A Manitoba nursing discipline panel cancelled Lesley Selch’s registration and ordered a $50,000 contribution to investigation and hearing costs after finding that repeated bullying, discriminatory behaviour and failures to cooperate with regulation had continued despite years of remedial efforts.
In reasons dated May 11, 2026, the College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba’s Inquiry Committee panel found Selch guilty of all professional-misconduct charges before it and concluded that Selch was ungovernable and unfit to practise as an RN. The panel, chaired by Jennifer Colvine, said it would have cancelled the registration even without the ungovernability finding.
The proceeding combined two notices of hearing: one arising from a former employer’s report, and the other from three patient complaints.
Hearing proceeded after a late adjournment request
The hearing took place on February 24 and 25, 2026, following a lengthy procedural history. Earlier delays involved changes of counsel, disagreement over consolidating the matters and the unavailability of a key investigation committee witness. The two notices, issued in September 2021 and July 2022, were ultimately heard together.
Four days before the hearing began, Selch emailed that a shortage of technicians at work meant they could not attend. The chair refused the requested adjournment. The reasons cite the time the matters had already been outstanding, notice of the hearing dates since November 2025, the lateness of the request, unanswered communications and the practical difficulty of coordinating new dates around Selch’s work.
When Selch did not attend the opening, the panel adjourned briefly while attempts were made to reach them by phone. After confirming service of the notices and the statutory requirements, it agreed to proceed in Selch’s absence. A plea of not guilty was entered on Selch’s behalf.
Selch arrived on the second day after the evidence had concluded, while the investigation committee’s counsel was finishing argument. Selch did not object to continuing with submissions and then made a statement. The panel expressly did not receive that statement as evidence; the evidentiary phase had ended and Selch had agreed to proceed with argument.
Repeated conduct despite earlier interventions
Selch first registered as an RN in 1995. The reasons trace earlier conduct complaints, undertakings, coursework, reflective writing and reporting requirements, as well as a 2011 discipline order addressing non-compliance with an undertaking. Some earlier obligations were eventually completed, but the panel found that the same kinds of misconduct returned.
The employer-related allegations concerned interactions with patients and colleagues, largely in 2020, together with an older incident involving a failure to assist during patient treatment. The evidence described threatening and belittling communication, obstruction of access to available care, a failure to collaborate and discriminatory comments concerning race and socio-economic status.
The second notice concerned three patient complaints from 2021. The accounts described dismissive and condescending communication, a lack of empathy and failures to establish therapeutic relationships. The panel ultimately accepted that the conduct alleged in both notices had occurred.
The record included live evidence from College staff, investigation reports and affidavit material. One proposed patient affidavit was accepted for identification only, pending an executed version. The reasons expressly state that the executed version had still not been received when the decision was issued.
Selch’s explanations and the panel’s findings
In statements to investigators, Selch said that a clinical resource nurse’s responsibilities included questioning requests and managing competing demands for beds. Selch denied intentionally singling people out or being obstructive, and said a direct manner might have been perceived as abrupt. Selch also described the investigation report as eye-opening and expressed regret if others had been made to feel bad.
Selch denied some specific allegations and said they did not recall others. The investigation committee maintained that these responses did not amount to taking responsibility for the overall pattern. Where Selch’s denials conflicted with patient and staff accounts, the panel preferred those accounts, also noting Selch’s claimed lack of recollection of many incidents.
The panel found professional misconduct and breaches of the Regulated Health Professions Act, the College’s Practice Direction: Practice Expectations for Registered Nurses, the Code of Ethics for Registered Nurses and the College’s Entry-Level Competencies. The obligations discussed in the reasons include respectful communication, collaboration, compassionate care, non-discrimination and professional accountability.
Why the panel found Selch ungovernable
The investigation committee argued that repeated education, undertakings and monitoring had failed, leaving cancellation as the only effective way to protect the public. Selch’s late statement did not seek restoration of the licence: Selch said they no longer wanted to be an RN and wanted to move on.
The panel approached sanction through public protection, deterrence, professional integrity and confidence in regulation. It also considered proportionality, consistency with comparable discipline, the impact on those affected and whether Selch acknowledged what had happened.
On ungovernability, the reasons discuss the Manitoba Court of Appeal’s Kuny decision for the principle that the assessment is case-specific and guided by the public interest. A profession cannot protect the public if its members are unable or unwilling to accept their regulator’s authority. The panel treated ungovernability as a question of suitability to practise under subsection 124(2)(e) of the Act.
The panel also considered factors drawn from Hall, a professional discipline decision, including repeated failures to respond to the regulator, neglect of regulatory duties, discipline history, breached undertakings and failure to attend a hearing. The reasons explain that not every listed factor must be present; the inquiry is whether the pattern demonstrates serious disregard for the regulatory process.
Applying that approach, the panel relied on Selch’s multiple undertakings and breaches, repeated attempts at education and remediation, the earlier discipline order, limited engagement with the College and failure to participate meaningfully in the hearing. It found that the College’s efforts short of cancellation had not changed the behaviour.
The panel also noted Selch’s stated intention not to return to RN practice and concluded that this was not a case centred on rehabilitation. It found Selch ungovernable, unsuited and therefore unfit to practise. Crucially, it said the same circumstances would justify cancellation even if it had declined to make the ungovernability finding.
Costs reflected investigation and hearing expenses
The $50,000 award is a contribution to the College’s investigation and hearing costs, not a fine or compensation to patients. The College’s evidence estimated that incurred and anticipated expenses would exceed $120,000. That figure was a projection including future costs, not an established final bill.
Selch opposed the amount, saying it was unaffordable, and asked that the decision not be published because of concerns about employability. The panel recognized that $50,000 would be substantial for most registrants, but said it had no evidence of Selch’s financial circumstances that it could consider.
The panel found that Selch’s actions had contributed to the accumulation of costs. It considered the extent of the investigations, lack of communication and compliance, and disregard for the proceedings, and concluded that a $50,000 contribution—less than half of the anticipated $120,000—was proportionate and fair.
The reasons recommend that the College consider seeking an agreement allowing payment over a period acceptable to it. Failing that, the panel said the costs award would be enforceable forthwith. This was a recommendation to consider an arrangement, not a finding that one existed. Neither the reasons nor the order sets a calendar payment deadline or establishes that any amount has been paid.
Cancellation and publication ordered
The separate order, also dated May 11, 2026, formally declares Selch ungovernable and unsuited, and therefore unfit, to practise under subsection 124(2)(e). It cancels the registration, orders the $50,000 costs contribution and directs that the decision and reasons be published and made available to the public.
The panel ordered publication despite Selch’s objection. The investigation committee had argued that subsection 129(1) requires publication of a panel’s findings, including the member’s name, and the panel directed publication in the usual manner under the Act and Regulation.
