ONA Members - Ontario Nurses' Association

ONA 

The magazine for 

members of the Ontario 

Nurses’ Association 

Winter 2005 VOL 32 NO 1 

www.ona.org 

VISION FEATURE: 

Quality Assurance Testing raises 

concerns among ONA members 

ONA members indicate they don’t support 

the Practice Review component of Quality 

Assurance testing at the College of Nurses. 

Find out why in our feature section. 

Story p. 12 

Bargaining Update: 

Hospital nurses heading 

to mediation/arbitration. 

Story p. 20 

ONTARIO NURSES’ ASSOCIATION 1

IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR ALL ONA MEMBERS 

HOW TO... 

…file a Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) claim 

If you believe an accident, injury, illness 

or onset of pain is work-related, you must 

immediately: 

• report it to your employer. 

• complete an employer Incident Report. 

• have the employer complete a Form 7 

(“Employer’s Report of Injury/Disease”). 

• sign the Form 7 or a Form 1492 

(available from your employer). 

• seek medical attention. 

• report your injury to your health 

professional and have her/him complete a 

Form 8 (“Health Professional’s Report”). 

• inform a co-worker or witness. 

If you do not get a copy of your signed Form 

7 or Form 1492 or have any problems with 

the above: 

• contact the WSIB in writing immediately, 

reporting your injury. 

• contact your Local ONA representative. 

HOW TO... 

…contact your 2005 ONA Board of Directors 

For accidents on or after January 1, 1998 there 

is a six-month time limit for filing claims with 

the WSIB and claims will only be accepted after 

the six months in exceptional circumstances. 

Claims with accident dates prior to January 

1, 1998 are exempted from the application of 

the six-month time limit on filing a claim. 

You have a right under the law to report any 

workplace accident or injury and cannot be 

told by anyone that you cannot file a claim. 

You have the right to be treated by your own 

health care professional. This could be your 

family physician, chiropractor, RN extended 

class, physiotherapist or dentist. You make 

your first choice of health professional when 

you accept treatment after the initial or 

emergency treatment. Once the initial choice 

is made, you are not permitted to change 

to another health professional without the 

WSIB’s approval. 

Call ONA at 1-800-387-5580 (toll-free) or (416) 964-1979 in Toronto and follow the operator’s 

prompts to access board members’ voice-mail. Voice-mail numbers (VM) for Board members in 

the Toronto office are listed below. 

HOW TO... 

…file a WSIB appeal 

Injured workers and employers have the 

right to appeal all decisions of the Workplace 

Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB). 

ONA represents members before the WSIB if 

they meet all criteria. Your Labour Relations 

Officer can explain what the criteria are for 

representation. If you want ONA to act on 

your behalf, you should immediately contact 

your local ONA representative and ensure 

you are referred to the appropriate Labour 

Relations Officer within ONA’s notification 

time limits. 

Members who receive an adverse written 

WSIB decision and want ONA to represent 

them on appeal must notify the Labour 

Relations Officer within ONA’s time limits. 

These time limits are: 

• within one week of the date of the adverse 

WSIB decision if it is a 30-day appeal. 

• within four weeks of the date of the 

adverse WSIB decision if it is a six-month 

appeal. 

Also, you should contact ONA immediately 

if you are advised of an employer appeal. If 

you want ONA to represent you: 

• Do not verbally, in writing or on any form 

object to a WSIB decision. 

• Do not set any meeting or hearing dates. 

• Do not request access to your WSIB files. 

HOW TO... 

…file a LTD appeal 

Linda Haslam-Stroud, RN 

President, VM #2254 

Communications & 

Public Relations 

Susan Prettejohn, RN 

First VP, VM #2314 

Political Action & 

Professional Issues 

Diane Parker, RN 

VP Region 1, VM #7710 

Occupational Health & 

Safety 

Anne Clark, RN 


Finance 

ONA members whose long-term disability 

(LTD) benefit claims are initially denied, or are 

terminated after a period of benefit payments, 

are entitled to appeal the insurer’s decision. 

ONA will assist you with that appeal. 

Andy Summers, RN 


Human Rights & Equity 

Dianne LeClair, RN 


Education 

Jeanne Soden, RN 


Labour Relations 

Lesley Bell, RN 

Chief Executive Officer, 

VM #2255 

Please note: Most insurance companies have 

a time limit for filing the appeal. It is extremely 

important that you notify your Bargaining 

Unit Rep/Labour Relations Officer that you 

want to appeal the denial/termination of LTD 

benefits as soon as you receive notification 

of denial/termination from the insurance 

company. Members have had their appeals 

denied because they did not meet the time 

limits, despite the merits of their claim. 

2 VISION, WINTER 2005

ONA 

The magazine for members of the 

Ontario Nurses’ Association 

WINTER 2005 VOL 32 NO 1 

The Ontario Nurses’ Association is the Union representing 

approximately 50,000 registered staff nurses and allied 

health-care professionals. Vision is published four times 

yearly by ONA, and is distributed to all members. We welcome 

submissions from members and will endeavour to print 

as many as possible, within our space limitations. 

Copyright © 2005. Ontario Nurses’ Association 

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced 

or transmitted in any form or by any means, including 

electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or by any 

information storage or retrieval system, without permission in 

writing from the publisher. 

ISSN: 0834-9088 

Editor: Melanie Levenson 

Contributors to this issue: Raymonde Boileau, Erna Bujna, 

Ruth Featherstone, Rozanna Haynes, Mary Lou King, Melanie 

Levenson, Valerie MacDonald, Mariana Markovic, David 

Nicholson, Tricia Sadoway, Lawrence Walter. 

Designed by: Artifact graphic design 

Printed by union labour: Thistle Printing Limited 

Send submissions to: Melanie Levenson 

melaniel@ona.org 

In this issue… 

How to…WSIB claims/WSIB appeals/LTD appeals/ ONA Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

ONA members across Ontario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

ONA organizing efforts kick into high gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

A message from ONA President Linda Haslam-Stroud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 

A message from ONA’s CEO Lesley Bell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 

Message de la Présidente Linda Haslam-Stroud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

Message de la directrice générale Lesley Bell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 

VISION FEATURE 

QUALITY ASSURANCE 

TESTING RAISES CONCERNS 

AMONG ONA MEMBERS 

PAGE 12 

Actions ONA has taken on QA Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

Quality Assurance at a glance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 

QA testing too broad-based to be relevant, says one ONA member. . . . . . . . . . . 15 

ONA Head Office 

85 Grenville St., Ste. 400, Toronto ON M5S 3A2 

tel: (416) 964-8833 toll free: 1-800-387-5580 

fax: (416) 964-8864 email: onamail@ona.org 

www.ona.org 

New ONA policy on dealing 

with critical incident meetings 

PAGE 16 

ONA Regional Offices 

Hamilton 

393 Rymal Rd. W., Ste. 205, Hamilton ON L9B 1V2 

tel: (905) 383-3341 fax: (905) 574-0933 

Kingston 

4 Cataraqui St., Ste. 306, Kingston ON K7K 1Z7 

tel: (613) 545-1110 fax: (613) 531-9043 

London 

750 Baseline Rd. E., Ste, 204, London ON N6C 2R5 

tel: (519) 438-2153 fax: (519) 433-2050 

Orillia 

210 Memorial Ave., Unit 126A, Orillia ON L3V 7V1 

tel: (705) 327-0404 fax: (705) 327-0511 

Ottawa 

1400 Clyde Ave., Ste, 211, Nepean ON K2G 3J2 

tel: (613) 226-3733 fax: (613) 723-0947 

Sudbury 

764 Notre Dame Ave., Unit 3, Sudbury ON P3A 2T4 

tel: (705) 560-2610 fax: (705) 560-1411 

Thunder Bay 

#214, Woodgate Centre, 1139 Alloy Dr. 

Thunder Bay ON P7B 6M8 

tel: (807) 344-9115 fax: (807) 344-8850 

Timmins 

707 Ross Ave. E., Ste., 110A, Timmins ON P4N 8R1 

tel: (705) 264-2294 fax: (705) 268-4355 

Windsor 

3155 Howard Ave., Ste. 220, Windsor ON N8X 3Y9 

tel: (519) 966-6350 fax: (519) 972-0814 

A look back at the Health Care Summit in Ottawa: 

CFNU pressed politicians for money, accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 

Collective Bargaining Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 

ONA works to make sure mandatory retirement changes do not 

undermine members’ rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 

A message from ONA First Vice-President Susan Prettejohn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 

Queen’s Park Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 

ONA wins OLRB grievances, unfair labour practice complaints 

stemming from SARS crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 

Awards and Decisions Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 

Pay equity payouts available for the listed ONA VON members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 

ONA Retirees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 

ONA VISION STATEMENT: The Ontario Nurses’ Association is a membership 

driven, proactive union sensitive and responsive to the ever-changing needs in an 

evolving health care system. Dedicated to providing an environment conducive 

to learning and personal growth with acknowledgement of diversity and creativity. 

Maintains mutual trust, respect, support and understanding throughout the 

organization. Advocates a high quality, efficient health care system, sharing in 

partnership with communities, consumers and health care professionals. 


ONA MEMBERS ACROSS ONTARIO 

ONA RNs travel to hurricane-ravaged 

Caymans to lend a hand 

Get information on ONA 

scholarships 

and bursaries 

with a click 

of your 

mouse 

ONA has four major 

scholarship and bursary 

programs available annually 

to members, including: 

Team Hurricane Ivan 

… One of two groups of 24 RNs, plus some social workers, from Hamilton Health Sciences 

Centre, ONA Local 70, who flew to the Cayman Islands in October to help out in the 

aftermath of Hurricane Ivan. The nurses gave up two weeks of their personal vacation time 

to lend a hand to Cayman Island Hospital RNs, who worked around the clock after the 

hurricane hit on September 12. 

M Occupational Health and 

Safety Scholarships. 

M Glenna Rowsell Bursary 

Fund. 

M Human Rights & Equity 

Bursary. 

M Johnson Inc. 

Scholarships and Grants 

(family members are also 

eligible!). 

ONA members and colleagues from the 

Hamilton Health Sciences Centre flew to the 

Cayman Islands to help out in the aftermath 

of Hurricane Ivan in September. 

Eleven registered nurses and one social 

worker left for two weeks of their own vacation 

time to spot relief for RNs at the Cayman 

Islands Hospital, who had worked around 

the clock when the hurricane hit with a 

vengeance on September 12. They brought 

medical and relief supplies with them. 

When that crew returned to Hamilton, 

another team of 13 RNs and social work staff 

set off for the Caymans on October 9. 

The teams got an assist from Air Jamaica 

and the Rotary Club of Grand Cayman 

(Sunrise). 

4 VISION, WINTER 2005 

“Nobody did it for money,” said one volunteer 

RN. “We all came out here because 

we wanted to help. This has given us a 

chance to expand our abilities as nurses and 

our readiness to provide care under adverse 

circumstances.” 

Eloise Ried, Chief Executive Officer of the 

Cayman Health Services Authority, had high 

praise for the volunteers. 

“Our ability to ensure the continuity of 

medical care to the people of these islands 

and the well-being of our staff in the aftermath 

of Hurricane Ivan, was in large part due 

to the spirit of generosity, volunteerism and 

incalculable support from Hamilton Health 

Sciences, Air Jamaica and the Rotary Club 

(Sunrise),” said Reid. 

Complete information on these 

programs can be found in the 

secure area (Member Section 

and Executive Section) of the 

ONA Web site under Financial 

Aid and Bursaries. 

Just log on to find details on 

how to apply, eligibility rules 

and guidelines, and how much 

the scholarships/bursaries are 

worth. 

www.ona.org


Getting together for good times … 

Local 24 members share some happy moments. 

Local 24 Executive members from Rouge Valley Health 

Services (right to left), Dianne Brunton, RN, Local 

Coordinator; Carol Oates , RN, Bargaining Unit President; 

Nancy Kowacz, RN, Secretary; Pam Hayden, RN, 

Treasurer. 

Nurses from the Ajax Site, Intensive Care Unit. 

ONA President Linda Haslam-Stroud, RN, with 

Carol Oates, RN, Rouge Valley Bargaining 

Unit President. 

Nurses from the Guildwood site, with Bargaining Unit President 

Paulette Salsman, RN, second from the left. 

ONA members from Scarborough Centenary, 5 th Level Surgical Unit. 



Since its inception in 1973, one of ONA’s 

main objectives has been to organize 

registered nurses in Ontario. 

ONA organizing efforts 

kick into high gear 

If you are an ONA 

RN, who also works 

at a non-unionized 

facility and 

would like more 

information on 

organizing, contact 

Raymonde Boileau 

at 1-800-387-5580, 

press 5, and ext. 

# 4129. 


’s membership continues to 

ONA grow, with campaigns underway 

to organize new bargaining units across the 

province. The pace for increasing membership 

has picked up since the ONA Board of 

Directors lifted a moratorium on organizing 

in June 2004. 

Following recent successful campaigns, 

spearheaded by ONA’s Retention and 

Recruitment (R&R) Team, ONA welcomed 

88 new members at the following bargaining 

units: 

• Caressant Care, Courtland (8 RNs) 

• Cassellholme Home for the Aged, 

North Bay (10 RNs) 

• Extendicare, Port Hope (14 RNs) 

• Roseview Manor, Thunder Bay (14 

RNs) 

• Shepherd Village Inc., Scarborough (32 

RNs) 

• St. Peter’s Health System at Chedoke, 

Hamilton (10 RNs). 

ONA also saw membership increases following 

successful Bill 136 votes, which are 

held to determine union representation in 

multi-union bargaining units that merge or 

amalgamate. For instance, ONA picked up 

161 new members for Local 42 at Cornwall 

General Hospital, adding to the 160 existing 

members following a Bill 136 vote in 

Cornwall last May. 

Aside from organizing and Bill 136 votes, 

ONA can also gain new members through 

“voluntary recognition.” In that instance, an 

employer may agree to the formation of an ONA bargaining unit for 

employees in lieu of their filing an application for certification. 

The principal role of the R&R Team is to direct campaigns to bring 

in new members and to organize new bargaining units, as well as to 

provide information for nurses interested in joining ONA now or 

down the road. The R&R Team also provides support and information 

for bargaining units who are holding Bill 136 votes. 

Since its inception in 1973, one of ONA’s main objectives has been 

to organize registered nurses in Ontario. All registered or graduate 

nurses, and certain allied personnel who are eligible to engage in collective 

bargaining, are currently eligible for ONA membership. 

An organizing campaign is initiated when an individual nurse, or a 

group of nurses, make inquiries about how they can join ONA. 

