Manitoba nursing panel orders $8,000 fine, two-week suspension for Mascardo

A Manitoba nursing disciplinary panel has ordered Eleonor Mascardo to pay an $8,000 fine and $5,000 in costs and suspended her from practice for two weeks after she admitted misconduct that included accepting an intensive-care shift without a valid practising certificate or the necessary training.

The College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba Inquiry Committee also imposed remedial courses and extensive conditions tied to at least 2,015 verified RN practice hours. Its reasons and separate order are dated June 24, 2026, following an April 13 hearing before a panel chaired by Brenda Sullivan.

The panel accepted a sanction jointly proposed by Mascardo and the Complaints Investigation Committee. It concluded that the package protected the public interest, while warning that the case also raised concerns about safeguards used to place nurses in assignments for which they lack the necessary qualifications.

Admissions covered registration, advertising and clinical practice

Mascardo pleaded guilty to all four counts in a May 30, 2025 notice of hearing. They covered failure to identify all employers to the college, failure to notify it of self-employment before providing RN services, misrepresentation of nursing credentials, and accepting work beyond her knowledge and skills, including the ICU assignment.

After a plea inquiry, the panel was satisfied that the plea was voluntary and that Mascardo understood she was giving up the right to contest the allegations. The parties filed an agreed statement of facts and supporting materials.

The reasons say Mascardo failed to report an agency employer for 2023. Although she told the college she was providing nursing services through an aesthetics business, she did not disclose that she was self-employed. The committee argued that approval for self-employed practice was required before opening a business providing or advertising nursing services.

The advertising issues were separate from the employer-notification failures. The college warned Mascardo twice in early 2024 that she could not use the protected RN or registered-nurse titles because she lacked a practising certificate. It warned her twice again that October because the business was not considered registered nursing practice. The titles were removed only after the final warning.

Mascardo also advertised a master’s-in-nursing credential that, the reasons say, she did not hold by Canadian standards. The credential assessment described the studies as equivalent to a year and a half of graduate study, rather than a completed Canadian education credential. The committee relied on the Act’s prohibition against advertising capable of misleading the public.

The clinical concerns went beyond paperwork. Mascardo’s certificate had expired at the end of 2023 and was not reinstated until April 4, 2024. She nevertheless accepted an agency ICU shift on January 11, despite lacking the specialized training and experience required for that work. The hospital ended the shift after discovering those deficiencies and the absence of a practising certificate.

The committee also described failures to carry out treatment orders, inaccurate communication about whether care had been started, and missing documentation. Mascardo admitted a general lack of the knowledge, skills and judgment needed for safe independent RN practice. The reasons record an earlier $1,500 unauthorized-practice fee that she had paid; that fee was separate from the new fine and costs.

Panel rejected lack of awareness as an excuse

In her statement, Mascardo acknowledged mistakes with registration renewal and accepted responsibility for taking the ICU shift. She said she had informed the agency beforehand. In reply, the committee’s lawyer said there was no evidence before the panel that she had told the agency about her limited qualifications.

The standards discussed in the reasons required nurses to work within their competence, recognize their limitations, communicate effectively and seek guidance or a different assignment where necessary. The panel found the admitted facts established professional misconduct and breaches of the Act, practice requirements and ethical obligations.

The panel treated Mascardo’s apparent lack of interest in understanding her regulatory duties, and her insufficient attention to patient safety when accepting work for which she was unqualified, as aggravating factors. It said lack of awareness did not excuse non-compliance and found that taking the ICU shift without a certificate or relevant experience endangered the public.

Against that, it weighed her lack of a previous discipline or complaints history, acceptance of responsibility, apology and guilty plea, which avoided the time and expense of a prolonged hearing.

Because the sanction was a joint recommendation, the panel applied the public-interest test discussed in the reasons through R. v. Anthony-Cook. Departure was justified only if the proposed disposition would discredit the administration of justice or otherwise conflict with the public interest. The panel found that threshold was not met.

Its analysis also considered public protection, rehabilitation, deterrence, the seriousness of the conduct, confidence in professional regulation and consistency with penalties in comparable cases. It concluded that the agreed sanction would deter similar conduct and reassure the public that the college was maintaining nursing standards.

Practice hours come with broad restrictions

The operative order requires at least 2,015 verified RN practice hours in a Canadian jurisdiction, beginning only when Mascardo returns to the practising register. Earlier hours cannot be counted retroactively.

Although the order calls these independent practice hours, it expressly prohibits sole practice: Mascardo must work under the direction of an on-site RN and cannot be the only RN on duty on the unit at any time during that period.

While completing the hours, she cannot be self-employed, work for a health-care staffing agency or engage in medical aesthetic practice. She also cannot work in critical care, including ICU, CCU, neonatal ICU or pediatric ICU; emergency or urgent care; intermediate or step-down units; operating rooms, postoperative recovery or peri-anesthesia; pediatrics; palliative care or hospice; labour and delivery; or long-term care.

The order also bars float-pool employment and moving between units as a float nurse. Supervisory duties are prohibited, including management, clinical-resource, educator and charge-nurse roles, and oversight of students or preceptees.

Once Mascardo returns to practice, she must meet with managers or supervisors for feedback weekly for two months, biweekly for three months and monthly thereafter. RN Practice Report Forms must be submitted promptly to the college’s CEO/registrar. She must also provide the names and addresses of all RN employers in writing and give those employers a copy of the order.

Within six months of the order, Mascardo must complete Documentation in Nursing (NURS 0162), Nursing Process (NURS 0167) and Medication Management (NURS 0161). The panel also directed publication of its decision and reasons.

The order sets obligations; it does not establish whether Mascardo has since returned to practice, completed the courses or hours, paid the fine and costs, or served the suspension. The practice-hour condition is separate from the two-week suspension, and the order does not turn those hours into permission to practise alone.

Staffing safeguards were a separate concern

In addition to individual accountability, the panel identified a need for stronger system checks when nurses are placed in positions beyond their experience or qualifications. Its observation about the potential for patient harm did not impose a separate sanction on a staffing agency or decide an agency’s liability. The operative findings and order concerned Mascardo.