A disciplinary panel of the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives has found Vancouver nurse Amy Hamm guilty of professional misconduct for statements she made about gender and sexuality in various articles.
The ruling, released Thursday, raises concerns about the impact on free expression for regulated professionals in BC and across Canada.
The panel ruled that Hamm’s decision to identify herself as a nurse in the biography of three articles and in one podcast linked her statements to her profession, bringing them under regulatory scrutiny.
However, the panel did not find her extensive social media activity to be misconduct, stating that doing so would prevent her from making any public statements without regulatory consequences.
Hamm, a mother of two, has spent more than four years defending herself against complaints that she made “discriminatory and derogatory” remarks.
The case began in 2020 after she co-sponsored a billboard stating, “I ♥ JK Rowling,” in support of the British author’s advocacy for female-only spaces.
The sign was removed within 30 hours following public backlash, including condemnation from a Vancouver city councillor.
Complaints filed against Hamm accused her of transphobia and called for her to be barred from nursing.
The College launched a lengthy investigation, producing a 332-page report analyzing her tweets, articles, and other online activity. The process led to a formal citation and more than 20 days of disciplinary hearings between September 2022 and March 2024.
Hamm’s legal counsel, provided by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, argued that her speech was reasonable, socially valuable, and supported by scientific evidence.
They also claimed there was no proof of harm resulting from her statements and that restricting her speech violated her Charter-protected freedom of expression.
Lawyer Lisa Bildy said the legal team is reviewing the 115-page ruling to assess grounds for appeal.
“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,” she said.
“However, we are pleased that the vast majority of Ms. Hamm’s commentary was found not to have a sufficient nexus to her profession to attract a disciplinary finding.”