Members of the R&R Team, comprised of ONA members and staff, 

meet with the interested nurses to explain the process, including 

Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) requirements, the role of the 

organizing nurses and the role of ONA staff. 

Representatives from the R&R Team then initiate a meeting with 

the nurses and mails out an information package about ONA and 

organizing, or relays the information to one member, who brings it 

forward to the group. 

If there is genuine interest in organizing, the campaign swings into 

action. 

The pivotal meeting is the first one, when the R&R Team talks to 

the nurses about the benefits of joining ONA, such as: 

• collective bargaining. 

• representation in grievances and arbitrations. 

• education workshops and training. 

• assistance with WSIB matters. 

• ONA publications (Vision, Front Lines) and Web site. 

• Provincial Coordinators Meetings and Biennial Conventions. 

• the Legal Assistance Expense Plan. 

• Malpractice insurance, HIV coverage, Hepatitis C coverage and 

Long-Term Disability. 

According to OLRB rules, at least 40 per cent of the potential 

members must sign union cards to show interest in certification. 

ONA then submits an application to the OLRB for certification. 

The OLRB will then conduct a secret ballot vote at the work site 

one week later. The organizing drive is successful if 50 per cent, 

plus one, of the employees vote to certify. 

The confidentiality of card signers and their votes are protected 

by law, so that no employer knows who signed a card. Workers by 

law have the right to join and be represented by a union. 

An employer is prohibited from treating employees engaged in 

union activity differently from other employees. They cannot cut 

hours of work, discipline, fire, or discriminate against employees 

who decide to join a union.


ONA RNs in Cobourg 

receive professional 

development grants from 

TD Canada Trust 

Four ONA Local 105 members, all staff 

registered nurses at Northumberland Hills 

Hospital in Cobourg, were recipients in 

September of education grants from a newlyestablished 

education fund for registered 

nurses and other practising caregivers from 

Toronto Dominion Canada Trust. 

Karen Bruton, RN, the bargaining unit 

president, Kelly Giroux, RN, Brenda Bonner, 

RN and Deborah Taylor, RN, were among 

the recipients for the new professional development 

fund, the TD Canada Trust Grants 

in Medical Excellence, which is geared to 

“helping ensure nurses and other practising 

caregivers have access to funds to upgrade 

their skills or further their education.” 

The fund was specifically developed 

for education for RNs and other caregivers 

at regional and community hospitals. 

Northumberland’s $62,000 share of the fund 

will be apportioned out over the next five 

years. 

“I am honoured to be selected as a recipient 

of this grant,” said Giroux, an operating 

room nurse at Northumberland. She will be 

using the grant to help pay for courses she’s 

taking towards a baccalaureate in nursing 

through Athabasca University. 

IN THE SPRING 2005 issue 

of ONA Vision, see our 

feature section on Human 

Rights and Equity issues, 

including an important 

article on homophobia. For 

a sneak preview, you can 

read “Homophobia: It hurts 

us all,” on ONA’s Web site at 

www.ona.org. 

Goodbye bash 

… Family, friends and work colleagues gather to celebrate the retirement of ONA member 

Margaret Rondina, RN, after 44 years of nursing. Rondina, who is pictured in the 

front row, second from the left (wearing a lapel pin), was Local 2 Coordinator for the last 

six years. For the full story, see the Retirees Section on page 30 of this ONA Vision. 

HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUITY TEAM 

BURSARY FUND 

Four annual bursaries of up to $1,000 each are available 

to provide ONA members with opportunities to become 

involved in human rights and equity education and/or 

outreach. This includes seminars, workshops, speakers and 

other events that raise awareness about equity issues. 

Application deadlines are May 30 and November 30 of 

each year. Contact the Equity Team for more information. 

HOW TO REACH US 

MAIL: Human Rights and Equity Team, 

Ontario Nurses’ Association 

85 Grenville Street, Suite 400, 

Toronto, ON M5S 3A2 

FAX: Attn: Human Rights and Equity Team, 

(416) 964-8864 

PHONE: Toll free: 1-800-387-5580, 

Press “0” for Toronto office 

In Toronto: (416) 964-8833 

Ext. 7768 (English), Ext. 7769 (French) 


President’s message 

Linda Haslam-Stroud, RN 

ONA President 

Attendance management programs an 

employer tactic to manage attendance 

and absenteeism in the workplace 

ONA strongly 

believes that 

attendance management 

programs 

should not be 

punitive in nature, 

but confidential, 

consistent, fair and 

reasonable, based 

on individual 

circumstances, 

not system-wide 

problems such as 

a shortage of 

nurses. 

With the flu season upon us and last year’s 

SARS tragedy still very much in our minds, I thought 

it would be timely to devote my column to a very serious 

issue for ONA and our members: attendance management. 

According to the Canadian Labour and Business 

Centre, during any given week, more than 13,000 registered 

nurses – or 7.4 per cent – are absent from work due 

to injury, illness, burnout or disability. That rate is 80 per 

cent higher than the average Canadian worker. Ontario 

Hospital Association statistics from 2003 show that 

nurses are absent, on average, 11.48 days per year. 

None of this comes as a surprise. We face exceedingly 

heavy workloads because there aren’t enough nurses in 

the system, and that contributes to injury and illness. 

Research supports this, indicating that registered nurses 

work almost a quarter-million hours of overtime every 

week, the equivalent of 7,000 full-time jobs over a year. 

Bonnie Henry, associate medical officer of health for 

the City of Toronto, said in a Canadian Press story earlier 

this year that employees should stay home when they are 

sick so as not to pass on their illnesses. She added that 

health care workers are the “worst offenders” for coming 

to work sick. Of course in an ideal world, nurses would 

be able to stay home under such circumstances, but 

unfortunately Ms Henry hasn’t taken into account one 

important factor: attendance management programs, in 

effect at many Ontario hospitals, force nurses to come to 

work when they aren’t feeling well. 

As many of you know, attendance management programs 

are an employer tactic to manage the issues of 

attendance and absenteeism in the workplace. They can 

include counseling employees on tardiness, absenteeism 

and sick leave absences, and monitoring employees’ sick 

leave and attendance. Unfortunately, employees can also 

face potential discipline – up to termination – if behaviours 

affecting attendance do not improve. 

ONA strongly believes that attendance management 

programs should not be punitive in nature, but confidential, 

consistent, fair and reasonable, based on individual 

circumstances, not system-wide problems such as a shortage 

of nurses. Sadly, this doesn’t seem to be the case. 

Some ONA members have told me that when they are 

legitimately ill and have a doctor’s note, they are still 

punished. Others have said they are afraid they will be 

fired if they take too much sick time. In fact, one ONA 

member told me she knows of two nurses on her unit 

who have been threatened with just that. Another said 

her hospital’s attendance management program almost 

never enables employees to “get out of the program” 

once they are in. 

It stands to reason then that a punitive attendance 

management program, which treats nurses as if they 

choose to be ill, accompanied by working conditions that 

lead to sick time in the first place, has a direct impact on 

the retention of nurses. 

Here’s another problem: to determine what is the norm 

for absenteeism in their facilities, employers often use a 

hospital-wide average. This is terribly unfair to front-line 

nurses as those averages generally include managers, 

administrative staff and other employees who do not, 

due to the nature of their work, face the same kind of 

stresses on the job. Plus, an individual with a disability 

may have a whole different set of norms, which is why 

ONA believes attendance management programs must 

adhere to the Ontario Human Rights Code and accommodate 

such individuals. 

It is important for you to know that in our hospital 

central collective agreement, there are provisions that 

provide nurses with entitlements for sick leave, overtime 

and leaves of absence. Unfortunately, many hospital 

attendance management programs ignore these important 

negotiated rights. (This collective agreement is available 

on our Web site at www.ona.org). 

Many programs also don’t specifically spell out the 

right of the employee to union representation in all meetings 

with the employer to discuss absenteeism. We 

believe this is your fundamental right as a nursing professional 

and member of ONA. 

Because of the seriousness of this topic, ONA has prepared 

an Attendance Management Guide, which has been distributed 

to Bargaining Unit Presidents. Check our Web site in the 

upcoming weeks and the winter issue of Front Lines for more 

practical information about your rights and what you can do. 

We will also be submitting opinion pieces to smaller daily 

papers in Ontario to help educate the public. 

In the meantime, if you experience difficulties with 

your hospital’s attendance management program, speak 

to your Bargaining Unit President so we can assist you. 


CEO’s message 

Lesley Bell, RN 

ONA Chief Executive Officer 

Nurses hoping Ontario health care 

“transformation” will repair earlier damage 

Because it is still 

unclear how LHINs 

will operate in 

conjunction with 

local government 

levels, we expect 

local nurses to be 

involved in the 

consultation process 

and through 

all stages of implementation 

and 

beyond. 

The Ontario Liberal government is undertaking a 

“transformation” of our province’s health care system. 

The last time we underwent a major transformation in 

Ontario, which occurred in the mid-1990s, the then-Tory 

government launched a huge and chaotic restructuring 

process that took years to complete. Millions of dollars 

were spent on merging major hospitals and amalgamating 

health agencies. 

For ONA members, the biggest backlash from all that 

transformation was a massive displacement of nursing 

jobs, the casualization of the nursing workforce, layoffs, 

and the beginning of what would become a prolongued 

nursing shortage that we’re still grappling with today. 

We’re confident the Liberal government has something 

quite different in mind when it talks about transformation, 

and in fact we believe it intends to, or hopes to, repair 

some of the earlier damage. But while a number of important 

initiatives have been unveiled, we have yet to see the 

fine print on much of it. 

Some of the key initiatives we’ll be monitoring, and plan 

to act on through lobbying or other activities, include: 

• Local Health Integrated Networks (LHINs). 

• a review of the competitive bidding process for 

home care. 

• accountability agreements for hospitals under Bill 8. 

• progress on the creation of full-time nursing jobs. 

• the health premium tax. 

We’ve now received a little more detail on LHINs, but 

we still have a lot of questions and it is too soon to know 

what the impact will be on our members. 

ONA is supportive of the idea of integrating components 

of the health care system for better and more efficient 

coordination of services. In fact, ONA has long been 

a strong proponent of integrating health service delivery. 

Back in 1995, we encouraged the Tory government to 

break down barriers between all sectors, so that the health 

system would be more interconnected. 

We called our vision “Integrated Health Delivery 

Systems,” and our model was designed to facilitate easier 

access for all Ontarians to the right health provider for the 

right service at the right time. 

So far we’ve been told that LHINS will coordinate service 

delivery but will not have a hands-on role in providing 

clinical services. Principally, they will plan, coordinate, 

integrate, manage and fund care at the local level within 

their defined geographic areas. Existing provider organizations 

will continue to deliver services. 

There will be 14 LHIN geographical boundaries, reflecting 

local areas where people normally access health care. 

The boundaries are “permeable,” meaning patients and 

clients will be able to choose their health provider much 

as they do in the health care system today. All 14 LHINs 

will centre around at least one high volume hospital. 

A regional focus for LHINs is a good idea. Regional 

boundaries are used to define populations for the purposes 

of health planning and management. Studying the effects 

of health system factors, like hospital bed and physician 

supply on health use, can help determine what services are 

required for the region’s population needs. 

Some of the principles guiding the LHIN system are: 

• equitable access based on patient need. 

• preserves patient choice. 

• people-centred, community-focused care that 

responds to local population growth. 

While better integration of health services is certainly a 

worthwhile goal, ONA believes there is insufficient funding 

to support the nurses required to deliver current 

demands of health care, given the current nursing shortage. 

Using 2002 data from the College of Nurses of 

Ontario, the province is currently short by 8,000 registered 

nurses. 

We’ve also been hearing a lot from hospitals administrators, 

who say they are not being funded sufficiently. Many 

are running deficits, which they have been told to get 

under control by the Health Minister. The hospital budget 

shortfall is reportedly $600 million. 

Because it is still unclear how LHINs will operate in 

conjunction with local government levels, we expect local 

nurses to be involved in the consultation process and 

through all stages of implementation and beyond. 

It is absolutely essential that nursing jobs are protected 

throughout and after the “transformation.” 

Transforming our health care system won’t be easy, but 

hopefully it will result in a higher quality, safer health care 

system for all Ontarians. That’s what we’ll be insisting on. 


Un mot de la Présidente 

Linda Haslam-Stroud, inf. aut. 

Présidente de l’AIIO 

Les programmes de gestion des présences 

sont une tactique des employeurs pour 

gérer les questions de présences et 

d’absentéisme en milieu de travail 

Étant donné la saison de la grippe qui bat son plein et la 

tragédie du SRAS encore très présente dans notre esprit, j’ai pensé 

que le moment serait opportun de consacrer ma chronique à un sujet 

très sérieux qui affecte l’AIIO et ses membres : la gestion des présences. 

Selon le Centre syndical et patronal du Canada, au cours de n’importe 

quelle semaine de l’année, plus de 13 000 infirmières autorisées – ou 7,4 

pour cent – sont absentes de leur travail en raison de blessures, de maladies, 

d’épuisement ou d’invalidité. Ce taux est 80 pour cent plus élevé 

que celui du travailleur canadien moyen. Les statistiques de l’Association 

des hôpitaux de l’Ontario de 2003 indiquent que les infirmières sont 

absentes, en moyenne, 11,48 jours par an. 

Rien de cela n’est surprenant. Nous avons à faire à une charge de travail 

excessive parce qu’il n’y a pas assez d’infirmières dans le système de soins 

de santé, et cela contribue aux accidents de travail et au maladies. L’étude 

soutient ce fait, indiquant que les infirmières autorisées travaillent près 

d’un quart de million d’heures en temps supplémentaire chaque semaine, 

ce qui équivaut à 7 000 emplois à temps plein par an. 

Bonnie Henry, médecin hygiéniste adjoint du Bureau de santé publique 

de Toronto, qui, en début d’année, a déclaré dans un article de la 

Presse canadienne que les employées devraient rester à la maison 

lorsqu’elles sont malades afin de ne pas transmettre leurs maladies. Elle 

a ajouté que les travailleurs des soins de santé étaient les « pires transgresseurs 

» dans la mesure où ils se rendaient au travail alors qu’ils 

étaient malades. Bien entendu, dans un monde idéal, les infirmières 

pourraient rester à la maison dans de telles circonstances, mais, malheureusement, 

Madame Henry a négligé de prendre en compte un 

important facteur : les programmes de gestion des présences en vigueur 

dans de nombreux hôpitaux en Ontario forcent les infirmières à se 

rendre au travail même si elles ne se sentent pas bien. 

