(LifeSiteNews) — A Canadian provincial Supreme Court will be hearing the appeal of a Canadian woman whom a human rights tribunal ordered to pay $10,000 for private comments made with a friend relating to the harms of transgender surgeries.
A hearing for British Columbia resident Kristin Olsen was confirmed by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), which noted that it will fund lawyers to help Olsen appear before the Supreme Court of British Columbia later this week. The hearing will conclude on June 5.
Olsen is looking for a judicial review of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal decision that ordered the large payment, which stemmed from a conversation that she had with her then-friend, Terry Wiebe, who lived on Olsen’s property from 2014 to 2018.
The pair were friends who were also sharing working and living arrangements before their friendship went south.
“The BC Human Rights Tribunal issuing a $10,000 fine for expressing concern and opinions between friends is a violation of Charter rights as the fine makes it clear that the Tribunal is determining that it is mandatory that the public accept or believe in gender theory or be held in violation of the Human Rights Code,” said Olsen.
Olsen said she was “grateful to the JCCF for providing me with professional representation to conduct the Judicial Review of the BC Human Rights Tribunal decision levied against me.”
“I represented myself throughout the previous seven years of the Residential Tenancy and BC Human Rights Tribunal process, and am thoroughly exhausted by this seemingly biased process,” she added.
The incident began in 2019, when Wiebe, who identifies as transgender, filed a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, alleging that Olsen committed discrimination based on “gender identity and expression.”
Wiebe had told Olsen she was considering a mastectomy or “top surgery.” The tribunal noted that Olsen was concerned about Wiebe undergoing the procedure, due to her mother having had breast cancer and other risks associated with the procedure.
According to the tribunal ruling, Olsen told Wiebe not to have the surgery, as she did not need to “mutilate” her body and that she was “fine as a lesbian.”
Olsen had denied that she used the word “mutilate,” but the tribunal concluded that it was “more likely than not” that she did use the word to describe the surgery.
As a result, in January of 2025, the tribunal ruled in favor of Wiebe, noting that while “gender identity” was not a factor in Olsen wanting to end the living arrangement, her refusal to let Wiebe know if she was able to live on the property after the “top surgery” was a negative factor.
Olsen was told she had to pay Wiebe $10,000 in damages as a result of injury to feelings and self-respect.
Olsen has said that the tribunal made an error in, as put by the JCCF, “finding that a tenancy relationship existed within the meaning of the Human Rights Code” and also “erred in finding that her comments constituted discrimination, and failed to properly consider freedom of expression protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
Lawyer Marty Moore noted that this case brings up important questions about the reach of human rights tribunals into people’s private discussions.
“This case shows yet again an example of the BC Human Rights Tribunal overreaching to police speech,” he said.
“It highlights the serious need for legislative reform to prevent private individuals from going through this punishing process on account of expressing their sincere opinions and concerns.”
Instances of Canadians being reprimanded by human rights tribunals for having expressed concerns relating to a host of issues, including LGBT ones, have become commonplace.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, a Canadian woman who is being targeted by a human rights tribunal after sharing flyers opposing so-called “pride” crosswalks now has the help of the JCCF to help her stave off attacks from the LGBT lobby.