'Canadian tribunals have not wrestled with the question of whether gender-critical views are protected beliefs,' says lawyer
A Vancouver nurse has filed two human rights complaints, alleging that both Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH) and the British Columbia College of Nurses & Midwives (BCCNM) discriminated against her because of her political beliefs.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which is representing Amy Hamm, announced that the complaints have been submitted to the BC Human Rights Tribunal.
Hamm is seeking reinstatement, a public apology, a declaration of discrimination, and financial compensation.
Long-running dispute over gender views
Hamm says she was targeted for discipline and eventually fired after expressing her views on gender and women’s rights outside of work. According to the Justice Centre, Hamm had no history of workplace issues—even when working with transgender patients—but her public commentary led to complaints from non-patients to both her employer and her professional regulator.
The first complaint is against VCH, which terminated Hamm after a lengthy investigation. VCH argued that Hamm’s personal beliefs caused “harm to individuals” and could damage the organization’s reputation. Hamm’s suspension in May 2024 followed a campaign led by VCH employees associated with the activist group Care Not Cops, who publicly called for her dismissal and encouraged complaints to her union and employer, says the JCCF.
Hamm’s lawyer raised concerns about due process and threats against Hamm’s safety during the investigation, which lasted over 10 months, before she was fired in March 2025 .
College rules unprofessional conduct
The second complaint targets the BCCNM, which found Hamm guilty of unprofessional conduct in March 2025 after an 18-month hearing. The college’s decision centered on online comments it described as “discriminatory and derogatory” toward transgender people, some of which identified Hamm as a nurse.
The investigation began in 2020 after public complaints about Hamm’s involvement in a billboard supporting controversial author JK Rowling, citing allegations that she had expressed views similar to those of the famous author and had made “transphobic comments,” says the JCCF.
The college stated, “The respondent’s derisive statements regarding transgender people (and particularly transgender women) are not only contrary to the foundational values of the health care system but also to the obligation of the nursing profession to treat individuals with respect and dignity and to facilitate and promote equitable access to health care services without regard to irrelevant personal attributes and characteristics.”
The college emphasized that upholding non-discrimination is a core part of its public protection mandate .
Amy Hamm speaks out
In an article for the National Post in April, Hamm described her firing as the culmination of a campaign by colleagues and activists who disagreed with her gender-critical views, which she says she only expressed outside of work.
Hamm reported that she never received a patient complaint in her 13 years as a nurse but was accused by VCH of “erasing” and “denying” the existence of transgender people. She claims the investigation included anonymous complaints, a paid suspension, and a police investigation after threats were made against her.
Hamm also alleges that her union representative was silenced during meetings and that she was pressured to remain confidential about the process.
“My public shaming has been ineffective because I value the truth more than my reputation,” she wrote in the Post. “I will continue to speak it, in the company of other brave and sane Canadians who can plainly see that a man is a man—and that to pretend otherwise is a misogynist lie.”
B.C. human rights tribunal
Both complaints are now before the BC Human Rights Tribunal, which will decide if they meet the criteria to proceed.
Hamm’s legal team, provided by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, argues that Canadian tribunals have yet to address whether gender-critical views are protected beliefs.
“This will be an important case to watch,” said constitutional lawyer Lisa Bildy in the JCCF release. “Unlike in the United Kingdom, Canadian tribunals have not wrestled with the question of whether gender-critical views are protected beliefs,” she said. “Canada should follow suit.
Regulatory authorities appear to be using their power to “discipline and enforce a particular worldview – in this case, gender ideology,” said Bildy. “This should not be allowed to become the norm.”