Comme nombre d’entre vous le savent, les programmes de gestion des 

présences sont une tactique des employeurs pour gérer les questions de 

présences et d’absentéisme en milieu de travail. Ces programmes peuvent 

inclure l’orientation des employées en ce qui a trait au retard, à l’absentéisme 

et aux congés de maladie ainsi que le contrôle des congés de maladie et de 

la présence des employés. Malheureusement, les employées peuvent également 

faire face à des mesures disciplinaires – allant jusqu’au congédiement 

– si les comportements relatifs à la présence ne s’améliorent pas. 

L’AIIO croit fermement que les programmes de gestion des présences 

ne devraient pas être de nature répressive, mais qu’ils devraient être confidentiels, 

cohérents, justes et raisonnables, basés sur les circonstances de 

chacune, et non pas dépendre des problèmes affectant l’ensemble du 

réseau, tel qu’un manque d’infirmières. Malheureusement, cela ne semble 

pas être le cas. 

Certains membres de l’AIIO m’ont confié que même si elles étaient 

réellement malades et qu’elles avaient un mot du médecin, elles étaient 

quand même punies. D’autres m’ont avoué qu’elles craignaient d’être 

renvoyées si elles prenaient trop de congés de maladie. Par ailleurs, un 

membre de l’AIIO m’a dit qu’elle connaissait deux infirmières dans son 

service qui avaient été menacées de telles sanctions. Une autre membre 

m’a dit que son programme de gestion des présences ne permettait 

presque jamais aux employées de « sortir de la programme » une fois 

qu’elles avaient commencé leur service. 

Ainsi, il semble évident qu’un programme de gestion des présences 

répressif, qui traite les infirmières comme si elles choisissaient d’être 

malades, en plus des conditions de travail à l’origine de leur congé maladie, 

a une incidence directe sur le maintien de l’effectif infirmier. 

Voici un autre problème : pour déterminer la norme en matière 

d’absentéisme dans leur établissement, les employeurs se fient souvent à 

une moyenne à l’échelle de tout l’hôpital. Cette sanction est terriblement 

injuste pour les infirmières de première ligne dans la mesure où ces moyenne 

tiennent généralement compte des directeurs, du personnel administratif 

et des autres employés qui, en raison de la nature de leurs fonctions, 

ne subissent pas le même degré de stress dans leur travail. Par ailleurs, une 

personne ayant un handicap peut dépendre d’un ensemble de normes très 

différent, et c’est pourquoi l’AIIO croit que les programmes de gestion des 

présences doivent adhérer au Code des droits de la personne de l’Ontario et 

doivent s’adapter aux besoins de telles personnes. 

Il est important que vous sachiez que dans notre convention collective 

principale de l’hôpital, il existe des dispositions qui donnent le droit aux 

infirmières de prendre des congés de maladie, des absences autorisées et de 

compenser leurs heures supplémentaires. Malheureusement, les programmes 

de gestion des présences de nombreux hôpitaux ignorent ces 

droits importants qui ont été négocié au préalable. (C’est convention collective 

est disponible sur notre site Web au www.ona.org). 

De nombreux programmes ne font pas particulièrement mention du 

droit de l’employé à demander une présence syndicale lors de toutes les 

rencontres avec l’employeur où il est question d’absentéisme. Nous croyons 

que c’est votre droit fondamental en tant qu’infirmière professionnelle 

et membre de l’AIIO. 

En raison de l’importance de ce thème, l’AIIO a conçu un Guide sur la 

gestion des présences, qui a été distribué aux présidents des unités de négociations. 

Veuillez consulter notre site Web dans les semaines à venir ainsi 

que le numéro de Front Lines de cet hiver pour plus de renseignements 

pratiques sur vos droits et les mesures que vous pouvez prendre. De plus, 

nous soumettrons des articles d’opinion à des petits journaux quotidiens 

en Ontario pour aider à informer le public. 

En attendant, si vous éprouvez des difficultés avec le programme de 

gestion des présences de votre hôpital, communiquez avec le président de 

votre unité de négociation afin que l’on puisse vous prêter main forte. 


Message de la directrice generale 

Les infirmières espèrent que les 

« transformations » des soins de santé de l’Ontario 

parviendront à réparer les dommages précédents. 

Le gouvernement libéral de l’Ontario prend en charge la 

« transformation » de notre système de soins de santé provincial. 

C’est dans le milieu des années 1990 que nous avons connu, pour la 

dernière fois, des transformations majeures en Ontario. Le gouvernement 

conservateur alors au pouvoir avait lancé un processus de 

restructuration considérable et bancal dont la mise en œuvre avait pris 

des années. Des millions de dollars ont été dépensés pour fusionner les 

grands hôpitaux et pour amalgamer les organismes de santé. 

Pour les membres de l’AIIO, les plus grandes répercussions de toutes 

ces transformations ont été le déplacement massif des emplois dans le 

secteur des soins infirmiers, la précarisation de la main d’œuvre des 

infirmières, des licenciements, et le début de ce qui allait devenir la 

pénurie des infirmières, réalité à laquelle nous sommes toujours confrontés 

aujourd’hui. 

Nous faisons confiance au gouvernement libéral lorsqu’il parle de 

transformation et, en fait, nous pensons qu’il a vraiment l’intention, ou 

du moins nous l’espérons, de réparer certains dommages précédents. 

Alors qu’un certain nombre d’initiatives importantes ont été rendues 

officielles, nous attendons toujours de voir les subtilités qu’elles comportent. 

Nous allons surveiller de près certaines de ces initiatives clefs et 

nous entendons agir en faisant jouer les pressions politiques et en donnant 

la priorité à : 

• Le Réseau local d’intégration des services de santé (RLISS) 

• une révision du processus d’appel d’offre compétitif pour les soins 

à domicile 

• des ententes de responsabilité pour les hôpitaux conformément au 

projet de loi 8 

• améliorer la création de postes d’infirmières à temps plein 

• impôts supplémentaires pour la santé 

Même si nous avons désormais une vision plus détaillée du RLISS, 

certaines questions demeurent irrésolues et il est encore trop tôt pour 

savoir quel sera l’impact sur nos membres. 

L’AIIO défend l’idée de l’intégration des éléments du système de 

soins de santé en vue d’une meilleure coordination des services qui sera 

plus efficace. L’AIIO est depuis longtemps partisan de service de santé 

intégrés. En 1995, nous avons encouragé le gouvernement conservateur 

à faire tomber les barrières entre tous les secteurs afin de privilégier 

une meilleure communication au sein même du système de santé. 

Nous avions appelé notre conception du système de santé le 

« Integrated Health Delivery Systems ». Notre modèle était destiné à 

faciliter un meilleur accès pour tous les ontariens à un fournisseur de 

soins de santé approprié, à de bons services et au bon moment. 

Tout ce que nous savons aujourd’hui c’est que le RLISS s’occupera de 

coordonner les services de livraison mais n’aura aucun rôle direct en ce 

qui concerne les services cliniques. Ainsi, le rôle du réseau sera principalement 

de planifier, de coordonner, d’intégrer, de gérer et d’assurer 

Lesley Bell, inf. aut., 

Directrice générale 

localement le financement des soins et à l’intérieur de leur zone 

géographique déterminée. Les organismes fournisseurs de soins de 

santé déjà existants continueront à offrir leurs services. 

Quatorze limites géographiques refléteront les zones locales dans 

lesquelles les personnes ont, en règle générale, accès aux soins de 

santé. Ces limites sont « perméables », ce qui signifie que les patients 

et les clients auront la possibilité de choisir leur fournisseur de soins de 

santé de la même façon qu’ils le font avec le système actuel. L’ensemble 

des 14 RLISS s’articuleront autour d’au moins un hôpital à haut volume. 

Favoriser une approche régionale du RLISS est une excellente idée. 

Les limites régionales sont utilisées pour définir les groupes de population 

en vue de la planification sanitaire et de la gestion. L’étude des 

effets des différents composants du système de santé comme les lits 

d’hôpitaux et la disponibilité des médecins dans l’usage de la santé est 

un moyen d’aider à déterminer quels sont les services nécessaires pour 

répondre aux besoins de la population. 

Les lignes de conduite du système RLISS comprennent : 

• un accès équitable défini d’après les besoins des clients. 

• prendre en compte les choix des patients. 

• des soins qui prennent en compte les besoins des patients et des 

communautés et qui répondent à la croissance démographique 

locale. 

Une meilleure intégration des services de soins de santé est, sans 

aucun doute, un objectif général. Toutefois, l’AIIO considère que, 

compte tenu de la pénurie d’infirmières, les financements de soutien 

aux infirmières qui doivent répondre aux besoins courants en soins de 

santé sont insuffisants. Si l’on s’en rapporte aux données du Collège des 

infirmières de l’Ontario, il manque actuellement 8000 infirmières autorisées 

dans la province. 

Nous avons également reçu beaucoup d’informations des administrateurs 

d’hôpital qui déclarent ne pas recevoir assez de financements. 

Nombreux sont les hôpitaux qui enregistrent un déficit qui, leur a-t-on 

dit, devrait être pris en main selon le ministère de la Santé. Il manque 

600 millions de dollars au budget des hôpitaux. 

Dans la mesure où la nature de la relation du RLISS avec les gouvernements 

locaux n’est pas encore clairement définie, nous nous attendons 

à ce que les infirmières locales participent au processus de consultation 

et ce à chaque étape de l’implémentation et après cette 

dernière. 

Il est absolument essentiel que les emplois des infirmières soient 

protégés pendant et après la « transformation ». 

Il ne sera pas facile de transformer notre système de soins de santé, 

mais nous espérons que cette transformation permettra de mettre en 

place un système de soins de santé d’une meilleure qualité et plus sécuritaire 

pour l’ensemble des Ontariens. Nous travaillerons dans ce sens. 


Quality Assurance 

Testing raises concerns 

However, with nursing on the verge of 

major changes as the BScN is ushered in as the 

minimum for entry to practice, and with a large 

number of nurses pegged for retirement in 

2005 – all against the backdrop of an ongoing 

critical nursing shortage – nurses view QA as 

an additional burden and quite challenging. 

“The legislation regulating health professionals 

requires Quality Assurance, but the CNO is 

adding a more onerous responsibility on our 

members with the current process. Our members 

are already contending daily with excessive 

workloads and difficult working conditions, 

and they view this as an additional pressure,” 

said Haslam-Stroud. “We’d like to see the CNO 

develop a more workable process.” 

It isn’t just front-line nurses that must 

undergo the process. The College will soon 

be expanding the QA process to include 

nurse administrators. 

among ONA members 

members indicate they do not support the Practice Review component 

ONA of Quality Assurance testing at the College of Nurses of Ontario (CNO), and 

have sought intervention from ONA on their behalf at the College. 

Practice Review is one component of the Quality Assurance (QA) Program implemented 

by the College in 2002, as required by Ontario legislation, and impacts on 400 randomly 

selected front-line registered nurses each year. It was originally termed “Competence 

Assessment.” The other two components of QA are Reflective Practice and the Practice 

Setting Consultation Program, which are an obligation of all ONA members. 

ONA’s Legal Expenses Assistance Plan (LEAP) Team will act on behalf of ONA members 

at the College if they fail to “exit” or complete successfully the written assessment 

segment of Practice Review. However the plan does not provide coverage for matters 

arising out of the failure to complete the Reflective Practice component. 

Since 1998, all practising nurses in Ontario have been required to participate in the 

QA program. Nurses must complete a declaration of participation in Reflective Practice 

on their annual CNO payment form. 

Some ONA members, who were among those randomly selected to participate in the 

2004 Practice Review, said they have found the experience to be negative. 

“ONA members have commented that the process is “nerve-wracking,” that the test 

is too long, or that it is more than just a review of the standards of practice and thus 

goes beyond professional practice assessment,” said ONA President Linda Haslam- 

Stroud, RN. “They come to ONA for intervention or to ask questions because they are 

concerned.” 

The QA program’s objective is not at issue. The program is 

intended to support nurses in continuously improving their skills, 

facilitate development, encourage practice settings that support 

professional practice and quality care, and increase the public’s 

confidence in the nursing profession. 


QA a legislated requirement 

QA programs are legislated under the provincial 

Regulated Health Professions Act (RHPA), 

which requires them to: 

• randomly assess regulated health professionals’ 

competence. 

• provide feedback to regulated health 

professionals about their practice. 

• identify opportunities for practice 

development. 

QA is meant to ensure the quality of 

practice of all health care professions, and 

to promote continuing competence. QA has 

already been challenged legally without success 

by Respiratory Therapists. 

The CNO 2003 Practice Review report 

states that out of 400 RNs and RPNs selected 

for testing, 86 deferred the process, 313 

exited after a written assessment or behaviour-based 

interview, and one nurse entered 

into Step #3: remediation. 

In summary, the College found that 97 per 

cent of the nurses selected to participate in 

the Practice Review were successful in meeting 

its standards for competence. These are 

excellent results. 

Practice Review process “onerous” 

to overburdened staff RNs

Dissatisfaction with QA increases 

However, as more and more registrants with 

the CNO are randomly being selected to 

write the Practice Review component for QA, 

the dissatisfaction appears to be building. 

ONA has continuously critiqued the QA 

process. ONA helped in developing the fiveyear 

plan for implementation and worked 

hard to ensure that the interests of nurses 

were supported and protected. We continue 

to monitor the process and respond to the 

needs of our members. 

Furthermore ONA continues to provide 

information, guidelines and feedback from 

our members to the CNO. 

Measuring and evaluating competence 

Although each profession has the same goal, 

the approach to assessing the competence 

of practitioners is unique for each regulatory 

body, but they all include systematically 

measuring and evaluating the competence of 

members. 

In reviewing self-regulation approaches for 

other regulated health professions, it is common 

to see the following headings: 

a) Discipline/Competence Proceedings for 

Those Demonstrating Incompetence. 

b) Continuing Education. 

c) Limited Licensing. 

d) Specialist Certification. 

e) Random Practice Review. 

f) Focused Practice Review. 

g) Reflective Practice and Self-Assessment 

Tools. 

h) Publication of Standards and Guidelines 

for Practice. 

i) Voluntary Practice Standards Accreditation. 

j) Re-testing. 

Nursing’s proactive approach 

The goal for nurses is to engage in Reflective 

Practice and continuing improvement opportunities 

on an ongoing basis to ultimately 

ensure they remain competent throughout 

their careers. 

Nursing education itself is geared towards 

a commitment to professional involvement 

and continuous learning. Committed, professional 

nurses in practice are constantly 

learning and incorporating new methods, 

practices and knowledge into their work. 

