DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO
PANEL: Grace Fox, NP Chairperson Randall Burke Public Member Ahamad Mohammed, RPN Member Patricia Pilon Public Member Emilija Stojsavljevic, RPN Member
BETWEEN:
COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO (Jean-Claude Killey for College of Nurses of Ontario)
- and -
KRISTINA WISEMAN Registration No. 9603077 (No Representation for Kristina Wiseman)
LONNY ROSEN Independent Legal Counsel
Heard: May 23, 2025 via videoconference
AMENDED DECISION AND REASONS
This matter was heard by a panel of the Discipline Committee (the "Panel") of the College of Nurses of Ontario (the "College") on May 23, 2025.
The Allegations
The allegations against Kristina Wiseman (the "Member") as stated in the Notice of Hearing dated April 22, 2025 are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED THAT:
- You have committed an act of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(b) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 32, as amended, and defined in subsection 1(1) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that, while holding a certificate of registration as a Registered Nurse with the College of Nurses of Ontario, you were found to have committed an act of professional misconduct by the governing body of a health profession in a jurisdiction other than Ontario that would be an act of professional misconduct as defined in the regulations, and in particular, on or about February 2, 2023, you were found by the Disciplinary Subcommittee of the Michigan Board of Nursing to have violated sections 16221(a), (b)(i), (b)(vi), and (e)(vi) of the Michigan Public Health Code, and your license to practice as a nurse in Michigan was permanently surrendered.
Member's Plea
The Member admitted the allegation set out in paragraph 1 in the Notice of Hearing. The Panel received a written plea inquiry which was signed by the Member. The Panel also conducted an oral plea inquiry and was satisfied that the Member's admissions were voluntary, informed and unequivocal.
Agreed Statement of Facts
College Counsel and the Member advised the Panel that agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts, which reads, unedited as follows:
THE MEMBER
Kristina Wiseman (the "Member") registered with the College of Nurses of Ontario ("CNO") as a Registered Nurse ("RN") on October 10, 1995. The Member resigned her certificate of registration on January 19, 2024.
The Member has no prior disciplinary findings with CNO.
From in or around 1997 to 2023, the Member was also licensed to practice as a registered nurse in the State of Michigan.
INCIDENTS RELEVANT TO ALLEGATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
The Board of Nursing, Bureau of Professional Licensing, Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs of the State of Michigan (the "Board") is an administrative agency established by the Michigan Public Health Code, Act 368 of 1978. The Board of Nursing's Disciplinary Subcommittee is empowered to make findings that a licensee has violated the Public Health Code and may impose sanctions for those violations.
On November 22, 2022, an administrative complaint was filed with the Disciplinary Subcommittee against the Member. The complaint related to the Member's conduct while employed as an RN at the Wayne County Jail in Detroit, Michigan (the "Facility"). In particular, the complaint concerned the Member's inappropriate sexual interactions with two inmates at the Facility for whom the Member provided care. The complaint alleged that: the Member touched an inmate's bare penis through the cell bars on multiple occasions; the Member allowed an inmate to touch her bare breast through the cell bars; and the Member gave her cell phone to an inmate on two occasions for a few hours. It was alleged that the Member gave the inmate her phone so he could view sexually graphic videos the Member had filmed of herself.
On November 28, 2022, the Disciplinary Subcommittee suspended the Member's license to practice.
On February 2, 2023, the Disciplinary Subcommittee found the Member guilty of breaching sections 16221(a), (b)(i), (b)(vi), and (e)(vi) of the Public Health Code following the Member's no-contest plea to the allegations set out in the administrative complaint. In accordance with the terms of the Consent Order and Stipulation issued by the Board's Disciplinary Subcommittee, the Member neither admitted nor denied the allegations raised in the complaint but agreed that the Disciplinary Subcommittee should treat the allegations as true, which finding would have the same force and effect as if evidence and argument were presented in support of the allegations.
In accordance with the terms of the Consent Order, the Member permanently surrendered her license to practice in the State of Michigan.
THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS PROCEDURAL CODE
- Section 51(1)(b) of the Health Professions Procedural Code (schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professionals Act, 1991, SO 1991 c 18) provides that a panel of the Discipline Committee shall find that a member has committed an act of professional misconduct if the governing body of another health profession in or outside of Ontario has found that the member committed an act of professional misconduct that would, in the opinion of the panel, be an act of professional misconduct in Ontario.
ADMISSIONS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
- The Member admits that she has committed an act of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(b) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 32, as amended, and defined in subsection 1(1) of Ontario Regulation 799/93, in that while holding a certificate of registration as a Registered Nurse with the College of Nurses of Ontario, she was found to have committed an act of professional misconduct by the governing body of a health profession in a jurisdiction other than Ontario that would be an act of professional misconduct as defined in the regulations, in that, on or about February 2, 2023, she was found by the Disciplinary Subcommittee of the Michigan Board of Nursing to have violated sections 16221(a), (b)(i), (b)(vi), and (e)(vi) of the Michigan Public Health Code. Accordingly, the Member admits that she committed the act of professional misconduct as alleged in paragraph 1 of the Notice of Hearing.
Decision
The College bears the onus of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof, that being the balance of probabilities, based upon clear, cogent and convincing evidence.
Having considered the evidence and the onus and standard of proof, the Panel finds that the Member committed an act of professional misconduct, as alleged in the Notice of Hearing.
