however, this looks like a fairly complicated issue for the reason that the professional oversight body is actually a government agency. generally, government would avoid getting itself involved in a conflict like this, because the actual free speech and expression issue is the private sector body's ability to set professional standards. free speech, in context, belongs to both sides, and the woman would need to accept the consequences of her decision to run her mouth of. for government to intervene in any way would be to infringe the speech rights of one or both parties.
in this case, what the court is probably going to do is determine whether the superior court has any jurisdiction to intervene in the decisions made by the body and cite vavilov to decide that it doesn't. the current precedent in canada is that courts aren't supposed to intervene in decisions of this sort essentially at all. it's up to the regulatory body to decide it's own standards. but, i disagree with this, as it is a breakdown in the functioning of law, and think it is fundamentally legally wrong in almost all cases. it's probably the worst case law in canadian history, and will be remembered as a catastrophe when it's overturned.
i would rather point towards the general restriction on political activity (which is what this is) by members of the public service. public sector workers are not supposed to engage in political activity of any sort.
while it should be up the oversight body to set it's own standards, the legal question is whether her views are infringing on her ability to do her job, and i think there's a good argument that they probably are. i've dealt with heath workers that hold discriminatory attitudes and seen first hand how it can impede their ability to provide care. that is an issue of importance that needs to be taken seriously.