Ontario Divisional Court Appeal
The College of Nurses of Ontario case concerned twelve public statements Sarah made or shared during the COVID-19 pandemic. Her appeal asks the Divisional Court to review the treatment of her defence evidence, the fairness of the hearing, and whether her freedom to speak and participate in public debate was properly respected.
A message from Sarah
Hear directly from Sarah about the decision, the appeal, and why she believes the case matters to nurses and everyone who values open public debate.
Help carry the appeal forwardThe CNO Appeal
This is an appeal from the Discipline Committee's March 13, 2026 liability decision and its July 6, 2026 penalty and costs order. The appeal has not yet been decided; the grounds below are Sarah's position and remain to be determined by the Court.
March 13, 2026
The Panel found that twelve public statements made or shared by Sarah were inaccurate, false and/or misleading, or encouraged non-compliance with public-health measures. It found two allegations of professional misconduct proved.
July 6, 2026
The Panel ordered a reprimand, immediate revocation of Sarah's certificate of registration, and $297,976.40 in costs payable within 24 months after the order becomes final. The Panel issued the order without written reasons.
Now
Sarah is asking Ontario's Divisional Court to set aside the decisions and orders, dismiss the allegations or direct a new hearing, and grant such further relief as the Court considers just.
What the appeal challenges
The appeal is not a re-run of the hearing. It asks whether the process that produced the result was fair and whether the legal limits on professional regulation were respected.
Sarah's appeal argues that the Panel misinterpreted its gatekeeping function when it restricted the opinion evidence of defence experts Dr. Steven Pelech and Dr. Byram Bridle, declined to permit Dr. David Speicher to testify as an expert, and excluded scientific literature tendered through the defence.
The appeal challenges the conclusion that the impugned statements were inaccurate, false and/or misleading, and that Sarah encouraged non-compliance with public-health measures. It alleges errors of law, misapprehension of material evidence, and findings unavailable on the record properly considered.
The appeal asks whether the Panel erred in applying nursing standards to public expression outside a clinical or nurse-client relationship without the required connection to nursing practice.
Section 2(b) of the Charter protects freedom of expression. The appeal argues that the Panel did not properly weigh that protection against the College's regulatory objectives, either when deciding liability or when imposing penalty.
The appeal challenges the fitness and proportionality of the reprimand, revocation, and costs award, and the absence of written reasons explaining why the Panel imposed them.
Silencing a nurse does not affect only the nurse. It can deprive the public of an important voice when questions need to be asked.
Why Sarah believes this appeal matters
Help fund the appeal
After 28 days of liability hearings and a separate penalty hearing, the record is extensive. The appeal requires transcript review, record preparation, legal research, written argument, court attendances, and substantial disbursements.
About Sarah
Sarah Choujounian worked as an Ontario Registered Practical Nurse for more than a decade, caring for children with disabilities and residents in long-term care and serving as a union leader.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, she became a public critic of lockdowns, mandates, fear-based public-health messaging, and pressure on healthcare workers to accept the then-new mRNA vaccines. She founded Nurses Against Lockdowns and later co-founded Canadian Frontline Nurses, advocating for informed consent, open discussion of competing viewpoints and evolving evidence, and the ability of healthcare professionals to question institutions publicly.
Sarah is not currently practising nursing and does not plan to return to clinical practice. She is pursuing this appeal because she believes the decision reaches beyond her own registration to the conditions under which regulated professionals may participate in public debate.
CNO appeal questions
No. Its decision concerned twelve specified statements Sarah made or shared, the evidence presented about them, and two pleaded allegations of misconduct. Sarah's appeal challenges both the factual conclusions and the legal route by which the Panel reached them.
Sarah sought to rely on expert opinion and peer-reviewed scientific literature to address the accuracy, context, and evidentiary basis of the statements at issue. The appeal argues that the Panel's approach to the proposed evidence was legally mistaken and procedurally unfair. The Divisional Court will determine whether those alleged errors affected the hearing or result.
The appeal asks a reviewing court to decide whether the Discipline Committee acted fairly, applied the correct legal tests, and reached sustainable findings on the record. The precise role and treatment of expert and scientific evidence is central to those questions.
Regulators may protect the public and maintain professional standards, but decisions limiting expressive activity must reflect the protections in section 2(b) of the Charter. Sarah's appeal argues that the Panel did not perform the required proportionate balancing, including at the penalty stage.
Donations to the CNO appeal fund are intended for the legal work and disbursements required to prosecute the appeal, including review of the extensive hearing record and transcripts, legal research, drafting, filing, and court preparation.
The other constitutional case
Sarah's work with Canadian Frontline Nurses is also connected to the litigation over the federal government's use of the Emergencies Act during the Freedom Convoy. That case remains at the application-for-leave stage before the Supreme Court of Canada.
Current status: Leave to appeal is pending in Supreme Court of Canada file 42262. The Court has not yet decided whether it will hear the case.
Canadian Frontline Nurses and Kristen Nagle filed an application for leave to appeal on March 17, 2026. The Attorney General of Canada responded and the applicants replied. The Supreme Court may grant or deny leave; until it decides, there is no full appeal hearing.
Canadian Frontline Nurses was present in Ottawa, supported and communicated with Convoy participants, livestreamed events, and helped sustain the protest. It brought the first legal challenge to the emergency declaration within days after the Act was invoked.
The Federal Court found that the legal threshold for invoking the Act was not met and that aspects of the emergency measures violated the Charter. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the government's appeal and upheld the central conclusion that the invocation was unreasonable.
The application raises questions about direct standing: whether people within the class governed by coercive emergency measures must wait until an arrest, charge, or account freeze is actually imposed before they may challenge the measures. It also raises issues concerning litigation fairness and the Canadian Bill of Rights.
The federal government seeks leave to challenge the rulings that its use of the Emergencies Act was unlawful. The Court may hear the government's application, the Canadian Frontline Nurses application, both, or neither.
Canadian Frontline Nurses says the courts did not decide its argument that the invocation was politically motivated or its arguments under the Canadian Bill of Rights concerning property, due process, and access to financial services.
Canadian Frontline Nurses asked Chief Justice Richard Wagner to consider recusal because of public comments he had made about the Convoy. The Chief Justice decided he would participate. The concern and the response are described in the parties' filed correspondence and media coverage.
It concerns when Canadians may ask a court to review coercive government measures. The applicants say people should not have to wait until the threatened penalty is actually imposed before testing whether the measure is lawful.
Watch, listen, and read
Interviews, testimony, and coverage concerning Sarah's advocacy and the two cases.
Testimony
June 1, 2024 · Regina, Saskatchewan
Interview
Watch on YouTube
Interview
Watch on YouTube
Speech
Watch on YouTube
Interview
Watch on YouTube
Interview
Watch on YouTube
Podcast
The Holly Hall Show · January 29, 2026
Listen on Amazon MusicPublic debate needs room for dissent