Thompson v. Interior Health Authority, 2025 BCHRT 188
Date Issued: August 12, 2025
File: CS-005224
Indexed as: Thompson v. Interior Health Authority, 2025 BCHRT 188
IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE,
RSBC 1996, c. 210 (as amended)
AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before
the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
BETWEEN:
Craig Thompson
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Interior Health Authority
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Robin Dean
On his on behalf: Craig Thompson
Counsel for the Respondent: Karen Orr and Annie Olson
I INTRODUCTION
[1] On October 5, 2021, Craig Thompson filed a complaint alleging he was discriminated against based on his religion when his employer, Interior Health Authority [Interior Health], denied his request for a religious exemption to the provincial vaccine mandate and then terminated his employment when he failed to provide proof of vaccination. Mr. Thompson says that he was opposed to the COVID-19 vaccine because he believed it contained harmful ingredients including aborted cells from a human fetus.
[2] Interior Health denies discriminating and applies to dismiss Mr. Thompson’s complaint under s. 27(1)(c) of the Human Rights Code. It says that Mr. Thompson does not provide any details about his religion or religious beliefs in his complaint, nor does he say that being vaccinated with any of the alleged ingredients is contrary to his religion, whatever that religion may be.
[3] I must decide whether Mr. