Amy Hamm - Canadian Nurse being disciplined for being GC

Apparently one of the expert witnesses for the other side sat in and watched which was against the rules. The lawyer (Findlay) was using them to get advice on questions up ask the Dr and when called on it basically just said 'oops sorry'

Really? I’d dropped off by that point! She must know this isn’t acceptable. When Dr Cantor was admitted into the hearing early Amy’s lawyer flagged it immediately. I wonder if bf got the job due to her ideological beliefs over her skill as a lawyer. Hopefully this shows she in over her head if she can’t even plan what questions to ask without the assistance of their expert.

I’m not watching, just reading the comments here, and have followed the previous events that led to this point but……it’s a total farce, isn’t it? How can they claim with a straight face that this will offer any chance of justice for Amy Hamm? It’s absolutely beyond all belief now.

It's insane, he's been an expert in 31 trials, so he's been found suitable 31 times.

Apparently one of the expert witnesses for the other side sat in and watched which was against the rules. The lawyer (Findlay) was using them to get advice on questions up ask the Dr and when called on it basically just said 'oops sorry'

It’s a very odd system. No wonder this case is dragging on so long.

I know right?

Are they really going to spend the whole of the rest of the day having Dr Cantor describe every journal he's ever written, study he's ever done and case he's ever testified in, just to determine whether or not he can be called an expert?

Well this is different to our tribunals. It looks like James Cantor is being cross examined for acceptance as a witness?

I'm there as well - now have sound and vision

Is anyone else joining? It looks like it's just me with James Cantor in the waiting room. I'm so confused.

New link for hearing...

https://healthreg.webex.com/healthreg/j.php?MTID=me90fe7268452d7287892ac419749de6b

Your not alone. But I'm not sure how long I'll be awake.

I just found myself in the webex room alone with ... I guess the admins. Very strange as I'd logged in and forgotten about it in the backround.

Thank you signalbox, yes that makes sense.

Although I'm not sure i understand how a legal system can dictate what a witness can or can't comment on ...before they have spoken or been asked questions. Surely it does beg for witnesses to be deemed 'unqualified ' because they know too much, about too many things? If the system can hobble a witness to say only the things that BC nursing council deem acceptable, what is the point.

The sound was so terrible (whilst the person from BC nursing council was wearing fabulous ear cans, her mic was pointing at the ceiling). That being said, I'm sure I heard her object to various questions, including one about evidence base for trans healthcare & treatment and one about the credibility of WPATH. BC nurse council member deemed both questions irrelevant to this case?... i thought that was a bit odd in a disciplinary hearing of a nurse concerned about poor evidence and the influence this poor evidence has on healthcare, patient outcomes, professionals and the language they can use? And didn't Marcie bowers give evidence in earlier hearing? As a key player in WPATH isn't it reasonable to question the credibility of Marcis evidence?

Also chuckled when they repeatedly stated Amy did wrong speak when she was 'identifying as a nurse'. Who'd have thunk, you can identify anything these days.

Thoughts are with Amy.

BC is on Pacific Standard Time, usually 8h behind the UK. We turn the clocks back an hour on Nov 7.

The BCCNM is completely out of their depth here - I can't recall another hearing like this, ever. They've always been quick, as far as I know only to assess professional misconduct like abuse or drugs, with suspensions or licence revocations. I am appalled that members' fees (which increased this year) are going to this. I'm also in disbelief that a UBC Nursing prof denied biology.

Thank you

I'm still in the hearing but it hasn't started up again yet. I think it should resume at 10pm (our time) and perhaps they will say how they are going to deal with the interruptions at that point.

Hi all I got confused by the time difference. What is happening? Are we in the waiting room because of trolls?

It's all a bit of a mystery as the Canadian system is quite different from ours. I think Amy's lawyers are about to open their case with Dr Cantor. There seems to be an odd system in Canada where each expert witness needs to be assessed as being "qualified" by the panel before they give evidence. And the evidence needs to be heard before a decision is made on rebuttal witnesses. Amy's lawyers were keen that the rebuttal evidence (if heard) shouldn't be right at the end because of fairness. They're dealing with some IT issues during the break. I wonder if they will be trying to working out how to mute observers because it really is quite distracting to have all the nut job trolls interrupting every 5 minutes. The BCCNM's case wasn't constantly interrupted like this because you had to apply to join so they were able to keep the troll out more easily.

They're on a break now for a couple of hours til 2pm their time. I'm still in the link though. Perhaps they've stopped allowing observers in due to too many trolls. The last one was someone called A.Hitler saying "fuck off cunt". They really haven't thought it through. Think it's BCCNM's link so doesn't surprise me. Perhaps they are keen to have an excuse to keep the public out.

Blimey, and to think that we were kvetching about Justin being moody!

Well I can only imagine Amy's frustration.

Hearing has really not got started. BC nursing council, object to various points including another witness they consider as unqualified to give evidence. And whether their rebuttal witness can give evidence after Amy (due to witness availability in November only). A bit of too and fro about whether this is appropriate, given that Amy will not be in position to give evidence associated with this witness testimony or even really know what allegations are levelled against her... are these even the right words in these circumstances?

Some 'attendees' have been disruptive including having offensive usernames and interrupting proceedings (audio/video and some creative writing)....consequently panel have gone back into break out room (again) ..for a couple of hours this time, while they see if IT can do something about the disruptors.

I have no clue what is going on TBH apart from a whole heap of faffing about. If there is anyone out there who knows if any of the proceedings were/are, in/significant I'd welcome their insight.

Can you get back in? No. "You can join the meeting after the host admits you". Host hasn't admitted me. Maybe they kicked everyone off because of the troll. Also, someone had signed in as A Hitler.

Can you get back in?

Logged on to listen. Discussion on procedural matters. Some man shouting obscenities while Amy's lawyer is speaking. I have now been kicked off. I hope they don't think it was me.

Ffs they haven’t worked out that they need to mute observers. Seems obvious on a high profile case.