Practice Review formalizes education 

The development of the CNO’s QA Practice 

Review formalizes its approach to systematically 

measuring and evaluating the competence 

of nurses. 

ONA works collaboratively with the CNO to 

bring issues of practice concern from among its 

membership to the forefront for discussion and 

resolution, and will continue to do so. 

ONA encourage members to continue to 

provide feedback to the Practice Specialists and 

LEAP team as part of the ongoing process. 

Actions ONA has taken on QA testing 

ONA has been providing feedback to the College of Nurses of 

Ontario (CNO) on the development of its Quality Assurance (QA) 

program for registered nurses, since QA was legislated under the 

Regulated Health Professions Act (RHPA) and the Nursing Act in 

1993. 

A group from ONA has been actively participating on QA working 

groups and attending meetings at the College, to ensure the interest 

of front-line staff registered nurses is reflected when new policies or 

operational directions are being debated. ONA is represented at the 

College by President Linda Haslam-Stroud, RN, Chief Executive Officer 

Lesley Bell, RN, First Vice-President Susan Prettejohn, RN (portfolio of 

political action and professional practice), a Labour Relations Officer 

(LRO) from the Legal Expense Assistance Program (LEAP) team, and 

ONA’s Professional Practiced Specialists on the Provincial Services 

Team (PST). 

ONA’s position with the CNO has been to: 

A demand clarification on mandatory participation. 

A demand information-sharing with members on CNO Competence 

Assessment by delivering education memos and offering workshops. 

A support the reflective component of the program only for QA, 

despite the CNO Council’s decision to proceed with the practice 

review. 

A oppose the remediation and competency assessment for the QA 

practice review. 

A provide input on issues of fairness, equality and protection through 

the CNO Competence Assessment. 

A urge the CNO to use QA regulations to improve nursing practice 

within a non-punitive framework (recommending that QA be a 

non-punitive means for improvement). 

A prevent discipline procedures from blurring with QA. 

A support a QA approach based on the assumption that all nurses 

are competent and wish to improve the care they provide. 

A remind QA decision-makers to consider that nurses are frequently 

working in a less-than-ideal environment when making assessments. 

A critique proposed plans. For example, ONA critiqued the pilot test 

for practice review, expressed concerns on the emphasis of specific 

items (e.g. drugs), and worked with the College to put more 

emphasis on standards of practice. 

ONA will continue to be vigilant on quality assurance issues, while 

recognizing the CNO’s role in administering the qualitative component 

for registration. 


The following two 

tables outline QA 

initiatives taken on by 

some colleges under the 

Examples of College Quality Assurance Programs & Initiatives under the 

Regulated Health Professions Act in Ontario 

College 

The Focus of the College’s Quality Assurance Approach 

Approximate Number 

of Regulated Members 

RHPA and other professions 

in Ontario. 

Both tables undertake 

College of Nurses 

of Ontario 

College of Physicians and 

Surgeons of Ontario 

Practice Review, Reflective Practice and the Practice Setting 

Consultation Program. About 400 members are assessed annually. 

Peer Assessment (1980). Participants are chosen on the basis of 

attaining the age of 70 and on random selection under the age 

of 70. About 269 members are assessed annually. 

147,000 members 


an integrated approach 

to competence mandate 

in design and imple- 

Royal College of Dental 

Surgeons of Ontario 

College of Audiologists 

and Speech-Language 

Pathologists of Ontario 

Mandatory Continuing Dental Education and Peer Assessment. 

Self Assessment Tool by random selection of 250 members 

annually. Peer Assessment Program by random selection of 30 

members annually. 

7,000 (including 

800-900 specialists) 

2,680 members 

mentation of the tools. 

College of Respiratory 

Therapists of Ontario 

Professional Portfolio and Professional Standards Assessment. 

About 200 members are assessed annually. 

2,000 members 

Quality Assurance Program Initiatives by Other Professions in Ontario 

* Obtained from respective Colleges July 2004 

Regulating Body 

College of Teachers of 

Ontario 

Institute of Chartered 

Accountants of Ontario 

The focus of Quality Assurance Program 

Teacher Performance Appraisal and Teacher Learning Plans (currently at legislation) conducted 

every three years for experienced teachers and twice for the first two years for new teachers. 

Practice Inspection Program (1980). 

Inspects 2,900 practices annually in a cyclical, modified random basis. 

Approximate Number of Regulated Members 


27,000 (9,800 public practice) members 

* Obtained from respective Colleges and Regulating bodies July 2004. 

Quality Assurance at a glance 

A Nursing is a self-regulated health profession. 

A Regulations under the Ontario Nursing Act (1991) and Regulated 

Health Professions Act (RHPA) state that the regulatory body for 

nursing – the College of Nurses of Ontario (CNO) – must establish 

and operate a Quality Assurance Program for registered nurses and 

registered practical nurses. 

A The two pieces of legislation together determine how the nursing 

profession is regulated in the province of Ontario. The RHPA contains 

procedural codes applicable to all 21 of Ontario’s self-regulated 

health professions. 

A QA for nurses has three components: Reflective Practice (1998), 

Practice Setting Consultation Program (2000) and, most recently, 

Practice Review (2002), which is administered by the CNO’s QA 

Council. 

A Every year nurses practising in Ontario are required to complete the 

Reflective Practice component and declare their participation in the 

program. The declaration appears on the annual CNO payment form. 

A Front-line nurses may be randomly selected to participate in Practice 

Review (formerly known as Competence Assessment). In 2004, 400 

RNs and RPNs were selected. 

A This review is a three-step process that involves progressively more 

in-depth assessments, and a remediation component to address any 

identified learning needs. This is the most recent addition to the QA 

program. 

A Randomized selection is limited to every five years. The Practice Review 

for nurse administrators will begin development in January 2005. 

A The Practice Setting Consultation Program aspect of QA is a voluntary 

initiative. This program is designed to direct quality improvement 

programs to help nurses and their employers build quality practice 

settings and support professional practice. 


QA testing too broad-based to be relevant, says one ONA member 

What has been the experience of frontline 

nurses who have undergone the random 

Practice Review component of the College of 

Nurses of Ontario (CNO) Quality Assurance 

(QA) program? 

Generally speaking, not very positive, 

according to feedback from ONA members. 

One 25-year veteran ONA member, an 

outpatient nurse at a large hospital, was part 

of the first group of nurses to go through 

the Practice Review testing when it was first 

instituted in 2002. 

The nurse, who asked to remain anonymous, 

says she was given very little preparation 

and had no idea what to expect. She says 

the testing was extremely stressful and far 

too long – a total of six hours in two sessions 

within one day. 

“I wouldn’t run to do it again!” she says. 

Her views were consistent with the feedback 

received from other ONA members who have 

undergone the testing. 

While she found the multiple-choice tests 

not very difficult, the nurse says quite a few of 

the questions were not relevant to her area of 

nursing practice. 

“It was essentially basic nursing principles, 

and certainly any nurse in practice should be 

familiar with much of it or they shouldn’t be 

in practice. But there were a lot of case study 

questions about areas of nursing I’ve never had 

to deal with in my entire career – and probably 

never will – such as psychiatric nursing, pediatrics 

and community nursing,” she explains. 

“We had to know the exact wording of the 

nursing standards of practice manual, which I 

don’t think is very helpful and not a fair representation 

of what I know as a nurse. If someone 

asked me how to prepare for the test, I’d 

say memorize the manual word-for-word. To 

me, that doesn’t have much to do with my 

day-to-day work, and it doesn’t make sense 

to ask a hospital nurse of 25 years questions 

about community nursing.” 

She says she wouldn’t be as worried about 

the testing if she got called to do it again having 

now experienced it, although it was very 

stressful the first time around. She also says 

she doesn’t disagree in principle with the idea 

of testing. 

“We need to have some kind of gauge to ensure a nurse’s practice is 

up to standards, but it should be relevant to the work the nurse does 

and not so broad-based,” she says. 

More emphasis should be placed on the self-assessment aspect of 

QA, she adds, enumerating what courses a nurse has taken to upgrade 

her skills. But even then the deck is stacked against a lot of nurses. 

“A lot of nurses just don’t get the time or funding to attend courses 

to upgrade their skills. They’re expected to do that on their own time 

and at their own expense, and that’s not much incentive,” she says. 

ONA is forwarding member feedback to the CNO for review, which 

may result in adjustments to the process. 

One of the most common concerns expressed by the initial group of 

randomly-selected candidates for Practice Review testing was the short 

notice and preparation time they were given. As a result, the CNO is 

now taking steps to give six weeks written notification to those who 

are selected to write the test. 

ONA members also expressed the concern that testing is currently 

only for front-line staff nurses and should include nurse administrators. 

The CNO took this feedback into consideration, and as of January 

2005, the first Practice Review testing will occur for nurse administrators. 

Nurses who have undergone the Practice Review testing are encouraged 

to provide feedback to ONA’s Professional Practice Specialists, 

who will forward the information to the CNO. 

E-mail your feedback to Rozanna Haynes at rozannah@ona.org or 

Mariana Markovic at marianam@ona.org. Phone (toll-free) 1-800-387- 

5580 and press 0, or (416) 964-8833 in Toronto, and dial ext. 2212 for 

Haynes, or ext. 2413 for Markovic. 


Important information for ONA members! 

The ONA Board of Directors recently passed a policy on 

union representation in critical incident meetings. 

The policy establishes guidelines for ONA staff and local leaders 

who are giving advice to members involved in a critical incident in 

the workplace (i.e. where a patient is unexpectedly injured or dies). 

A critical incident meeting is not the same as debriefs that occur after 

emotional events or violent incidents. 

If you are involved in a critical incident at work, you are often 

involved in some type of follow-up with your employer. This followup 

can take many forms, including: an informal investigation by the 

immediate manager; a “critical incident debrief,” as recommended by 

the College of Nurses of Ontario (CNO); a Risk Management/Quality 

Assurance review; a formal disciplinary meeting; or a malpractice 

investigation by the hospital’s insurers. 

ONA Nurse Representatives, Bargaining Unit Presidents and Local 

Coordinators are often asked by members how they should respond to 

a request for participation in critical injury follow-up. Regardless of the 

nature of the follow-up, information you provide may subsequently be 

used against you if the incident becomes subject to a legal proceeding, 

such as a Coroner’s Inquest, a CNO complaint, a civil action or a criminal 

investigation. 

On the other hand, as an employee of the agency, you have certain 

obligations to respond to your employers’ reasonable requests for 

information. 

Serious critical incidents 

If a critical incident meets any of the following criteria, you 

should contact ONA’s Legal Expense Assistance Plan (LEAP) Intake 

for counselling before making any statements to, or participating in 

any meetings with the police, the coroner or the employer: 

• The death of a patient is being investigated or is likely to be 

investigated by the police or the coroner. 

• Allegations of criminal actions have been made against you, such 

as sexual assault, assault or other criminal actions. 

If the LEAP Team determines you require representation in a criminal 

or coroner’s investigation, they will provide you with a referral to 

legal counsel. You will also be advised to speak with counsel prior to 

making statements or participating in any meetings. 

If legal representation is not required, you will be provided with 

general advice on participating in an investigation of the police or 

coroner’s office (refer to ONA’s LEAP Guide), and will be advised to 

contact your Labour Relations Officer (LRO) prior to making any 

statement or participating in any meeting with your employer. 

During regular ONA hours, contact LEAP 

Intake by phoning ONA head office at 

1-800-387-5580 (toll-free) and dial 0, or call 

(416) 964-8833 in Toronto. Outside of regular 

office hours, contact the ONA Board of 

Directors Intake phone line at ext. 7775 after 

dialing the toll-free or Toronto number. 

All other critical incidents 

For all other critical incidents, your LRO 

and/or Local leaders can provide assistance. 

Notes regarding a critical incident 

Your notes concerning a critical incident 

can be used against you if they are made 

available to anyone other than your advisors. 

• The incident should be fully charted in 

the patient’s medical record and incident 

reports in the normal course. This 

includes assessments, actions, reports to 

physicians and other health care professionals, 

and communications with family. 

Late entries should be made to include 

previously omitted information. Late 

entries are permissible but should be 

timed, dated and identified as a late entry. 

• Personal notes made after the incident 

should be labeled “made for my lawyer,” 

and not provided to any person in management; 

they can be provided to union 

representatives. 

• Reasonable requests from the employer 

for further written information – other 


Employer investigations: meetings with individual members 

Employers have control of any information provided to them in an interview; they 

may treat it as privileged and maintain it as confidential, or they may share it with others. 

Therefore, it could be relied upon in a legal proceeding. 

• If you are asked to attend a meeting with management to explain your part in a critical 

incident, you are required to attend. 

• As an ONA member, you are entitled to have union representation. Request representation. 

• Any notes of the meeting should be written immediately following the meeting. 

• If asked for information, make reference to the patient chart. 

• If information other than what is in the patient chart is asked for, insist on adequate time 

to respond with reference to the chart. Limit additional information to the facts in which 

you were directly involved. Do not allow speculation, fault-finding or second-guessing. 

• If you are blamed for the incident, further information should not be provided without 

first seeking advice from your LRO. 

• If you have concerns regarding potential involvement of the police, the coroner or the 

regulatory college, contact LEAP Intake. 

than what is in the patient chart – 

are responded to if the information is 

straightforward and fact-based. The chart 

should be referred to before any further 

information is provided to ensure consistency. 

Critical incident debrief/risk 

management meetings 

– group meetings 

Information shared in a group meeting 

will not usually be treated as privileged. 

Therefore, evidence of what you say, as 

recorded in notes or as recollected by someone 

who was there, could be relied upon in a 

legal proceeding. 

• You must attend if ordered to do so by 

your employer, or you may attend if you 

wish to hear what is being said. 

• If you attend, you should listen to what 

is being said by the employer, but be 

extremely cautious in what you say. For 

example you should: 

- not recite times and sequences of 

events especially without reference to 

the chart. 

- not express an opinion of fault/wrongdoing 

either regarding your own behaviour 

or that of others. 

- not speculate on what happened or 

what could have been done differently. 

Malpractice lawsuits 

When a patient or family sues a hospital or other agency for alleged negligence, 

individual nurses will often be named in the lawsuit, together with the employer and physicians. 

The hospital has an obligation to carry malpractice insurance, and with certain exceptions, 

defend employees being sued for negligent care. The employees have a corresponding 

obligation to cooperate in the defence. 

• If you are personally named in a lawsuit, contact the Administrator of ONA’s Liability Plan 

at ONA’s head office in Toronto. Malpractice insurance is extra insurance coverage ONA 

provides for members if the employer’s primary insurance is inadequate to cover the claim. 

