone to trial. She was a registered nurse and Director of Care at a Maple Ridge seniors facility. She was apparently very good at her job and on track to also be the General manager.

On Jan. 28, 2018 she got a complaint from a resident and the resident’s family that another resident with dementia was sexually assaulting other patients. According to Justice Catherine Murray, Thmbran was on it immediately and put in place an action plan to monitor the man every half hour. Her superiors signed off on the plan.

Marshall Jones, managing editor

Thmbran was injured on the job a month later and went on medical leave.

More than a year later, in June 2019, colleague Lynn Blatta complained to the college alleging that Thmbran ignored reports and covered up the sexual assaults between 2016 and 2018. She alleged Thmbran was aware of the allegations before the resident and family informed her.

The college began an investigation and immediately suspended her from working anywhere else other than the Maple Ridge facility.

Blatta told investigators she specifically witnessed incidents on Jan. 30, 2018 and another incident Feb. 15, 2018. Nine months later, an inquiry committee found the investigation adequate and Thmbran’s actions “not satisfactory.”

On March 17, 2021, the committee asked Thmbran to voluntarily give up her registration with the college for three years, basically forcing her out of her job and career.

Thmbran was never once interviewed in the investigation. They based the penalty on logs that suggested Thmbran was informed of these incidents and despite the “facts” gathered by the investigator, never made much sense.

Dates and incidents reported by Blatta changed several times and Blatta’s so-called eye-witness accounts were negated entirely by other staff members. For example, Blatta reported that she saved one patient by pushing the man off her, when it was another staff member who intervened. Blatta told investigators the man was 80 when he was actually 93. She described him doing things that were physically impossible for the man with a fractured hip.

Thmbran says she was never notified of these incidents, and evidence ignored by the college seemed to back that up.

The committee wanted to deal with her suspension through a consent order, which is how most of these investigations are dealt with to avoid a hearing and messy information getting out. They are covered in legal language to prevent registrants from ever challenging the findings.

To sign the agreement, Thmbran had to agree to all the facts alleged and give up her licence.

But as Justice Murray noted, the “facts” she was pressured to accept were just wrong. Witness statements were much different than the facts presented by the investigator and the date of one incident was changed from Jan. 30, 2018 to Jan. 10 to suit the new narrative.

“For unspecified reasons, the Inspector chose Ms. Blatta’s description of the incident, changing the date and location. That was an apparent attempt to fit with the progress notes kept at the Facility. However, the Inspector evidently failed to check the work schedule and missed a key issue: Ms. Blatta was not working on January 10, 2018.”

Thmbran refused to sign the agreement. She wanted a hearing so the facts could be disclosed and she could give her side of the story, even though she was “depressed”, “hopeless”, “not eating” and, according to her doctor, “should have been hospitalized”.

The college then sent the file to its lawyers to prepare for a hearing but instead proposed another consent resolution, this time alleging her negligence over two years (despite the fact she was on leave for most of one of those years). The date of the main incident was changed again, as were the specific allegations, about which Justice Murray said “there was no evidence.”

The college sought a six-month suspension instead of three years and while it was open to negotiation “the Inquiry Committee will not approve a consent resolution at this point without significant admissions on your part”.

Thmbran rejected it again, said she was innocent and demanded a hearing.

“I am not defending to lessen the punishment but to protect my innocence and integrity…,” she told them.

Then the college published publicly the allegations against her. A few months before the hearing, the college demanded to know the case that she would be arguing, seeking documents and other information. This despite the fact Thmbran herself received no disclosure of allegations against her, which she asked for repeatedly.

Counsel for the college never even responded to her emails and had failed to communicate with her for more than a year, all while Thmbran was struggling with her workplace injury and her mental health in dealing with the issue, as well as preparing to defend herself.

Then, just before the hearing date, the college played its Ace. The inquiry committee reviewed the case, noted the inconsistencies in evidence and then cancelled the hearing entirely and instead opted to give her a Letter of Expectation, a formal reprimand on her record “strongly condemning” her actions.

"In reaching the decision to issue the (letter), the Inquiry Committee accepted as fact allegations that everyone in a decision-making position knew were vehemently denied by (Thmbran),” Justice Murray wrote. “And it included yet another version of the January 10 incident.”

The reprimand letter is not debatable, not negotiable and permanent. They still had never heard Thmbran’s side of the issue. It wouldn’t even explain why they changed their minds again until Thmbran sued and got the information through court disclosure.

“The Inquiry Committee realized that they could not prove (Thmbran’s) knowledge of (the patient’s) sexualized conduct prior to January 10. Further, the Inquiry Committee acknowledged for the first time that Thmbran tried to obtain additional funding and that she was working in a 'chaotic work environment,'” Murray wrote.

The college had applied to have the court case tossed without a trial, in part because Thmbran, for whom English is a second language and is not a trained lawyer, was representing herself and made several mistakes in her court filings.

But Murray said Thmbran can amend her documents, nearly all the defendants are still on the hook and the suit can go ahead.

Thmbran is determined to defend her innocence and she will finally get that chance.

Quasi-judicial bodies like the BC College of Nurses and Midwives are expected to operate like a court would. The difference is that courts are fully open to the public under the rubric: “Justice must be seen to be done”.

Cases like this make me wonder how often justice is lost in the darkness of secrecy and how many people are railroaded by these regulating authorities abusing their power.

— Marshall Jones is the Managing Editor of iNFOnews.ca

We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor.

News from © iNFOnews, 2024