BC nurse spoke publicly in defence of women’s rights
Amy Hamm is a Vancouver-area nurse and mother of two who worked in healthcare for more than 13 years without disciplinary incident.
In September 2020, Ms. Hamm co-sponsored a billboard in Vancouver that read, “I ♥ JK Rowling,” referencing the British author’s public support for women’s rights and female-only spaces such as crisis shelters, restrooms, and sports. Ms. Hamm told CBC, “Women’s rights are important, and we need to stand up for them, and it’s not transphobic to do so.”
The billboard sparked public controversy.
A Vancouver city councillor condemned it on social media, prompting the advertising company to remove it after approximately 30 hours. Before it was removed, it had been defaced with paintballs.
Soon afterward, a self-identified social justice activist filed a complaint with the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (College), alleging that Ms. Hamm was transphobic and should be barred from practising nursing. A second anonymous complaint alleged that she had promoted hate speech against gender-diverse communities.
College disciplined Amy Hamm for public statements made outside her workplace
The College launched an extensive investigation into Ms. Hamm’s public comments, reviewing hundreds of pages of articles, interviews, podcasts, videos, and social media posts made between 2018 and 2021.
Beginning in September 2022, Ms. Hamm participated in disciplinary hearings spanning more than 20 hearing days over approximately 18 months. Lawyers funded by the Justice Centre argued that Ms. Hamm had expressed sincerely held views on matters of public importance while off duty, that her statements were scientifically supportable and socially valuable, and that the College was bound to respect the freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
On March 13, 2025, the disciplinary panel found Ms. Hamm guilty of unprofessional conduct in relation to four public communications in which she identified herself as a nurse. The panel did not find that her personal social media posts, where she had not identified herself as a nurse, constituted professional misconduct.
Appeal challenged the College’s decision
Following the disciplinary ruling, Ms. Hamm appealed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
Her appeal argues that the College made significant legal and factual errors and improperly punished protected expression concerning matters of public debate. It also argues that belief systems relating to sex, gender, and gender identity must remain open to discussion and criticism in a free and democratic society.
Ms. Hamm remarked, “The Panel’s erroneous decision, which has no bearing on biological reality, cannot stand. Eventually, we will be left with only the truth, which always wins.”
Her constitutional lawyer, Lisa Bildy, noted, “In our view, the Panel made a number of legal and factual errors that make the decision unsound, and we look forward to arguing these points before the BC Supreme Court.”
The appeal attracted applications to intervene from five organizations, including advocacy groups and professional regulators. Lawyers funded by the Justice Centre opposed several of the applications on the basis that they duplicated existing arguments or extended beyond the issues before the Court.
Separate proceedings alleged political discrimination
The appeal before the Supreme Court proceeded independently from two separate complaints filed with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
Ms. Hamm alleged that Vancouver Coastal Health discriminated against her on the basis of political belief by terminating her employment because of her views on women’s rights and gender issues.
She also alleged that the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives discriminated against her on the same ground by pursuing disciplinary proceedings arising from those views.
Constitutional lawyer Lisa Bildy said, “This will be an important case to watch. Unlike in the United Kingdom, Canadian tribunals have not wrestled with the question of whether gender critical views are protected beliefs.”
“Canada should follow suit,” she added.
College imposed suspension and costs while appeal proceeded
Following the disciplinary ruling, the College suspended Ms. Hamm’s nursing licence for one month, effective upon her return to practice, and ordered her to pay $93,639.80 in legal costs.
Ms. Hamm appealed those findings as part of her broader appeal before the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
Her constitutional lawyer, Lisa Bildy, stated: “This decision effectively penalizes a nurse for expressing mainstream views aligned with science and common sense. The Panel’s ruling imposes a chilling effect on free expression for all regulated professionals.”
Ms. Hamm responded: “The College has chosen to punish me for statements that are not hateful, but truthful. I’m appealing because biological reality matters, and so does freedom of expression.”
Key court documents and legal filings related to this matter are available in the “Explore Case Documents” section below.
