Former B.C. Nurse Challenges Disciplinary Ruling Over Transgender Comments in Supreme Court Appeal
Olivia Singh
11/12/20264 min read
A former British Columbia nurse who was disciplined over public statements about transgender people is challenging the decision in B.C. Supreme Court, arguing that her professional regulator exceeded its authority by treating her advocacy for women's sex-based rights as misconduct.
Amy Hamm's appeal began in Vancouver on Tuesday, November 10, with her lawyer arguing that professional regulators must respect freedom of expression when determining whether comments made outside the workplace warrant disciplinary action.
Hamm, who worked as a registered nurse and nurse educator for Vancouver Coastal Health for approximately 13 years, was dismissed from her employment in March 2025.
The British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM) separately found that four of her online publications constituted unprofessional conduct because they contained discriminatory or derogatory statements about transgender people while identifying her as a nurse.
The regulator subsequently ordered a one-month suspension of her nursing registration and required her to pay $93,639.80 in disciplinary costs.
Those regulatory penalties have been stayed pending the outcome of her appeal.
Lawyer Questions Regulator's Authority Over Public Debate
Hamm's lawyer, Lisa Bildy, told the court that the appeal raises important questions about the limits of professional regulation and the protection of lawful expression.
Bildy acknowledged that professional regulators can discipline members for off-duty conduct in appropriate circumstances and that transgender people are a vulnerable group.
However, she argued that the college had improperly determined which views were acceptable in an ongoing public debate about sex, gender identity and women's rights.
The defence maintains that regulators should not resolve contested political and social questions by disciplining professionals who express particular positions.
According to Bildy, the dispute centres on whether the disciplinary panel applied the correct legal standards when assessing Hamm's statements.
She argued that the college had confused advocacy for rights based on biological sex with discriminatory conduct toward transgender people.
The hearing is not intended to determine the broader political debate over gender identity. Instead, the court is examining whether the disciplinary decision was legally justified and whether the regulator properly exercised its authority.
Appeal Highlights Alleged Inconsistencies in Findings
During her opening submissions, Bildy pointed to several statements examined during Hamm's professional misconduct hearing.
Among them was a personal essay in which Hamm wrote that womanhood was not simply a matter of feeling or personal identification.
The disciplinary panel found that particular statement amounted to discriminatory erasure of transgender women.
Another publication asserting that men could not become women was also found to be discriminatory.
Bildy contrasted those findings with other statements expressing similar views about biological sex that the panel did not classify as professional misconduct.
She argued that the differences demonstrated inconsistencies in how the regulator interpreted discrimination and determined which expressions crossed professional boundaries.
The lawyer maintained that the panel's approach effectively restricted Hamm's ability to advocate for women's sex-based rights without adopting a particular understanding of gender identity.
Justice Jacqueline Hughes questioned aspects of Bildy's presentation during the hearing.
The judge interrupted several arguments, indicating that some appeared insufficiently connected to the legal grounds identified in Hamm's appeal documents.
The exchanges highlighted the importance of distinguishing the broader debate over sex and gender from the specific legal issues the court has been asked to decide.
Nursing Regulator Defends Professional Standards
The BCCNM's original disciplinary findings were issued in March 2025 after a lengthy hearing examining Hamm's public statements.
The panel determined that four publications violated professional standards because they contained discriminatory or derogatory commentary about transgender people while connecting Hamm's views to her professional identity as a nurse or nurse educator.
The college has maintained that nurses occupy positions of public trust and must uphold standards intended to ensure patients can access health care without discrimination.
In announcing its decision, the regulator emphasized that public statements by health-care professionals can influence whether members of vulnerable communities feel safe seeking medical assistance.
The college argued that the professional status of nurses carries responsibilities extending beyond direct patient interactions.
Hamm disputes the disciplinary conclusions and maintains that her advocacy falls within the protection of freedom of expression.
The appeal therefore involves competing legal considerations: the rights of professionals to participate in public discussions and the responsibilities of regulatory bodies to protect public confidence in health-care services.
Dismissal and Human Rights Complaints Form Separate Disputes
Hamm's court appeal follows several years of controversy surrounding her public commentary.
Her employment with Vancouver Coastal Health ended in March 2025, shortly after the college released its misconduct findings.
She has separately filed two complaints with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.
The first alleges that Vancouver Coastal Health discriminated against her because of her political beliefs when it terminated her employment.
The second complaint, directed at the nursing regulator, alleges that the college improperly used its disciplinary authority to enforce a particular position on questions concerning sex and gender identity.
These complaints are separate from her Supreme Court appeal and have not been established as findings of discrimination.
British Columbia's Human Rights Code protects people from discrimination on several grounds, including sex, political belief in employment, and gender identity or expression.
Protections explicitly covering gender identity and expression were added to the provincial legislation in 2016.
Federal human rights and criminal legislation were also amended in 2017 to strengthen protections related to gender identity and expression.
The legal framework forms part of the background against which the college's disciplinary responsibilities and Hamm's arguments are being considered.
Court Case Draws Attention From Advocacy Groups
The appeal has attracted interest from organizations concerned with professional regulation, constitutional rights and equality protections.
Groups granted permission to intervene include Egale Canada, West Coast LEAF, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia and the Association for Reformed Political Action Canada.
Their involvement reflects differing perspectives on how freedom of expression, equality rights and professional obligations should be considered when reviewing disciplinary decisions.
Hamm's supporters argue that professional regulators must not impose penalties merely because members express unpopular or contested views outside work.
Organizations advocating for transgender equality emphasize that professional bodies have a responsibility to address discriminatory conduct that could undermine trust in health-care institutions.
The court must consider the legal issues raised by the appeal without treating either position as automatically determining the outcome.
The hearing, which opened November 10, is scheduled to continue on November 12 and 13.
No final ruling has been issued.
The eventual decision could help clarify how British Columbia's professional regulators should assess off-duty expression, particularly when public statements intersect with protected equality rights and professional standards.
News
Stay updated with the latest BC news stories, subscribe to our newsletter today.
SUBSCRIBE
© 2026 Innovatory Labs Inc. All rights reserved.
LINKS