Typically, the success of a reinstatement application by a former registrant will depend on the insight they demonstrate and the established currency of their knowledge, skill and judgment. This truism was illustrated in Shanks v Nova Scotia College of Nursing, 2025 NSSC 250 (CanLII).
The applicant’s registration had been revoked for boundary crossings with a vulnerable client who had an opioid use disorder. The former nurse’s conduct involved an intimate, including sexual, relationship with the client and the acceptance of a loan from them. The College’s Reinstatement Committee panel refused her reinstatement application.
On the surface, the applicant’s position seemed strong. The applicant had immediately admitted the conduct and agreed to the original revocation order. The regulator did not oppose reinstatement and there was even agreement as to the conditions and restrictions that should be imposed if the hearing panel agreed to reinstatement. The applicant had helpful character references and a generally supportive independent medical opinion indicating that there was no health condition militating against reinstatement.
However, concerns arose during the hearing and the panel focussed on insight and currency, noting the following issues:
• The applicant’s insight was directed more on the impact of the conduct on her, expressing little about the impact of her conduct on the client.
• While the applicant agreed to take a boundaries course after reinstatement, she had made no effort to learn about boundaries since the events years ago. In fact, she had not even read the guidelines about boundaries on the regulator’s website.
• The applicant had worked as a peer support worker who assisted individuals in need during her revocation without first taking measures to ensure familiarity with boundary principles.
• The applicant intended to practise nursing with individuals in dire need rather than in an environment where potential boundary issues were less prevalent.
• The applicant had taken no professional development programs or other educational steps to prepare her for returning to practice despite years of absence from the profession.
• The applicant’s hours of practice during the past five years did not meet the currency hours requirement for active registrants.
The Court upheld the decision to decline reinstatement.
As is so often the case, the key concerns on reinstatement applications were whether the individual demonstrates insight and currency such that the public is unlikely to be placed at risk of future harm if they are permitted to return to the profession.