• If asked, you should attend a meeting with risk management, insurance investigators or 

the employer’s lawyers, to assist in the defence of a malpractice lawsuit. 

• Union representation at these meetings is not usually required and may be objected to, 

because having a third person present will waive the privilege that otherwise makes the 

information disclosed in these meetings confidential. 

• Ask your employer to provide assurances in writing that no information disclosed in the 

meeting will be provided to a third party without written consent. 

• If you are not named in a lawsuit, but are asked to provide a written or verbal statement 

to your employer regarding a lawsuit or potential lawsuit, contact the Professional 

Liability Insurance Plan by calling Strategy Intake at ONA head office. 

Where to get help when dealing with Critical Incidents 

Call ONA head office at 1-800-387-5580 (toll free) and press 0, or (416) 964-8833 

(in Toronto) and use the following options: 

A For advice on serious critical incidents ask for LEAP Team Intake. Outside of office 

hours, contact the ONA Board of Directors Intake phone line at ext. #7775. 

A For advice on other critical incidents, contact your Labour Relations Officer (LRO) 

or Local leaders. 

A If you are personally named in a lawsuit, contact the Administrator of ONA’s 

Liability Plan. 


A look back at the Health Care Summit in Ottawa: 

CFNU pressed politicians for 

money, accountability 

The hall was empty. CBC television 

anchor Peter Mansbridge engaged in the 

verbal tap dance that passes for TV coverage, 

when all of a sudden the news doesn’t happen. 

So went the second day of the most 

important Canadian health care meeting in 

a generation. The prospects for a renewed 

Medicare were dim. 

Two days earlier, the outlook was brighter. 

Federal Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh was 

the keynote speaker at a Sunday night Canadian 

Federation of Nurses Unions (CFNU) 

reception in Ottawa. Dosanjh said the federal 

government was a bit flexible on money, and 

not-for-profit health care would be protected. 

Premiers John Hamm (Nova Scotia) and Lorne 

Calvert (Saskatchewan), who also attended the 

reception, seemed upbeat and hopeful. 

The next morning it was apparent that previous 

CFNU lobbying efforts were working. 

In the nationally-televised opening session, 

a number of premiers spoke in particular of 

the nursing shortage and their commitment 

to public health care. But hope began to fade 

by mid-afternoon on Day One. Premier Klein 

left for an “oil meeting.” That night, negotiations 

at the Prime Minister’s residence went 

late but not well. 

By Day Two, the wheels had come off. 

Tired, surly premiers grumbled to reporters 

as they walked into the conference centre 

that morning. Prime Minister Paul Martin 

didn’t show up. The real action at the Health 

Care Summit slipped behind the scenes 

– into the backrooms. 

Meanwhile, the CFNU National Executive 

Board (NEB) worked an inside-outside 

strategy. 

CFNU President Linda Silas, British 

Columbia Nurses Union (BCNU) President 

Debra McPherson and Nova Scotia Nurses 

Union (NSNU) President Janet Hazelton, 

used their political contacts to get access to 

the heavily guarded meeting site – where 

the decision-makers and half of the national 

media were. 

Meanwhile, CFNU Secretary-Treasurer Pauline 

Worsfold, Saskatchewan Union of Nurses 

(SUN) President Rosalee Longmoore, Newfoundland 

& Labrador Nurses Union (NLNU) 

President Debbie Forward, Ontario Nurses’ 

Association (ONA) First Vice-President Susan 

Prettejohn, and BCNU Vice-President Anne 

Shannon monitored the news coverage from a 

media centre across the street, rushing out to 

do interviews when the media outside of the 

conference site looked for comment. 

“You can only starve the system of money 

for so long. At the same time, it was also clear 

that, as (Health Care Commissioner Roy) 

Romanow pointed out, we need the money 

spent on specific reforms,” said CFNU President 

Linda Silas. 

“Our strategy works two ways: you talk 

to them directly, if you can get to them. 

You also talk to them indirectly through the 

media, because staffers monitor the media 

and report to bosses,” asserted CFNU Secretary-Treasurer 

Pauline Worsfold. 

The Premiers demanded $36 billion, and 

the federal government offered $9 billion. It 

seemed like an unbridgeable gap. The Premiers 

demanded the money without restrictions 

on how it could be spent. The Prime 

Minister demanded accountability. That was 

Day Two. 

By the third day, the Prime Minister offered 

more money and the Premiers demanded less. 

Compromise on money seemed in sight, but 

there was no word on accountability. 

The Prime Minister dug 

in and the talks came to a halt. 

Tempers were stretched. 

While this drama unfolded, 

CFNU leaders lobbied decision-makers 

and the media. 

Between the outsiders 

and the insiders, the 

nurses buttonholed a 

number of premiers 

and health ministers. 

No microphone was 

turned away – at 

least 50 interviews 

were given. 

“By the end of the 

summit, we knew the 

message was delivered, 

but we didn’t know if it affected the final 

agreement,” said Silas. 

When the decision was announced at 1 

a.m. on Thursday morning, it was clear some 

of the nurses’ message got through. 

Speaking to the national media, Roy 

Romanow referred to the $18 billion deal as 

“Romanow Plus,” meaning the money was 

slightly more than enough to enact the reforms 

he outlined in his report. Asked about accountability, 

he noted the agreement required provinces 

to report to the federal government on 

how the monies will be spent. 

CFNU President Linda Silas had a somewhat 

different take. 

“The money is great but the accountability 

aspects aren’t good enough. They will ‘study’ 

pharmacare, which is better than the first 

federal response. But the protection for notfor-profit 

health care is non-existent, and 

there are no details on how they plan to fix 

the nursing shortage,” said Silas. 

“In the upcoming meetings to flesh-out agreement 

details, we know what needs to be done. 

And the leaders know now that CFNU and our 

member organizations aren’t going away.” 

Silas said CFNU needs to build a network 

able to deliver phone calls from across the 

country to the premiers and Prime Minister. 

“When we press decision-makers on nurses’ 

priorities, they need to hear from nurses 

on the front lines of health care. It really 

could make the difference,” she concluded. 


Living with it 

Critical illness insurance – it’s an uncomfortable subject … 

yet it’s one more and more people are forced to talk about, as they 

struggle with the realities of living with a critical illness. 

The adage “it will never happen to me” is no longer valid, as critical 

illnesses begin to hit closer to home. Today, nearly everyone knows 

someone who’s been diagnosed with a condition such as cancer, heart 

disease or stroke. 

The good news is that with advancements in medical science, more 

people are beating the odds and living longer, healthier lives, even after 

the first occurrence of an illness. However, most people are financially 

ill-prepared for the changes in lifestyle they need to make. 

Times have changed, and so have the insurance needs of Canadians. 

That’s where critical illness insurance comes into play. 

A critical difference 

While critical illness insurance is still relatively new in the 

overall insurance marketplace, it is becoming increasingly popular. 

Surviving a critical illness is something to celebrate and should not 

be a bittersweet experience tarnished with financial catastrophe. 

“Traditionally, when people thought about their insurance needs, 

they thought of life insurance. While life insurance is important, it’s 

really a ‘death benefit’… something paid to your heirs after you’ve 

passed away,” says Doug Curtis, head of Business Development at 

Federated Life Insurance of Canada. 

“What makes critical illness so valuable is the fact that it’s a ‘living 

benefit.’ It provides you and your family with the money you need to 

live with a critical illness, helping you make it through some potentially 

tough financial challenges.” 

Financial challenges of critical illnesses 

The financial challenges of living with a critical illness can vary 

dramatically from person to person. For example, critical illness 

insurance benefits are often used to pay for home health care or for 

drug prescriptions that aren’t covered by OHIP. 

The money can go towards making renovations to a home, such as 

adding a wheelchair ramp for improved mobility. It can also provide 

a financial “cushion” to help meet the monthly financial demands 

when your pay may be interrupted. 

The lack of restrictions placed on how people can spend their 

money is a large part of the appeal of critical insurance – and certainly 

one of its greatest advantages. 

“It’s important for people to be able to use their insurance money 

as they see fit. No one can understand how your life has changed 

and where your priorities lie. Critical illness coverage offers you the 

freedom to make the choices you feel are in the best interests of you 

and your family,” explains Curtis. 

Critical illness insurance isn’t planning for 

the worst, it’s preparing for the best. 

Insurance about living 

For some people – often those who 

are diagnosed in an advanced stage 

of illness – critical illness insurance 

represents something that has no price 

tag, the opportunity to make a dream 

come true. 

Some people choose to use their critical 

illness coverage to take their family 

on a special trip or vacation that 

will leave everyone with lasting, happy 

memories. Others might choose to make 

a dream purchase or go on a personal 

adventure. Regardless of what a person 

chooses to do with their critical illness 

insurance, the emphasis is on living – which 

some people would say is exactly what insurance 

should be about. 

“Critical illness isn’t about planning for 

the worst, it’s planning for recovery,” says 

Curtis. “It’s looking beyond the initial diagnosis 

with an eye towards the future. It’s 

acknowledging that life might change, but 

that you’re determined to have some say in 

how that change will affect you. And that’s 

the kind of positive and determined outlook 

you need to have when dealing with a critical 

illness.” 

Determining your direction 

So when should people start thinking 

about critical illness insurance? As with any 

kind of insurance, the best answer is “the 

sooner the better.” Critical illness insurance 

is about peace of mind, knowing you’re covered 

if and when you need that coverage. 

Today, you can purchase critical illness 

insurance over the phone in as little as 15 

minutes. And who knows how critical that 

one call may be to your future? 

Just remember; it’s not about critical illness. 

It’s about how you choose to live with it. 

For more information on critical illness 

coverage, please call Johnson Inc. at 1-800- 

461-4597. 


COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UPDATE 

Hospital Sector 

Regularly scheduled bargaining talks 

in the hospital sector have concluded 

unsuccessfully, and ONA’s Hospital Central 

Negotiating Team (HCNT) and the Ontario 

Hospital Association (OHA) are now heading 

for mediation/arbitration. 

ONA is seeking a new collective agreement 

for 45,000 members in the hospital 

sector, while the OHA represents 136 participating 

hospitals. Mediation/arbitration 

is scheduled for February 18-20, 2005. 

The HCNT and OHA met from September 

27 through to October 1, and came to an 

agreement on a number of items. 

ONA’s proposals reflect members’ priorities, 

identified through membership research, and 

also their expectations since the SARS tragedy. 

The proposals include improvements in 

the following areas (this is a partial list): 

• wages. 

• retirement issues, including benefits, 

severance packages and pensions. 

• benefits. 

• leaves, including vacation, professional, 

personal and compassionate leave. 

• premiums, including recognition-forresponsibility, 

weekend, evening, nights 

and on-call. 

To coincide with the stalemate in bargaining, 

ONA launched an important public 

ONA works to make sure mandatory retirement 

changes do not undermine members’ rights 

With plans to end mandatory retirement in Ontario, the provincial government 

began public consultations in September. Ending mandatory retirement will require amendments 

to the Ontario Human Rights Code as well as other provincial legislation, and could have 

a serious impact on ONA members. 

ONA opposes any action or initiative by employers or government that would force 

nurses to work beyond normal retirement age, including any increase in the minimum age 

to qualify for social security and other retirement benefits. 

ONA will be working on behalf of members to ensure that legislative changes affecting mandatory 

retirement do not undermine their existing rights or entitlements. 

In view of this, the ONA Board of Directors has approved the following position statement: 

Statement on Mandatory Retirement 

The demanding nature of nursing employment has led the Ontario Nurses’ Association 

(ONA) to negotiate and advocate for pensions and benefits that would allow our members 

to retire with financial security at the earliest age possible. 

This includes ongoing initiatives directed at maintaining income and benefits for retirees as 

close as possible to pre-retirement levels. 

For the small minority of nurses who are both willing and able to work beyond the normal 

retirement age, ONA believes they should have the option to do so. These members should 

suffer no loss of wages or benefits for post-normal retirement age employment. 

ONA also recognizes that members approaching retirement age possess a wealth of 

skills, knowledge and experience that may be lost to the health care system with retirements. 

Accordingly, ONA promotes positive measures, such as mentorship positions, that 

would facilitate the transfer of these skills and knowledge, and allow those remaining in 

the system to benefit from their experiences. We believe such initiatives would retain more 

of our senior members in the system for a longer period of time, and potentially beyond 

the normal retirement age. 

ONA opposes any action or initiative by employers or governments, which is intended, 

no matter how subtle, to force nurses to work beyond normal retirement age, including any 

increase to the minimum age to qualify for social security and other retirement benefits. 


awareness campaign, “Still Not Enough 

Nurses. Act now! Patients can’t wait.”, at 

the Biennial Convention in November. 

At a media conference in front of ONA 

delegates, ONA President Linda Haslam- 

Stroud, RN, indicated the campaign alerts 

the public that urgent changes are needed 

to add more nurses to deliver the care that 

patients in Ontario need. 

“Nurses have an obligation to make sure 

the public knows excessive workloads for 

nurses are leading to stress, absenteeism 

and increased workplace injury and illness, 

which can prevent them from providing 

quality patient care,” said Haslam-Stroud. 

As part of the campaign, postcards signed 

by ONA members and the public will be given 

to Ontario Minister of Health and Long-Term 

Care George Smitherman, demanding the 

government fund the 8,000 new full-time 

nursing jobs that were promised. 

“We remain committed to obtaining a 

contract for our members that respects the 

work we do every day, the value we give to 

the health care system, and one which will 

address the crippling nursing shortage. We 

believe our campaign will help us achieve 

that goal,” said Haslam-Stroud. 

The HCNT welcomes your input. To contact 

the team, please call ONA President Linda 

Haslam-Stroud, RN, at 1-800-387-5580, ext. 

2254. You can also e-mail Linda at lindahs@ona. 

org. Linda will forward messages to the HCNT. 

To reach the HCNT’s voice-mail box, dial 

1-800-387-5580, ext. 7740. 

Planning 

next steps 

… ONA Homes Central 

Bargaining Team members 

Marie Haase, RN, from 

Region 4 (left), and third-year 

chair Bernadette Lamourie, 

RN, talk strategy after 

talks broke down during 

conciliation in October. 

Arbitration is scheduled for 

January and February.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UPDATE 

Long-Term Care 

Nursing Homes 

Nursing homes provincial bargaining 

for about 2,000 ONA members concluded 

without a settlement, following mediation 

with Kevin Burkett, November 12- 

14. The issues are primarily monetary. 

ONA and participating nursing homes 

now proceed to arbitration, with dates set 

for January 19, February 3 and February 

11, 2005. 

