In January 2025, the BC Human Rights Tribunal fined British Columbian Kirstin Olsen $10,000 for privately expressing concerns to her longtime friend.
Background
Kirstin Olsen and Theresa (Terry) Wiebe had been close friends for several years. Wiebe identifies as transgender.
From 2014 to 2018, Olsen allowed Wiebe to move a motorhome onto her property and live there. In 2017, Wiebe informed Olsen about beginning hormone therapy and plans to undergo a mastectomy. Wiebe asked Olsen whether the surgery would impact their arrangement, but Olsen declined to give an answer. Based on concerns arising from her own mother’s breast cancer and mastectomy and the complications that could arise from such a surgery, Olsen told Wiebe that she was uncomfortable with the decision to undergo a mastectomy and that she did not support the decision.
Olsen and Wiebe continued to be on friendly terms, and Olsen continued to allow Wiebe to live on her property for $200 per month. Olsen even paid for Wiebe to return to BC from the Yukon after Wiebe had been hospitalized due to what appeared at the time to be a complication from hormone therapy.
After Wiebe had gotten into a number of arguments with other people on Olsen’s property, however, Olsen asked Wiebe to leave in 2018. Olsen’s reasons for asking Wiebe to leave had nothing to do with Wiebe’s transition.
Human Rights Tribunal decision
Soon after, Wiebe filed a discrimination complaint against Olsen with the BC Human Rights Tribunal. In January 2025, the Tribunal released its decision.
While the Tribunal found that the eviction was not related to Wiebe’s transgender identity, the Tribunal decided that Olsen’s comments expressing concern about the decision to get a mastectomy were discriminatory. For “injury to dignity,” the Tribunal ordered Olsen to pay Wiebe $10,000.
Nowhere in the decision did the Tribunal consider the impact of the fine on Olsen’s freedom of expression, protected by section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Judicial review application
In her petition to the Court, Olsen also points out that her comments were not directed in any way toward Wiebe’s gender identity. On the contrary, Wiebe and Olsen had remained on friendly terms even while Wiebe had undergone a gender identity transition and hormone treatments.
Her petition further argues that the Tribunal erred in finding that a tenancy relationship existed within the meaning of the Human Rights Code, erred in finding that her comments constituted discrimination, and failed to properly consider freedom of expression protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
According to court filings, the Tribunal accepted that Olsen’s concerns about top surgery were connected in part to her personal experiences with her mother’s battle against breast cancer and concerns about the medical risks associated with surgery. The petition argues that these concerns were not based on hostility toward gender identity and that the Tribunal improperly penalized private conversations that took place within a longstanding personal friendship.
“It is very concerning to see a government tribunal policing private communications between friends, and imposing a $10,000 penalty, without giving any heed to the fact that Canada’s Charter guarantees freedom of expression,” stated constitutional lawyer Marty Moore. “A comment of concern for a friend is very different than evicting someone from their home on the basis of their race, religion, sex or other protected personal characteristic. The BC Human Rights Tribunal should focus on combatting genuine cases of discrimination rather than policing speech.”
Judicial hearing begins the week of June 1, 2026
Lawyers funded by the Justice Centre appeared before the Supreme Court of British Columbia on behalf of Ms. Olsen as part of her judicial review application.
The application asks the Court to overturn the Tribunal’s decision and raises broader questions about the reach of human rights tribunals into private discussions between individuals.
Constitutional lawyer Marty Moore said the case raises important questions about the reach of human rights tribunals into private discussions between individuals.
“This case shows yet again an example of the BC Human Rights Tribunal overreaching to police speech,” said Mr. Moore. “It highlights the serious need for legislative reform to prevent private individuals from going through this punishing process on account of expressing their sincere opinions and concerns,” he added.
Ms. Olsen says the Tribunal’s decision has had a profound impact on her.
“The BC Human Rights Tribunal issuing a $10,000 fine for expressing concern and opinions between friends is a violation of Charter rights as the fine makes it clear that the Tribunal is determining that it is mandatory that the public accept or believe in gender theory or be held in violation of the Human Rights Code,” she said.
“I am so very grateful to the JCCF for providing me with professional representation to conduct the Judicial Review of the BC Human Rights Tribunal decision levied against me. I represented myself throughout the previous seven years of the Residential Tenancy and BC Human Rights Tribunal process, and am thoroughly exhausted by this seemingly biased process,” she added.
The hearing is expected to take place over two days during the week of June 1 to 5, 2026.
Hearing delay
A hearing on this matter has been delayed due to an unrelated court matter. More information will be posted when available.