A former British Columbia nurse is challenging disciplinary findings related to her public comments about sex and gender, arguing that professional regulators should not have the power to decide which position in a public debate is acceptable.
Amy Hamm’s appeal began Nov. 10 in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver. Her lawyer, Lisa Bildy, argued that the B.C. College of Nurses and Midwives erred in finding that four of Hamm’s online publications were discriminatory or derogatory toward transgender people.
The appeal raised questions about the authority of professional regulators to discipline members for comments made outside the workplace, particularly when those comments concern contentious social and political issues.
Amy Hamm, a nurse from Vancouver, B.C., is seen in a file photo. (Courtesy of Amy Hamm/JCCF)First Day in Court
Bildy acknowledged during the Nov. 10 hearing that nurses can face professional discipline for off-duty comments and that transgender people are a vulnerable group. However, she argued that professional regulators should not take sides in an ongoing public debate and discipline members for expressing a contrary position, CBC News reported.
“When a public debate is still alive in our legislatures, in our courts and in the courts of comparable democracy, may a professional regulator decide which side is correct and then discipline a professional who is on the other side? We say it may not,” Bildy said.
She also pointed to what she described as inconsistencies in the college panel’s findings. Some of Hamm’s statements about biological sex were deemed discriminatory, while other statements expressing similar views were not.
“This is the heart of the appeal,” Bildy said. “The panel made a determination that you cannot advocate for sex-based rights without including transgender women.”
Justice Jacqueline Hughes interrupted Bildy several times during her submissions, according to CBC, at one point describing some of her arguments as “untethered” to her written pleadings.
David Breda, editor of the New Westminster Times, also described the interruptions as “more or less constant” and characterized the exchanges as combative.
In a video commentary after the hearing, Breda said the judge frequently challenged Bildy’s arguments while the lawyer responded calmly. He also said Bildy argued that criticism of political activists or movements should not automatically be treated as discrimination against people belonging to a protected group.
According to Breda, Bildy maintained that the college had sided with one group of activists in the debate over the meaning of sex and womanhood rather than remaining impartial.
The appeal hearing is scheduled to continue Nov. 12 and 13, when the college is expected to present its arguments. No decision has been issued.
Disciplinary Findings
The case stems from complaints about statements Hamm made between 2018 and 2021 on social media, podcasts, and other platforms.
Hamm helped sponsor a Vancouver billboard in September 2020 supporting British author J.K. Rowling, who has publicly defended women’s sex-based rights. The billboard drew public attention, and two people later complained to the nursing regulator after an online article identified Hamm as a health-care worker.
in March 2025, a three-member disciplinary panel found that Hamm had committed unprofessional conduct in connection with three written articles and one podcast episode in which she identified herself as a nurse or nurse educator.
The panel found that some of her statements were discriminatory or derogatory toward transgender people and said it could undermine public confidence in the nursing profession. It also determined that many of her other comments did not meet the threshold for professional misconduct.
The panel said some statements challenged the identities of transgender women and could discourage transgender patients from seeking health care.
“By identifying herself as a nurse or nurse educator while posting discriminatory and/or derogatory opinions regarding a vulnerable and historically disadvantaged group on various online platforms, the Respondent undermined the reputation and integrity of the nursing profession,” the panel concluded.
The college described the decision as “an important statement against discrimination.”
Hamm’s Response
Hamm told The Epoch Times after the March 2025 decision that she was shocked her statements had been deemed discriminatory. She said that “no woman should be punished for standing up for our rights.”
Bildy said she was disappointed that some of Hamm’s off-duty advocacy fell within the regulator’s disciplinary authority, although she welcomed the panel’s decision not to sanction most of her client’s comments.
“Obviously, we are disappointed that any of Ms. Hamm’s off-duty gender critical advocacy was found to be within the purview of her regulator,” Bildy previously told The Epoch Times.
Hamm worked for Vancouver Coastal Health for 13 years before the health authority terminated her employment in March 2025. The health authority confirmed her departure and said it expected employees to maintain high ethical and professional standards.
In August 2025, the nursing college ordered Hamm to serve a one-month suspension and pay $93,639.80 in costs. Both measures have been stayed pending the appeal.
Hamm has also filed separate human rights complaints against Vancouver Coastal Health and the nursing regulator, alleging discrimination based on her political beliefs.
Hamm wrote in a post on social media days before the court hearing that she never imagined her life would take a direction in which she would be “smeared as a bigot across the country,” lose her job and long-term financial stability, and spend more than six years in legal battles.
“I’m still fighting because I care about the truth, free speech (for all of us, but especially for regulated professionals, who don’t deserve to be policed in their private lives and forced to go along with state orthodoxy), and women’s rights,” she added.