Homes for the Aged 

Homes for the Aged are “not for profit” 

long term care facilities. There are two types: 

1. Charitable homes, governed by the 

Charitable Institutions Act. 

2. Municipal homes, governed by the Homes 

for the Aged and Rest Homes Act. 

ONA represents about 70 homes for the 

aged employers, 30 per cent of which are 

charitable homes. 

Wage grids at charitable and municipal 

homes, almost without exception, are at 

least equal to the hospital grid. To date, 

group bargaining only involves municipal 

homes in eastern Ontario. 

Community Care Access Centres 

(CCACs) 

ONA has members in 30 bargaining 

units at 28 CCACs across Ontario. The 

majority of members are Case Managers 

and Placement Coordinators. But there 

are also two bargaining units of allied workers, 

Brant CCAC and Halton CCAC. 

Members in this sector have the right to 

strike if they reach an impasse in bargaining, 

and their employers have the right to lock 

them out. The one exception is West Parry 

Sound CCAC, where dispute resolution is 

through binding arbitration under the Hospital 

Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA). 

In the last round of bargaining, nine CCACs 

bargained centrally with ONA for collective 

agreements that expired March 31, 2004. 

ONA members voted against participation 

in a central process for the current 

round of bargaining, and consequently all 

negotiations are proceeding individually. 

Home Care Providers 

ONA represents RNs, RPNs and some 

allied members in the home care provider 

sector. These providers include the Victorian 

Order of Nurses (VON), St. Elizabeth Health 

Care, Comcare, Para-Med, etc. 

These nurses provide care in the community, 

such as visiting clients in their 

homes as well as provide shift nursing, foot 

care clinics, wellness clinics, etc. These services 

are awarded to the agency through the 

Request for Proposal (RFP) process through 

their area CCAC. 

Most of the members in this sector are 

part-time or casual, with wages considerably 

lower than their counterparts in the 

hospital sector. This group of members has 

the right to strike. 

Each agency bargains separately, and 

therefore all of their collective agreements 

are different. Wages and working conditions 

vary widely from one area to another. 

Industry and Clinics 

ONA has members in 18 bargaining 

units. This group is made up of Canadian 

Blood Services, GM, Chryslers, Colleges/ 

Universities and other clinic settings. The 

majority of the members are RNs. 

Members in this sector have the right to 

strike if they reach an impasse in bargaining, 

and their employers have the right to 

lock them out. 

Criteria for assisting on LTD 

appeals being developed 

Due to the very tight time limits 

insurance companies set for appealing 

their decisions to deny or terminate a 

member’s claim for Long-Term Disability 

(LTD) benefits, ONA is developing criteria 

establishing conditions under which ONA 

staff will assist a member with an appeal. 

The criteria will be outlined in ONA 

membership publications, Vision and Front 

Lines, once finalized. 

In the meantime, any ONA member 

who has had her or his claim for LTD benefits 

denied or terminated should: 

• Contact the ONA rep in the bargaining 

unit as soon as she or he receives the 

insurance company’s decision. 

• Contact the Labour Relations Officer 

(LRO) for the bargaining unit, as 

advised by the ONA rep, immediately. 

• Prepare to discuss her or his case with 

an LRO by assembling the following: 

- a list of all medical conditions that 

contribute to the disability, which led 

to the claim for benefits. 

- all available medical documents supporting 

the claim. 

- all correspondence with the insurance 

company or the employer 

regarding the claim, including copies 

of the application forms. 

- a list of all doctors involved in 

diagnosis or treatment of the 

condition(s) that led to the claim 

for LTD benefits, with the name, 

address, telephone number, fax number 

and area of practice of each. 

- a chronological record of the history 

of disability, including the first date 

of absence due to the condition(s) 

resulting in disability, and visits to 

doctors. 

- a list of treatments tried and how 

effective they were. 


First Vice-President’s Message 

Susan Prettejohn 

ONA First Vice-President 

Nursing needs input into 

implementation of LHINs 

Ontario will 

be undergoing 

some major 

changes in the 

coming months 

and year, and 

people need to 

be aware of how 

this will impact 

on them and their 

communities. 

One of my recent speaking engagements was to 

northern Ontario residents at a Northeastern Ontario 

Health Coalition public forum on Medicare, held in 

Iroquois Falls on October 27. 

I devoted my time to talking about the impact of decisions 

made at the First Minister’s Conference in Ottawa 

recently on Canada’s national public health care system, 

and also spent considerable time talking about the 

Ontario picture, the nursing shortage and privatization. 

Also speaking at the public forum from ONA was 

Diane Parker, Vice-President for Region 1, who devoted 

her comments to an overview of what we know about 

Local Health Integrated Networks (LHINs), although 

we are unable to determine at this time what the impact 

of these networks will be on the public and on ONA 

members. Parker also talked about issues of particular 

concern to health professionals who work in northern 

Ontario communities. 

There will be a series of town hall meetings on LHINS 

in Ontario in the coming months. It’s important to keep 

up to date on this issue to ensure that nursing has a voice 

in the implementation of LHINs. 

It is always gratifying to speak at public forums to get 

a sense of what the concerns are specific to a community, 

and also to get an idea of how they view the “bigger picture.” 

Ontario will be undergoing some major changes 

in the coming months and year, and people need to be 

aware of how this will impact on them and their communities. 

In terms of Medicare, people across Ontario share the 

belief, along with most Canadians, that our national public 

health care system should be protected and enhanced. 

This sentiment was echoed by the residents I spoke to at 

the northern Ontario public forum. 

Few take issue with the five pillars of the Canada 

Health Act: public administration, accessibility, portability, 

comprehensiveness and universality. 

When the Romanow Commission toured the country 

last year, soliciting views and ideas about the future of 

Medicare from organizations like ONA as well as ordinary 

Canadians, one common element came shining 

through – the strong desire to protect Medicare, and to 

strengthen and expand it. 

Canadians want universal access to health care. They 

want a national publicly-funded health care system. They 

want portability and comprehensiveness, and they want 

to incorporate a plan that covers all sectors, including 

community and public health. 

The deal negotiated recently by the First Ministers 

provides for a 10-year plan to strengthen health care. At 

the heart of it was a promised $18 billion more in funding 

over six years, with total federal funding for health 

care to reach $41 billion over 10 years. Ontario’s share is 

to be about $800 million this fiscal year and $1.2 billion 

per year for the next six years. 

Adequate health funding is an important first step to 

sustaining our health care system, resolving the nursing 

shortage and achieving better quality patient care. 

However, the main objective of the deal – to reduce waiting 

times for surgery – will be hard to achieve without a 

solid human resources plan for the retention and recruitment 

of more front-line nurses. 

There are currently not enough nurses now to deliver 

safe, quality care, and the shortage may get worse as 

some 40 per cent of the current nursing workforce gets 

set to take early retirement within the next few years. 

This has to be addressed if the problems in the system, 

like lengthy waiting times for cardiac care or cancer care, 

are to be resolved. 

Ontario has emerged as a funding battleground, with 

more than 150 public hospitals facing a cash crunch 

to the tune of $600 million, despite $469.5 million in 

additional funding. The Liberal government has been 

directing hospitals to get “their books in order” by next 

year. Unfortunately, we’ve already heard employers say 

they may have to lay off nurses, something Ontario can 

ill afford given the current nursing shortage. 

Health employers must have the funding to negotiate 

wages and benefits that will provide an incentive for 

nurses to stay in Ontario, attract new people to the profession, 

and bring back nurses who have left. 

If we’re going to stem the exodus of nurses and bring 

our nursing workforce back up to an appropriate nurseto-patient 

ratio that will ensure safe, quality patient care, 

these issues will have to be dealt with. 

Under professional practice, I’m pleased to tell you we 

have developed a new community workload form, which 

will be available in the new year. 

The Guidelines for Professional Development 

Committees document has also now been distributed. 


QUEEN’S PARK UPDATE 

Competitive bidding process for home care under review; 

former Health Minister Elinor Caplan heads team 

The Ontario government has appointed 

the Honourable Elinor Caplan to conduct a 

review of the Community Care Access Centre 

(CCAC) competitive bidding process. Her sixmonth 

review commenced November 1, 2004. 

The review will consist of three segments: 

1. Two months touring the province consulting 

with stakeholders and gathering 

information. 

2. Two months analyzing data and studies. 

3. Two months consulting on draft recommendations 

and final report writing by 

the end of April. 

Her mandate is to review the bidding process 

for home care services to determine: 

• the impact of the current process on 

the quality and price of services delivered 

to clients. 

• if the process can be improved to support 

the quality and continuity of care 

to clients as well as greater stability in 

the workforce. 

• if the resources needed by CCACs and 

service providers to carry out the current 

competitive bidding policy are 

reasonable. 

• if the current mechanisms for continually 

improving the method of selecting 

service providers can be enhanced. 

• the effectiveness of the health ministry's 

role in supporting the competitive 

bidding policy. 

The government says the purpose of the 

review is to ensure the competitive bidding 

process “supports the very highest quality of 

care, human resource stability, and delivers 

the very best possible value for money spent 

on home care services in Ontario.” 

During the review period, CCACs will 

proceed with Request for Proposals (RFPs)/ 

tenders currently issued and/or closed, will 

extend existing home care provider contracts 

where possible, and no new RFP proposals 

will be issued unless absolutely necessary. 

The review will include a look at procurement 

policies and procedures, and interviews 

with clients, associations, CCAC staff, service 

providers, unions and Minstry of Health 

Changes to OHIP-Insured Eye Care Services 

The Ontario government has changed its policy on coverage of routine eye exams. 

Effective November 1, 2004, people with medical conditions affecting eyesight receive 

increased coverage, while adults between the ages of 20 and 64 will no longer be covered. 

Nearly 600,000 Ontarians with conditions like diabetes, glaucoma and cataracts are now 

eligible to receive an OHIP-insured major eye exam once a year. 

Protecting Personal Health Information 

The Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 became law on November 1, 2004. 

This legislation sets out the rules that health care providers and organizations (or “health information 

custodians”) must follow when collecting, using and sharing personal health information. 

It also gives Ontarians the right to see their health records and correct mistakes. The Information 

and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario will be responsible for ensuring that health information custodians 

comply with the new law. The analysis of this Act forwarded to Local Coordinators and 

Bargaining Unit Presidents is available on the member side of ONA’s Web site. 

Takeover of Muskoka-Parry Sound Board of Health 

staff. Caplan is to report back to the Health 

Minister with recommendations within six 

months. 

On November 5, 2004, ONA representatives 

met with Elinor Caplan to review the scope of 

her mandate and to outline for her the unique 

challenges faced by fron-tline nurses to deliver 

quality home care services in the context 

of competition for contracts. Compensation 

practices, professional development, mentorship, 

successor rights and essential service 

designation are key components of a reformed 

home care system in Ontario if competitive 

bidding is not eliminated. 

Dr. Sheela Basrur, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health, assumed control of the 

Muskoka-Parry Sound Board of Health, effective October 22, 2004, following the release of an 

assessor’s report that concluded the Muskoka-Parry Sound Board of Health needed a complete 

overhaul. The assessor determined the most effective outcome would be to merge the District 

of Muskoka with the Simcoe County District Health Unit, and the District of Parry Sound 

with the North Bay and District Health Unit. A draft merger plan is due February 15, 2005. 

Enhancing the Independence of Chief Medical Officer of Health 

Health Minister George Smitherman introduced amendments to the Health 

Protection and Promotion Act on October 14, 2004. The amendments follow recommendations 

made by the expert panel on SARS and Infectious Disease Control, as well as those by Justice 

Archie Campbell in his interim report on the SARS crisis. Both reports called for the Chief 

Medical Officer of Health to report to the legislature annually on the state of Ontario’s public 

health, and to have the authority to make other reports to Ontarians whenever necessary. 

The Chief Medical Officer of Health would also serve as Assistant Deputy Minister, taking 

on an active leadership role in setting public health policy and overseeing operations of the 

Health Ministry’s public health division. ONA made a number of key submissions to the 

SARS Commission and issued a media release on April 20, 2004 calling on the government to 

implement the recommendations contained in the SARS Commission’s interim report. 


AWARDS AND DECISIONS SUMMARY 

ONA wins OLRB grievances, unfair labour practice complaints 

stemming from SARS crisis 

In a recent letter to ONA Chief Executive 

Officer Lesley Bell, RN, the Ministry of 

Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) 

acknowledged “the professionalism, dedication 

and responsiveness shown by nurses 

during the SARS emergency.” 

The letter, which was distributed recently 

to all ONA Local Coordinators and 

Bargaining Unit Presidents, nearly concludes 

a difficult chapter in ONA history. The letter 

was written in response to an important 

Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) 

decision in ONA’s favour, stemming from the 

SARS crisis. 

Still outstanding is ONA’s lawsuit against 

the Ontario government, launched in March 

2004 on behalf of 30 members and their families, 

who were severely impacted by SARS. 

The lawsuit claims the government failed 

to properly enforce legislated occupational 

health and safety standards in hospitals, and 

that its workplace safety precautions failed to 

protect the nurses. Two ONA members died 

from SARS. 

In the OLRB action, ONA filed grievances 

and unfair labour practice complaints against 

the MOHLTC, six Toronto Hospitals and the 

Ontario Hospital Association (OHA) in June 

2003, for ”excessive use of agency registered 

nurses and paying unauthorized premium 

payments/enhancement packages to certain 

nurses throughout the SARS emergency.” 

ONA also made a related employer application 

at the OLRB that was intended to bring 

agency nurses within the scope of the collective 

agreement. The OLRB decision, released 

on October 20, 2004, found the six hospitals 

had violated the provisions of Sections 70 

and 73 of the Labour Relations Act (LRA). 

“The OLRB decision is important for ONA 

and our members in that it makes it clear 

we are the bargaining agent and must be in 

agreement with any action that is a collec- 


tive agreement matter,” said ONA President 

Linda Haslam-Stroud, RN. “It demonstrates 

to employers that ONA takes its rights under 

the Act seriously, and will continue to defend 

them on behalf of our members.” 

ONA filed the complaints when the hospitals 

unilaterally paid some nurses working 

with SARS patients double-time rates, and/or 

provided an extensive list of enhancement 

packages (including vacation and spa packages, 

paid time off, etc). Other nurses were 

not offered premiums enhancements, even 

though they suffered many of the same pressures. 

At the same time, some hospitals used 

agency nurses far beyond what is permitted 

in the collective agreement. To compound 

the concern, these agency workers were paid 

double, and in some cases, triple the rates 

paid to bargaining unit members – a practice 

that was to some extent directly funded by 

the MOHLTC. None of these actions was 

discussed with or agreed to by ONA. 

