Hamm v. British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives, 2026 BCSC 1704
September 8, 2026

The BC Supreme Court has granted four of five organizations leave to intervene, on limited grounds, in a nurse’s statutory appeal of a discipline decision finding that her online statements about transgender people amounted to unprofessional conduct. The ruling is procedural, but it frames how the court will approach the merits of an important case on off-duty expression by regulated professionals.

Background

In March 2025, the Discipline Committee of the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives concluded that Amy Hamm committed unprofessional conduct by making statements on various online platforms, between July 2018 and March 2021, that were discriminatory and derogatory to transgender people while identifying herself as a nurse or nurse educator.

The panel found that some statements had a reasonable nexus to the nursing profession because they fundamentally conflicted with the core values of the health care system and the protection of the public. Applying the Doré/Loyola framework, it concluded that its finding did not unjustifiably infringe her freedom of expression. Ms. Hamm appealed.

Five organizations sought leave to intervene on a public interest basis: the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (“CPSBC”), West Coast LEAF, Egale Canada, the Association for Reformed Political Action Canada (ARPA) and the Vancouver Lesbian Collective (VLC).

The Decision

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that interventions should be “balanced” on both sides, holding that each application must be considered on its own merit.

The CPSBC was granted leave to address non-discrimination as a core value across health professions, the contextual nature of the nexus analysis, and respectful public expression, but not the attenuation of Charter rights. West Coast LEAF was granted leave on all three of its proposed grounds. Egale was granted leave on two grounds but refused leave to argue section 7 of the Charter, would have expanded the appeal. ARPA was granted leave on a single ground and must not duplicate the petitioner’s submissions. VLC’s application was dismissed because it had not established a sufficiently broad representative base and its submissions largely duplicated the petitioner’s.

Each intervenor is limited to ten pages of written submissions and 15 minutes of oral argument, and none may adduce evidence.

What Happens Next

The decision does not set a date for the hearing of the appeal on the merits. It states only that each intervenor may make oral submissions of up to 15 minutes “at the hearing of the petition on the merits.” The intervention application itself was heard in Vancouver on July 29-30, 2026. We will report on the outcome of the appeal once it is decided.