Reasons for Decision
The Panel considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and the Member's plea and admissions and finds that this evidence supports a finding of professional misconduct as alleged in the Notice of Hearing.
It is an act of professional misconduct for a member of a health profession in Ontario to be found to have committed an act of professional misconduct in another jurisdiction, where the misconduct would also be an act of professional misconduct in Ontario and the member was registered as a member of the profession in Ontario at that time.
Allegation #1 in the Notice of Hearing is supported by paragraphs 4 - 10 of the Agreed Statement of Facts. While the Member was registered with the College, she was also licensed to practice nursing in the State of Michigan, and was employed as a nurse at the Wayne County Jail in Detroit, Michigan (the "Facility"). The Member admitted that she was the subject of a disciplinary finding in that jurisdiction, in relation to serious allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct involving two inmates at the Facility.
On February 2, 2023, the Michigan Board of Nursing's Disciplinary Subcommittee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct following her no-contest plea. The Member permanently surrendered her Michigan nursing license as part of the resolution of her Michigan disciplinary proceedings. The Member admits and the Panel accepts that the nature of the misconduct she was found to have engaged in in Michigan, namely, inappropriate sexual contact with persons for whom the Member was providing care, would also constitute professional misconduct if it had occurred in Ontario.
College counsel submitted, and the Panel finds that such conduct would contravene the standards of practice of the profession.
The Panel also finds that the Member's conduct, had it occurred in Ontario, would have constituted disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct, as well as sexual abuse of a patient. It reflected serious lapses in judgment, a clear abuse of the power imbalance inherent in the nurse-client relationship, and a violation of the ethical standards of the profession. The Member's conduct was undoubtedly of a nature that undermines the public's trust in the nursing profession and violates the core principles of professional integrity and patient safety. Although the Member did not admit to the allegations raised in the complaint that gave rise to the Michigan proceedings, she agreed that the Disciplinary Subcommittee could treat the allegations as true for the purpose of the disciplinary outcome, which this Panel accepts as the basis for its own findings.
Penalty
College Counsel and the Member advised that a Joint Submission on Order had been agreed upon and requested that the Panel make the following order:
Requiring the Member to appear before the Panel to be reprimanded within 3 months of the date that this Order becomes final.
Directing the Executive Director to immediately revoke the Member's certificate of registration.
Submissions on Penalty
College Counsel made submissions which included the following.
College Counsel submitted that the proposed penalty satisfies the principles of public protection, deterrence, and regulatory accountability. Counsel emphasized that revocation is appropriate given the nature of the misconduct, which included sexual contact with persons under the Member's care, even though it occurred in another jurisdiction. The misconduct would clearly warrant revocation if it had occurred in Ontario.
College Counsel also noted that the Member resigned her certificate of registration with the College in January 2024, after proceedings in Michigan had concluded. While the resignation lessens the immediate impact of revocation, it does establish a formal consequence and triggers a minimum one-year period before the Member could apply for reinstatement, thereby supporting the goals of both deterrence and public protection.
College Counsel submitted that the proposed penalty fell squarely within the range of outcomes ordered in similar cases and, as a joint submission, it should not be deviated from unless accepting the joint submission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. College Counsel submitted cases to the Panel to demonstrate that the proposed penalty fell within the range of penalty orders in similar cases from this Discipline Committee. Specifically, the cases of CNO v. Goldar, 2019 73941 (ON CNO) and CNO v. Franklin, 2020 42408 (ON CNO) establish that the proposed penalty falls within the range of similar cases from this Discipline Committee.
The Member did not make any submissions on penalty.
Penalty Decision
The Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Order and made the order requested.
Reasons for Penalty Decision
There is a high threshold for departing from a Joint Submission on Order, established by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43. Departing from a joint submission would require a finding that the proposed penalty would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest.
The Panel concluded that the proposed penalty is not contrary to the public interest and does not bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The Panel found that the proposed penalty is reasonable and in the public interest. It promotes public confidence in the ability of the College to regulate nurses.
In light of the Member having resigned her certificate of registration and the Panel's decision to order revocation, the goals of remediation and rehabilitation were not applicable in this case.
The proposed penalty provides for general deterrence through the revocation of the Member's certificate of registration. This sends a clear message to members of the profession that misconduct of this nature, particularly involving sexual contact with patients, will result in the most serious regulatory consequence.
The proposed penalty provides for specific deterrence through the oral reprimand and revocation of the Member's certificate of registration. The Member is held publicly accountable, and her ability to practice as a nurse in Ontario is removed, with reinstatement requiring a separate application and hearing process.
Since the Member will no longer be entitled to practise nursing in Ontario, remediation and rehabilitation are not relevant. Should the Member choose to reapply for membership, however, she would be required to satisfy a panel of the Discipline Committee that she is fit to return to practice, thereby ensuring a formal and rigorous process for demonstrating insight and remediation.
Overall, the public is protected because the penalty ensures that the Member is no longer able to practice nursing in Ontario. It affirms the College's commitment to upholding the highest standards of professional conduct and safeguarding the public from future risk.
The Panel acknowledges that the Member cooperated with the College and, by agreeing to the facts and the proposed penalty, accepted responsibility for her actions. This is a mitigating factor.
The penalty is also in line with the range of outcomes ordered in previous, similar cases, and supports the integrity and trustworthiness of the profession.
I, Grace Fox, NP, sign this amended decision and reasons for the decision as Chairperson of this Discipline Panel and on behalf of the members of the Discipline Panel.