A woman who fraudulently worked as a registered practical nurse at five Ontario care homes for 14 months using another nurse’s credentials has lost her appeal to reduce an 11-month jail sentence.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the original punishment was appropriate given the serious nature of the fraud and the risk posed to vulnerable residents.
The appellant pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000, forgery and impersonation to gain advantage after working at multiple care facilities where she administered medication to residents despite having no nursing qualifications. She used the credentials of an actual registered practical nurse to secure employment and carry out nursing duties.
The woman was sentenced to 11 months in custody followed by two years’ probation by an Ontario Court of Justice judge. She appealed the sentence, arguing it was excessive and that the sentencing judge made three errors in principle.
Appeal arguments rejected
The appellant claimed the sentencing judge overstated the aggravating factors in the case, gave insufficient weight to mitigating circumstances including her medical conditions and history of abusive relationships, and imposed a sentence that was demonstrably unfit. Having served five months of her sentence by the time of the appeal, she sought a reduction to time served plus the probation period.
The Court of Appeal rejected all three arguments, finding the original sentencing judge properly weighed the relevant factors.
The court noted the appellant “engaged in the fraudulent conduct over an extended period of time, involving extensive premeditation, preparation and execution.” It found she “took advantage of the high regard with which nurses are held in the community, receiving remuneration for work she was not entitled to perform and, in doing so, put numerous residents of the care homes at risk.”
The appeal court also noted the appellant was serving a conditional sentence for a previous fraud conviction at the time of these offences, adding to the seriousness of her conduct.
Medical conditions considered
The appellant argued her cognitive deficits and mental health issues should have resulted in a lesser sentence. However, the Court of Appeal found these conditions did not excuse her conduct.
“Despite these challenges, the appellant was capable of executing the fraudulent scheme at various institutions, without detection, for a significant period of time,” the court determined.
The appeal court noted the sentencing judge had expressly considered the appellant’s medical conditions but found no evidence these conditions could not be treated while in custody.
The woman also claimed her conduct was suggested by an allegedly abusive partner, but the Court of Appeal found this argument carried little weight.
“Whatever the origin of the plan, it was the appellant who implemented and carried it out, at various care homes, for an extended period of time,” the court stated.
Conditional sentence inappropriate
The Court of Appeal supported the original finding that a conditional sentence would be inappropriate given the circumstances. The court found principles of denunciation and deterrence were paramount in this case.
The fraudulent scheme involved the appellant working at five different care facilities over more than a year, during which time she administered medication to vulnerable elderly residents who relied on her supposed nursing expertise.
The court noted that while this was the appellant’s first sentence involving actual incarceration, the 11-month custodial term “was well within the range for serious offences of this type.”
Extended fraudulent employment
Court documents indicate the appellant’s fraudulent conduct extended over 14 months, though the actual period of employment at the care homes was shorter. During her time at the facilities, she performed duties requiring nursing qualifications while using credentials that belonged to a legitimate registered practical nurse.
The case involved three criminal charges: fraud over $5,000 under section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, forgery under section 368(1)(a), and impersonation to gain advantage under section 403(1)(a). The appellant pleaded guilty to all charges.
The fraud charge reflects that the total value of wages received through the deception exceeded $5,000, while the forgery charge relates to her use of another person’s nursing credentials. The impersonation charge covers her assumption of the professional identity and responsibilities of a registered practical nurse.
Risk to vulnerable population
The Court of Appeal emphasized the particular seriousness of fraud committed against vulnerable populations in care facilities. Elderly residents in care homes depend on qualified medical professionals for their health and safety, making the deception particularly egregious.
By administering medication and performing other nursing duties without proper qualifications, the appellant created risks for residents who had no way of knowing she lacked the required training and credentials.
The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal but ultimately dismissed the sentence appeal, meaning the original 11-month custodial sentence and two-year probation period remain in effect.
For more information, see R. v. Sampat, 2025 ONCA 644 (CanLII).
