The Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario has ordered the immediate revocation of the certificate of registration for Matthew Ormsbee-Posthumus, a former Registered Nurse1. The decision was made following a virtual hearing on January 30, 2025, where Mr. Ormsbee-Posthumus was found to have committed acts of professional misconduct. The misconduct related to his criminal conviction for possessing child pornography and his subsequent failure to report the underlying criminal charges to the College, as required by his professional obligations. Mr. Ormsbee-Posthumus, who first registered as an RN in 2013, admitted to all the allegations set out in an amended Notice of Hearing. The Panel conducted a plea inquiry and was satisfied that his admissions were voluntary, informed, and unequivocal.
The Notice of Hearing detailed two primary sets of allegations. The first allegation was that Mr. Ormsbee-Posthumus committed professional misconduct by contravening a term, condition, or limitation on his certificate of registration. Under Ontario Regulation 275/94, nurses are required to report any charges relating to any offence to the Executive Director of the College of Nurses of Ontario (CNO). The College alleged that in or around October 2018, Mr. Ormsbee-Posthumus failed to report that he had been charged on October 5, 2018, with three serious offences under the Criminal Code of Canada. These charges, originating in Kingston, Ontario, included making available child pornography, possessing child pornography, and accessing child pornography, with the alleged activities occurring between April and October 2018.
The second category of allegations stated that Mr. Ormsbee-Posthumus engaged in conduct relevant to the practice of nursing that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional. This allegation was based on two specific particulars. The first was his failure to report the three criminal charges to the CNO. The second, and more serious, particular was the underlying act itself: that between April and October 2018, he possessed child pornography. Mr. Ormsbee-Posthumus admitted to these allegations, and the Panel proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts presented by both College counsel and the Member’s counsel.
The Agreed Statement of Facts provided a chronology of the events. It stated that on October 3, 2018, police executed a search warrant at the Member’s home, seizing various digital devices. A police examination of a laptop found files that had been shared, downloaded, or partially downloaded between January and June 2018. Further investigation uncovered photographs meeting the definition of child pornography in a browser cache, as well as a 22-minute video on an external hard drive. In total, the police discovered 73 files that met the legal definition of child pornography. The Agreed Statement of Facts noted that one of the investigating officers described the material as involving the explicit sexual abuse of young children and infants, with some depictions involving abuse by animals. The children’s ages ranged from infancy to prepubescent.
Following the police investigation, Mr. Ormsbee-Posthumus was charged on October 5, 2018, with the three child pornography offences. The facts confirmed that he was required as a term of his registration to report these charges to the CNO’s Executive Director, and he failed to do so. The criminal case proceeded, and on June 7, 2021, Mr. Ormsbee-Posthumus pled guilty in the Superior Court of Justice to one count of possessing child pornography. The other two charges, for making available and accessing child pornography, were withdrawn. On April 1, 2022, the court sentenced him for the conviction.
The sentence imposed by the Superior Court included a period of incarceration of 12 months, which was reduced by two months on account of pre-trial bail conditions, resulting in a 10-month jail sentence. The court also imposed a 20-year order under the Sex Offender Information Registry Act (SOIRA), a DNA order, and a forfeiture order for the devices on which the child pornography was found. In addition, the Member was subjected to a 10-year section 161 order under the Criminal Code. This order included several stringent conditions, such as prohibiting him from attending public parks, public swimming areas, daycare centres, school grounds, playgrounds, or community centres where persons under 16 years of age are present or could reasonably be expected to be present, unless he was in the company of an adult over 21.
The section 161 order also prohibited Mr. Ormsbee-Posthumus from seeking, obtaining, or continuing any paid or unpaid activity that would put him in a position of trust or authority towards persons under 16. He was barred from having any contact with a person under 16 unless supervised pursuant to conditions set by the court, and he was ordered to refrain from using the internet unless it was in accordance with specific conditions. Finally, his criminal sentence included a three-year probation period with conditions to report to a probation officer, reside at an approved location, cooperate with monitoring, and attend and actively participate in any assessment, counselling, or rehabilitative programs as directed. The probation order also further restricted his contact with persons under 18 and his use of the internet.
In the Agreed Statement of Facts, Mr. Ormsbee-Posthumus specifically admitted that his failure to report the criminal charges amounted to professional misconduct. He further admitted that his possession of child pornography demonstrated a lack of integrity, was relevant to the practice of nursing, and was conduct that would be reasonably regarded by nursing members as disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional. His certificate of registration had previously been administratively suspended in February 2019 and had expired in March 2019.
Based on the Member’s plea and the agreed facts, the Discipline Panel found that Mr. Ormsbee-Posthumus committed the acts of professional misconduct as alleged. In its reasons for the decision, the Panel affirmed that the allegations related to his failure to report the charges were clearly supported by the facts. His failure to notify the College was a direct contravention of the regulations and constituted professional misconduct. The Panel also found that his conduct in failing to report the charges, combined with the underlying conduct of possessing child pornography, was unprofessional as it demonstrated a “serious and persistent disregard for his professional obligations.”
The Panel further elaborated on its findings that the conduct was dishonourable and disgraceful. It stated that the failure to report “demonstrated an element of dishonesty and deceit” and that the possession of child pornography “demonstrates an element of moral failing and a lack of integrity.” The Panel’s decision described the possession of child pornography as “a gross violation of the ethical standards expected to be upheld by members of the nursing profession” and “incompatible with the duty to promote health, protect vulnerable populations, and act with integrity.” The Panel concluded that the conduct was disgraceful because “it shames the Member and by extension the nursing profession” and “fundamentally undermines public confidence in the profession and raises serious concerns regarding the Member’s moral character and judgment.”
During the penalty phase of the hearing, counsel for the College and the Member’s counsel proposed a Joint Submission on Order. The jointly proposed penalty included two parts: first, that the Member be required to appear before the Panel for an oral reprimand within three months, and second, that the Executive Director be directed to immediately revoke the Member’s certificate of registration. College Counsel submitted that aggravating factors included the intentional nature of the conduct, the significant harm caused to children, and the discrediting of the profession. Mitigating factors included the Member’s accountability through his admissions and cooperation, and his lack of any prior disciplinary history with the College. The Member’s counsel agreed with the submissions and noted that Mr. Ormsbee-Posthumus has worked on rehabilitation since his arrest.
The Discipline Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Order. The Panel cited the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Anthony-Cook, which establishes a high threshold for rejecting a joint submission, finding the proposed penalty was not contrary to the public interest and would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The Panel found the penalty to be reasonable and necessary for public protection, satisfying the goals of both specific and general deterrence. The revocation, it noted, “sends a powerful message to all members of the profession that such behaviour is not tolerated.” The Panel stated that remediation and rehabilitation were not relevant considerations in this case, as revocation means the Member will no longer be permitted to practice nursing.
In its concluding remarks on the penalty, the Panel acknowledged that revocation is at the highest end of available penalties but deemed it appropriate. “Possessing child pornography is a serious criminal offence,” the Panel wrote. “It can also reflect deeper behavioural concerns that could pose a risk to patient’s safety, especially vulnerable populations such as, in this case children. Revocation is necessary to maintain the integrity of the nursing profession.” The Panel acknowledged the Member’s cooperation as a mitigating factor before ordering the immediate revocation of his registration.