The hospitals and ONA agreed on all the 

facts put before the OLRB in the complaints, 

including the hospitals’ admission that their 

actions constituted a violation of the LRA. 

As a result, the only outstanding issue for 

the Board to determine was the appropriate 

remedy. 

ONA sought damages for individual nurses 

at the six hospitals, however OLRB jurisprudence 

confirms that only the union is 

entitled to damages where the employer has 

violated the LRA. 

In its decision, the OLRB ordered the 

hospitals to: 

• stop negotiating terms and conditions 

of employment directly with bargaining 

unit members. 

• stop extending extra compensation to 

bargaining unit members without ONA’s 

prior agreement. 

• post a copy of the decision on all hospital 

bulletin boards with ONA access, 

and internal Web sites. 

• discuss and resolve remedies for compensating 

ONA and its bargaining units 

for losses attributable to violations of 

the LRA. 

Subsequently, the hospitals and ONA 

agreed on the following: 

• the six hospitals will collectively pay to 

ONA $50,000 (partially offsets incurred 

costs). 

• each hospital will pay to its respective 

ONA bargaining unit $5,000 (partially 

offsets incurred costs). 

• each hospital will pay to its respective 

ONA bargaining unit an amount equal 

to one-half of the union dues paid to 

ONA for the month of June 2004 for the 

particular bargaining unit. 

• the decision will be posted on hospital 

bulletin boards and Web sites. 

• ONA will withdraw its grievances related 

to double-pay and enhancements 

given/paid to bargaining units during 

the SARS crisis. 

“We are very pleased with the OLRB decision. 

It reaffirms that our members’ rights 

under the established collective agreement 

must be adhered to, and that employers must 

be rigorous in upholding the legislation,” 

said Haslam-Stroud. 

“However, we must never forget the lessons 

we learned from SARS or the nurses 

who fell ill or died. We must remain vigilant 

that proper health and safety protocols are 

followed, and that front-line health care 

workers are protected while they are doing 

the job of caring for patients.” 

ONA members from the six affected bargaining 

units will determine how the June 

2004 dues monies will utilized.


Rights Awards 

SARS brings limits on hospitals’ use 

of agency nurses 

ONA and Sunnybrook and Women’s College 

Health Sciences Centre, Toronto East General and 

Orthopedic Hospital, North York General Hospital, 

The Scarborough Hospital, St. Michael’s Hospital 

and William Osler Health Centre 

(Kaplan, September 7, 2004) 

Arising out of the SARS experience, the 

question that Arbitrator Kaplan was asked 

to answer was “Does the extent to which the 

hospitals have used agency nurses to perform 

work within the bargaining unit breach 

Article 10.12 (b) of the central collective 

agreement?” 

Arbitrator Kaplan determined that hospitals 

have violated the contract; the correct 

interpretation of Article 10.12 (b) requires 

the imposition of three basic limitations on 

the use of agency nurses: 

1. The creation of a limitation, which the 

hospital must not cross (2 per cent of total 

bargaining unit hours worked). 

2. An ongoing best efforts obligation to 

reduce usage below 2 per cent. 

3. A penalty for overuse. 

Kaplan made the following specific directives: 

• Between the date of the award and March 

31, 2005, hospitals currently using agency 

nurses for more than 2 per cent of bargaining 

unit hours worked (RN) are to 

make their best efforts to reduce the use of 

agency nurses to 2 per cent. 

• Effective 2005-2006 fiscal year, usage of 

agency nurses may not exceed 2 per cent 

and hospitals are to make their best efforts 

to continue to reduce the amount of agency 

usage below 2 per cent. 

• Hospital Association Committees (HACs) 

are to make agency nurse usage and retention 

and recruitment standing agenda 

items. 

• Hospitals are to provide ONA, on a quarterly 

basis for current and future fiscal 

years, with satisfactory reporting respecting 

the use of agency nurses (RN) and the 

total bargaining unit worked RN hours. 

• Effective 2005-2006 fiscal year, any hours 

of agency use greater than 2 per cent of 

total bargaining unit worked hours (RN) 

will result in a penalty of 38 cents per hour 

payable to ONA. While the reporting is 

quarterly, payment is calculated and paid 

annually. 

Kaplan will retain jurisdiction to deal with 

any issues arising from implementation of 

his award at the six hospitals on an expedited 

basis. 

Pediatric diabetes educator is 

in bargaining unit; “engaged in 

nursing care” 

ONA & Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital 

(Burkett, September 14, 2004) 

The position of pediatric diabetes educator 

falls within the bargaining unit scope of 

nurses “engaged in nursing care.” The Board 

found that the main component (60 per 

cent) of her job consists of providing nursing 

care and attention to pediatric patients and 

their families. 

The duties they considered were: 

• taking bodily measurements. 

• making assessments and judgments with 

respect to medical implications of the measurements. 

• educating with respect to appropriate lifestyle 

and tool to treat/manage diabetes. 

• making recommendations for changes in 

insulin and tools. 

• patient follow-up. 

• administering flu shots. 

• recording patient data on multidisciplinary 

charts. 

The Board was “satisfied that a significant 

portion of her time is spent directly administering 

nursing care to patients.” 

LTD Internal Carrier 

Appeals 

The need to submit supporting 

medical evidence 

Hospital in South District 

(July 15, 2004) 

The member was treated with medication and 

medical support for severe panic attacks. Over 

time the condition worsened, and the nurse 

went on sick leave. The member was unable 

to work. The insurer asserted there was not 

enough evidence to support a finding of total 

disability, and denied the Long-Term Disability 

(LTD) claim. The insurer’s decision to deny 

LTD benefits was overturned when medical 

evidence was provided to support the nurse’s 

claim. 

Failure to accommodate for months 

after clearance to return to work 

Hospital in West District 

(August 27, 2004) 

The member was working with permanent 

restrictions following a compensable injury. 

She developed chronic pain and depression 

as a result of improper accommodation and 

harassment in the work environment, which 

the employer ignored. After some time, a second 

accommodation was arranged, but not 

until the nurse had been cleared to return to 

work five months earlier, during which no 

LTD benefits were paid. Additional medical 

information from the family physician and 

the psychiatrist led to approval of the LTD 

benefits for the additional five months. 

Again – benefits approved when 

medical evidence is submitted 

Hospital in North District 

(April 29, 2004) 

A nurse on sick leave for mental health 

reasons was denied LTD benefits because 

of lack of medical evidence. Her claim was 



approved when the psychiatrist confirmed 

attendance at counselling, and community 

mental health information was provided. 

Another win based on appropriate 

independent assessments 

Hospital in West District 

(April 23, 2004) 

The nurse initially ceased work following 

increased hand and wrist pain. She was diagnosed 

with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome 

and was scheduled for surgery. The surgery 

was compromised when it was found the 

member had significant circulatory problems. 

She received LTD benefits for the own 

occupation phase, and lump-sum payment 

equivalent to an additional three-month 

period to do a job search. The disease and 

symptoms continued to worsen. ONA sent 

her for a “Functional Abilities Evaluation 

(FAE),” which proved total disability from 

any occupation since she could only work 

about two hours daily. About the same time, 

the employer sent the member for an FAE 

for accommodation purposes, with the same 

findings. Benefits were approved retroactively 

based on these results. 

WSIB Decisions 

Medical evidence supports 

worker’s need for lost time 


(April 14, 2004) 

A member suffered an injury to the lower 

back while helping lift a patient up in bed. 

Workers Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) 

allowed the claim for health care benefits, 

but denied a Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefit, 

citing a lack of medical evidence to support 

ongoing impairment. The employer also 

indicated the member could have been provided 

with modified duties. After receiving 

medical evidence provided by the member’s 

physician confirming total disability for the 


period of layoff, and proving the member 

was not medically cleared to return to work 

for the period, and that the employer advised 

WSIB there were modified duties available, 

WSIB allowed the claim. 

Choosing Sick/LTD Benefits over 

WSIB almost a costly mistake 

Hospital in North District 

(February 17, 2004) 

The member injured her lower back on 

January 12, 1991 as she transferred a patient 

from bed to a wheelchair. The worker went 

on Sick/LTD Benefits and the injury went 

unreported to the WSIB for two years. When 

the worker’s Sick Benefits were running out, 

she approached ONA for assistance and was 

advised to report the injury. WSIB denied the 

claim, determining there was no proof of accident. 

At that time, claims prior to January 1, 

1998 were not subject to new legislative time 

limits to report an accident. ONA obtained 

a medical report from her family physician, 

which proved that, on January 15, 1991, the 

worker did report the injury to her doctor and 

that the doctor did not report the injury to 

WSIB. A WSIB Appeals Officer overturned the 

adjudicator’s decision and granted full benefits 

to the worker up to October 26, 1992. The 

worker has since been granted a permanent 

impairment and WSIB is now determining 

ongoing benefits beyond October 1992. 

WSIB accepts secondary conditions 


(December 2, 2003) 

The member injured her hip, head and knee 

at work when she tripped on a monitor 

cord. WSIB only recognized a Permanent 

Impairment (PI) / Non-Economic Loss (NEL) 

award and restrictions for her hip. The member 

developed low back pain upon returning 

to unsuitable modified work, due to walking 

and her hip problems. Her pain increased 

and she also subsequently developed depression. 

WSIB denied entitlement for a PI award 

of her back and denied initial entitlement for 

her depression. Upon submitting additional 

medical evidence with the notification of 

intent to appeal, WSIB allowed a PI / NEL 

award of the cervical and lumbar injuries 

with listed restrictions, granted entitlement 

and a PI / NEL for depression. WSIB also 

allowed LOE benefits. 

Evidence supports Total Disability 


(April 29, 2004) 

The member suffered an injury to the lower 

back while assisting to lift a patient in 

bed. WSIB allowed the claim for Health Care 

Benefits (HCB) only, denying LOE benefits. 

WSIB cited a lack of medical evidence supporting 

total disability, and the accident employer’s 

position that modified duties were made available 

to the worker. On appeal, medical evidence 

provided by the member’s physician confirmed 

total disability for the period of layoff. The 

medical evidence also indicated the member 

was not medically cleared to return to work 

during the period that modified duties were 

said to be available by the accident employer, 

and supported total disability. WSIB allowed 

the claim in full following a reconsideration by 

the medical consultant. 

Member totally disabled prior to 

surgery 


(October 4, 2004) 

WSIB denied full LOE benefits because they 

did not believe the worker was totally disabled 

from October 9, 2003 to the date of scheduled 

surgery on February 10, 2004. This appeal 

was won at the pre-objection level when ONA 

submitted new reports from the family physician 

and orthopedic surgeon. A co-worker’s 

statement was also submitted that confirmed 

the member’s ongoing pain when doing modified 

work. All evidence submitted supported 

the worker’s need to remain off work prior to 

surgery. The claim was allowed..

Membres de l’AIIO – 

Comment participer aux équipes de 

projets et aux groupes de discussion 

Formulaire d’expression d’intérêt (membres) 

Équipes de projets spéciaux/groupes de discussion 

Selon la rétroaction des membres, nous avons mis au point un 

processus vous permettant d’exprimer votre intérêt à participer aux 

équipes de projets spéciaux et groupes de discussion de l’AIIO. 

Ceci donne la chance de vous impliquer dans les décisions et 

processus de l’AIIO. Veuillez remplir le formulaire et le renvoyer à : 

Organizational Learning, 85, rue Grenville, bureau 400 

Toronto (Ontario) M5S 3A2 - Télécopieur : 416 964-8864 

Note : Le Formulaire d’expression d’intérêt n’est valable que 

jusqu’au 31 décembre de l’année où il est présenté. 

Veuillez soumettre les nouveaux formularies pour 2005. 

Domaine d’intérêt n Provincial n Local 

n Droits de la personne/équité n Relations de travail 

n Santé et sécurité 

n Éducation 

n Finance 

n Action politique 

n Exercice professionnel 

Besoin d’une personne par région 

n Vision / Semaine des soins infirmiers n Élections 

n Comité de discipline de la politique 16.16 

n Équipe de consultation LEAP 

Expliquez brièvement les raisons pour lesquelles vous êtes 

intéressée à participer à une équipe de projet spécial ou à un 

groupe de discussion 

ONA Members – 

How to get involved with project 

teams and focus groups 

Expression of Interest Form (Members) 

Ad Hoc Project Teams/Focus Groups 

Based on membership feedback, we have developed a process that 

will enable you to express your interest in serving on ONA ad hoc 

project teams or focus groups. This provides an opportunity for 

you to be involved in ONA decisions and processes. Please 

complete the form and return it to: 

Organizational Learning, 85 Grenville Street, Suite 400 

Toronto, ON M5S 3A2 - Fax: (416) 964-8864 

Note: The Expression of Interest form is only valid until 

December 31 st of the year submitted. 

Please submit new forms for 2005. 

Area of Interest n Provincial or n Local 

n Human Rights/Equity 

n Labour Relations 

n Health and Safety 

n Education 

n Finance 

n Political Action 

n Professional Practice 

Need one person per region 

n Vision/Nursing Week 

n Policy 16.16 Discipline Panel 

n Elections 

n LEAP Advisory 

Please provide a brief statement telling us why you are 

interested in serving on an ad hoc project team or getting 

involved in a focus group 

Date de présentation : 

Région : Local : Unité de négociation : 

Nom : 

Adresse : 

Ville : Province : ON Code postal : 

Tél. : (Bureau) 

(Domicile) 

Secteur : n Hôpital n Foyers n Communautaire n CASC 

n Santé publique n VON/SEN n (Autre) 

n Professionnels paramédicaux 

Statut : n Plein temps n Temps partiel 

Domaine d’exercice actuel : 

Date Submitted: 

Region: Local: Bargaining Unit: 

Name: 

Address: 

City: 

Province: ON Postal Code: 

Phone: (Bus.) 

(H.) 

Sector: n Hospital n Homes n Community n CCAC 

n Public Health n VON/SEN n (Other) n Allied 

Status: n Full-Time n Part-Time 

Current Area(s) of Practice: 

Expérience/antécédents à l’AIIO : 

ONA Experience/Background: 

: 


Pay equity payouts 

available for the 

listed ONA members 

Contact ONA by February 15, 2005 

ONA has achieved a pay equity settlement for ONA nurses 

who work for the Victorian Order of Nurses (VON) Toronto 

and York Region branches. ONA members listed below 

have until February 15, 2005 to claim their pay equity 

cheque. If you are on the list, please contact Carmen Bem 

at the ONA office in Toronto at toll-free 1-800-387-5580 

and press 0, or (416) 964-8833 (in Toronto), ext. 2216. 

