BC Supreme Court to review $10,000 fine over private comments

The BC Human Rights Tribunal is facing scrutiny in the BC Supreme Court after imposing a $10,000 fine on a British Columbia woman for privately expressing concerns about her friend’s medical decision.

The case, which raises questions about freedom of expression, was brought forward by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.

In January 2025, the Tribunal ruled against Kirstin Olsen, ordering her to pay $10,000 for comments she made in private to her friend, Theresa (Terry) Wiebe, regarding Wiebe’s decision to undergo a mastectomy.

Wiebe, who identifies as transgender, had lived on Olsen’s property in a motorhome from 2014 to 2018, paying $200 per month in rent.

According to court documents, Wiebe informed Olsen in 2017 about beginning hormone therapy and the planned surgery.

Olsen, citing personal concerns about the procedure due to her own mother’s experience with breast cancer and mastectomy complications, expressed discomfort with Wiebe’s decision but did not attempt to prevent it.

Despite this, Olsen continued to accommodate Wiebe on her property and even financially assisted her in returning to BC after a hospitalization.

In 2018, Olsen asked Wiebe to leave following disputes with other individuals on the property.

The Tribunal found that the eviction was not related to Wiebe’s gender identity. However, it ruled that Olsen’s expression of concern about the mastectomy was discriminatory and caused an “injury to dignity,” warranting the $10,000 penalty.

Olsen has now petitioned the BC Supreme Court to overturn the decision, arguing that the Tribunal failed to consider the impact of the fine on her freedom of expression, a right protected under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“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,” said constitutional lawyer Marty Moore, who is representing Olsen.

“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 Supreme Court’s review of the case is expected to have significant implications for how freedom of expression is balanced with human rights protections in British Columbia.