Toronto, ON —Julie K. Chisholm, an Ontario nurse practitioner with nearly 50 years of clinical nursing experience, will appear before a disciplinary panel of the College of Nurses of Ontario (CNO) from February 24–26, 2026. The hearing will be conducted electronically via videoconference and is a professional disciplinary hearing, not a court matter at this time.

Ms. Chisholm’s legal defence is being funded by Freedoms Advocate, a national charitable organization dedicated to defending human rights, including freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.

The CNO alleges Ms. Chisholm prescribed and offered substances to treat and prevent Covid—including ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and vitamin D—between January and April 2022 during her employment with Canadian COVID Telehealth Inc., and claims these prescriptions were contrary to scientific evidence. The CNO also alleges that, having regard to all of the circumstances, her conduct constitutes professional misconduct that would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. Contrary to the approach of regulators in other jurisdictions like B.C., the CNO did not prohibit its nurses from prescribing or suggesting the substances Ms. Chisholm offered to her patients.

The February 24–25 hearing will address the CNO’s side of the case. It is expected that Ms. Chisholm’s evidence, including expert testimony, will be heard later at a date yet to be scheduled.

Ms. Chisholm has stated that she acted in good faith, based on scientific evidence, in the best interests of her patients by offering substances in dosages which were not harmful. She also asserts that her actions were consistent with her duty to provide patient-centered care and respect patients’ autonomy, including their right to choose treatment options.

Ms. Chisholm has never been notified of any complaint by a patient in her nearly five-decade career and has received numerous patient statements supporting her beneficial and helpful nursing care during the pandemic.

This case looks at whether Ontario health professionals will be punished for expressing minority clinical opinions, prescribing off-label medications, and responding to patient needs and choice during a time of crisis—or whether they must remain silent in the face of statements by public health authorities like Health Canada and the World Health Organization about substances which did not reflect minority scientific opinion.

During and after the pandemic, public health guidance and what was described as “settled science” shifted repeatedly. Yet dissenting perspectives were treated—and, as this case demonstrates, continue to be treated—as unacceptable. Early public messaging suggested that mRNA vaccines would prevent infection; later communications changed to suggest they would reduce severe outcomes, reflecting a change in how their effects were characterized over time.

This evolving landscape underscores that scientific understanding was neither static nor one-sided. It also raises serious questions about whether regulators should discipline clinicians for exercising independent clinical judgment, respecting patient autonomy, and considering science-based treatment options supported by minority viewpoints during an unprecedented public health crisis.

Ms. Chisholm and Freedoms Advocate maintain that on the facts of this case, healthcare professionals must retain the right to discuss, recommend, and prescribe evidence-supported substances based on clinical judgment and patient autonomy and consent, even if those treatments challenge mainstream narratives.

“I treated patients in good faith, with their consent, based on scientific evidence, and in the best interests of their health. The CNO never told me I couldn’t do what I did. No harm was done and my patients confirm that, and many have advised me that they benefited. In these circumstances, I must not be punished for exercising clinical judgment or for respecting patient autonomy. Prescribing contrary to the consensus at the time is not the same as practicing contrary to scientific evidence,” said Ms. Chisholm.

“This case opens a question for all healthcare professionals: if, based on minority scientific opinion, you question the prevailing view will you face discipline. And is that medicine—or censorship – to the detriment of professionals and their patients,” states Randy Crosson, Executive Director of Freedoms Advocate.

This case is not only about Ms. Chisholm—it is about:

• Freedom of speech for healthcare professionals
• Freedom of conscience for clinicians and patients
• Freedom of patients to choose alternative medical care in combination with standard medicine
• The right to open scientific debate without fear of regulatory punishment

The CNO has advised that members of the public who would like to view the hearing must email them: He*************************@*****il.org, specifically requesting the YouTube link for the hearing, and to receive important information about observing a hearing.

The instructions for requesting a YouTube link to observe a discipline hearing livestream are at the following link: https://www.cno.org/protect-the-public/discipline-hearings#i…