Toronto VON Nurses 

Abbatangelo, Lisa 

Anderson, Ruth 

Andreola, Carla 

Appleton-Philip, Barbara 

Atkinson, Joy 

Au, Florence 

Aust, Anne 

Babb, Mona 

Bain, Noel 

Balogh, Heather 

Bandali, Zarina 

Banerjee, Eileen 

Banwell, Joanne 

Barbieri-Tacoma, Josie 

Barrett, Mary 

Bedikian, Sona 

Beer, Donna 

Belasco, Edla 

Ben Sofia, Heike 

Bender, Catherine 

Biggs, Diane 

Bognar, George 

Bowen-Mckenzie, Althea 

Brothers, Marjory 

Brown, Alexandra 

Buckle, Kathleen 

Burrell, Elizabeth 

Byberg, Kim 

Campbell, Lorraine 

Carpenter, Lynda 

Cartner, Muriel 

Casinday, Mario 

Chan, King Tai 

Chang, Zeeta 

Chessman, Kelly 

Chisholm, Jane 

Chu, Paul Wing-Fat 

Chuli, Marilyn 

Clark, Sharon 

Clark, Eleanor 

Clark, Susan 

Clarke, Gladys 

Clement, Carolyn 

Conrad, Heather 

Conrad, Nora Louise 

Cooling, Maureen T. 

Cooper, Delma 

Corbett, Dorothy Jean 

Covell, Nancy 

Crewe, Cindy 

Cribbin, Helen 

Crout, B. Arlene 

D’allesandro, Lucia 

Davison, Joyce 

Dearlove, Pamela 

Dedona, Claudia 

Demkiw, Marie 

Demsar, Marta 

Donaldson, Olive 

Donlon, Annie 

Duffus, Norma C. 

Duffy, Sally 

Durnin, June 

Eaton, Joanne 

Edwards, Alvira 

Ellis Bayne, Stephanie 

Ennist, Rina 

Evans, Mary Margaret 

Evans-Fisher, Karen 

Felician, Gloria 

Ferguson, Mary 

Ferguson, Eleanor 

Forcier, Lois 

Furman, Margaret 

Gardiner, Brenda 

Garlock, Elizabeth 

Gerba, Natalie 

Ghanbarzadeh, Touraj 

Giannini, Lois 

Giese, Irma 

Gill, Doreen 

Gill, M Joan 

Gill, Zenat 

Gitberg, Michael 

Glionna, Jean 

Goldrup, Valerie 

Gounder, Nirupa 

Grant, Lois 

Gray, Grace 

Greason, Judy 

Hamilton, Dwyla 

Harris, Maureen 

Hartjes, Marianne 

Hay, Bonnie 

Hiebert, Maryann 

Hill, Helen 

Howell-Pollydore, Marcel 

Huyer, Adriana 

Hume, Kathy 

Hunter Riley, Noreen 

Idemudia, Faith 

Jacobs, Joelle 

Jarrett, Carleen 

Johnston, Christine 

Joseph, Frederica 

Kao, Sue 

Kaye, Kathleen 

Kedrosky, Geraldine 

Kendall-Brace, Karen 

Kerr, Lori J. 

Kevins, Sheila 

Khan, Azam 

King, Linda 

Kissoon, Patricia 

Knight, Dorothy 

Koen, Louise 

Krzemien, Alicja 

Lake-Peimli, Hyacinth 

Lanning, Irene 

Leclerc, Chantale 

Lee, Camelia 

Lee-Hayes, Marie 

Lemyre, Diane M. 

Liu, Mary 

Livingstone, Heather 

Llewellyn, Morgan 

Loftus, Helen 

Lowry, Donna 

Macdonald-Rankine, Allison 

Mackay, Audrey Ann 

Macneil, Norma 

Macphail, Margaret 

Macrae, Judith 

Macvicar, Christine 

Mahood, Judith 

Mana, Jane 

Mangalam, Leela 

Manzano, Annabel 

Maylor, Monica 

Mceachern, Brian 

Mcfarlane, Hortense 

Mcintyre, Gloria 

Mclean, Eileen 

Mcmahon, Patricia 

Mcmullan, Christine 

Mcneill, Mary Lou 

Mcspurren, Helen 

Melgarejo, Efren 

Merker, Susan 

Merker, Susan 

Minkkinen, Marita 

Mitchell, Shona 

Montada, Benjamin 

Moretto, Nadia 

Morrow, Cheri Ann 

Morton, Jean M. 

Murakami, Judy 

Murnaghan, Mary 

Murray, Catherine 

Neal, Beverly 

Nemeth, Eva 

Neufeld, Linda 

Newton, Beverly 

Ng, Raymond 


Toronto VON Nurses (cont.) 

Ng, Linda 

Noorah, Iqbal 

Nynkowski, Ann 

Palmer, Kerry 

Pang, Ka Mang 

Pang, Jeanny 

Pangilinan, Nenita 

Parish, Patricia 

Parker-Ross, Christine 

Petrich, Betty 

Phan, Sylvia 

Pilote, Renee 

Pirmohamed, Dilsad 

Quackenbush, Marilyn 

Radford, Judith 

Richards, Anna 

Rizzo, Lucille Anne 

Roe, Ian 

Rooney, Teresa 

Rose, Cynthia 

Rosenfeld, Teresa 

Santos, Pamela 

Sarno, Gina 

Sawez, Kamila 

Schroeder, Falko 

Serrano-Hru, Mary 

Seymour-Jam, Claire 

Shakespear, Mitzie 

Sher, Judith 

Shin, Jae Ryun 

Siiskonen, Susan 

Sima, Concetta 

Skomorovskaia, Natalia 

Steeves, Sharry L. 

Stephenson, R. Peter 

Stosic, Mirjana 

Straub, Sheryl R. 

Suckling Detoma, Enza 

Supraner, Eileen 

Swackhamer, Joanne 

Thorpe-Critt, Leanne 

Tunnicliffe, Rita E. 

Virtanen-Milbourn, Irja 

Walford Lemon, Deborah 

Walker, Elaine 

Warrian, Andrea 

Wertman, Cheryl 

White, Susan 

Wiebe, Gloria 

Wiggins, Shirley 

Wiggins, Oakley C 

Wingerson, Joanne 

Wright, Debra-Ann 

Yates, Diana 

Yoksimovich, Carolyn 

Mcwatters, Kleo Hodgson 

York VON Nurses 

Adorante, Patricia 

Amdurski, Maria 

Black, Amy 

Brown, Mary 

Chong, Irene 

Cooper, Janate 

Drake, Shawn 

Forcier, Lois 

Garrod, Jill 

Hellmeister, Elizabeth 

Huang, Bair Jia 

Long, Anita 

Longo, Stephanie 

Lucas O’neill, Georgi 

Macbain, Joan 

Mackay, Mary Catherine 

Marcuz, Deborah 

Miller, Stacey 

Morgan, Annenieke 

Morrison, Lori 

Pellow, Nicole 

Rossi, Antoinette 

Sooley-Nudo, Tracy 

Spice, Tamara 

Sto-Domingo, Michael 

Storey, Patricia 

Taylor, Sylvie 

Vanleeuwen, Sandra 

Whittaker, Jill 

Willaert, Karel 

Constantine, Sally 

Cotter, Rachel 

Lau, Evelyn 

Nastor, Linda 

Sheman, Lorraine 

Slater, Nicole 

Tam, Sabrina 

Velma, Christina 

Visser, Judy 

Wallis, Sheryl 

Cridland, Karen 

Davis, Laura 

Dougan, Debra 

Hishon, Karen 

Logue, Patricia 

Manducca, Sherri-Lynn 

Quinn, Holly 

Penfold, Margaret 

Caramancion, Ma Nyld 

Chau, Christine 

Conway, Susan 

Foy, Daphne 

Galimidi, Shoshana 

Hagerman, Charlene 

Hanbury, Nancy 

Johannessen, Heather C. 

Kofler, Lynn 

Neis, Lynne 

O’Boyle, Mona 

Schmidt, Diane 

Smart, Lorraine 

Thomson, Lynne 

Sgro, Inez 

Benson, Hutinson 

Bongard, Jean 

Feltham, Dora 

Ford, Joy 

Gendron, Kathy 

Grant, Dee 

Greer, Mary 

Harvison, Christa 

Hisko, Darlene 

Lozano,Virginia 

Menton, Linda 

Parkes, Donna 

Rapos, Linda 

Ruttan, Ruth 

Saliba, Valerie 

Schellencberg, Gordina 

Chung, Peter 

Rathlou, Pamela 

Brewster, Dana 

Charlton, Debra 

Cooper, Marion 

Coutts, Jill 

Day, Janet 

Dibble-Perks, Penny 

Hambly, Florence 

Haridment, Marie 

Mcconachie, Marion 

Rourke, Gillian 

Stiglic, Nevia 

Anderson, Dale 

Berry, Debby 

Gillies, Maureen 

Keyer, Nicolette 

Macdonald, Joann 

Stables, Barbara 

Young, Janet 

Faulkner, Susan 

Gordon, Kimberly 

Mercer, Irene 

Watkin, Jean 

Caron, Joyce 

Pressley, Lenore 

Rimmer, Kathryn 

Wolfenden, Pamela 

Ludlow, Judith 

Watkin, Jean 

Bennett, Catherine 

Carr, Dawn 

Newton, Carey 

O’Meara, Eileen 

Patterson, Louise 

Stevenson, Elaine 

Voeth, Joy 

Cartner, Muriel 

Deutch, Sharon 

Ferguson-Yake, Jannine 

Leiper, Darlene 

Wilson, Judy 


ONA RETIREES 

A woman of service: 

REGION 1 

Local 13 

Sharon Campbell 

Local 14 

Mary Inglis 

Debby Kennedy 

REGION 3 

Local 96 

Jean Burgess 

Jane Dicker 

Lorraine King 

Patricia Zownir 

REGION 4 

Local 7 

Nancy Marcella 

Donna Sackrider 

Tina Schut 

Anne Summerhayes 

Ann Yallop 

Local 75 

Lynne Campbell 

Margaret Fairman 

Wendy Farkas 

Judith Gardner 

Janet Hillen 

Patricia Kelly 

Carolyn Kenesky 

Nancy Lowell 

Micheline Mathers 

Christine McCready 

Dorothy Stanley 

Edith Widerman 

Marg Rondina says goodbye after 44-year nursing career 

ONA bids a fond farewell to long-time active 

member Margaret Rondina, RN, who retired in 

October after a nursing career in northern Ontario 

spanning 44 years. 

Local 2 Coordinator for the last six years, representing 

18 bargaining units, Rondina has served 

in many capacities with ONA at the bargaining 

unit, local and provincial levels. An ONA member 

since 1988, Rondina was the former Region 12 

Representative on ONA’s Board of Directors in 

1998. 

Most recently she worked as a psychiatric nurse 

at the Northeast Mental Health Centre in Sudbury, 

but during her career she has also worked in 

diagnostic medicine, neurosurgery, obstetrics and 

medical/surgical nursing. 

At a luncheon held recently in her honour, Rondina 

was praised by her Local 2 colleagues. 

“Marg’s presence has empowered us to work 

together in fulfilling our role as ONA representatives 

for our members,” said Bernadette Denis, 

RN, Bargaining Unit President for the Sudbury and 

District Health Unit. 

REGION 5 

Local 21 

Mabel Clark 

Sharon Kirkey 

Norah Profit 

Louise Glenn 

So long, Marg…Long-term active ONA 

member Margaret Rondina, RN, celebrated 

her retirement recently at a luncheon 

hosted by Local 2, for which she served 

as Local Coordinator for the last six years. 

Marg is pictured here with Bernadette 

Denis, RN, (left) Bargaining Unit President 

for the Sudbury and District Health Unit. 

“This is what comes to mind when I think of 

Marg: A woman of service. A woman of wisdom. 

A woman of expertise. A woman of integrity. She 

has been a remarkable role model, and a dedicated 

and caring professional nurse.” 

Rondina was also president of the Sault Ste. Marie 

Diocesan Council and served as president of the 

Board of Directors for the Sudbury Branch of the 

Canadian Mental Health Association. She has four 

children. 

ONA Members… 

we want to hear your story! 

Have you had a recent success 

in your bargaining unit? Is 

there one member of your Local 

who deserves special mention? 

Did you hold a particularly 

successful Local event? Do you 

have photographs? 

Let us know. 

If you have a story to tell us – give us some details and 

a phone number (including the best time to reach you) 

and we will follow up. Please send information items 

and digital photos (or colour prints), for consideration for 

the ONA Web site, Vision magazine or the Front Lines 

newsletter, to ONA’s PR Team. 

Write to us: 

ONA Public Relations Team 

85 Grenville Street, 4th Floor, 

Toronto Ontario M5S 3A2 

E-mail us at onamail@mail.ona.org 

FAX us – our number is 416-964-8891 


Relax, you’re covered. 

Johnson — Always accessible, we’re on call for you. 

Membership 

Voluntary 

Benefits 

ONA Benefit Program 

• Life insurance 

PREFERRED SERVICE 

HOME-AUTO PLAN 

EXTRA ADVANTAGES & BENEFITS, FOR PREFERRED POLICYHOLDERS 

With its complete and worry-free coverage, the 

Preferred Service Home-Auto Plan was designed 

with health care providers in mind. 

Just ask any ONA Member who has one of the 

14,000+ PS Plan policies. 

Interest-free monthly payments, online access and 

special discounts are available to ONA Members. 

This Plan is also available to 50+ ONA Friends and 

Family (they must mention their ONA relationship 

when requesting a quote). 

www.johnson.ca or 1.800.563.0677 

• Long-term disability 

• Accidental death & 

dismemberment 

• Extended health care, 

semi-private hospital, 

travel and dental care 

• Retiree coverage 

For information on how 

to purchase benefits, 

contact the ONA 

Program Administrator: 

Johnson Inc. 

1595 16th Avenue, Suite 600 

Richmond Hill ON L4B 3S5 

(905) 764-4884 (local) 

1-800-461-4597 (toll-free) 

www.johnson.ca 


ONTARIO NURSES’ ASSOCIATION 

www.ona.org 

ONTARIO NURSES’ ASSOCIATION 

Suite 400, 85 Grenville Street 

Toronto ON M5S 3A2 

Canadian Publicaton Mail Sales Agreement No. 40069108 


C

ONA Members - Ontario Nurses' Association

Transform your PDFs into Flipbooks and boost your revenue!

Delete template?

Save as template ?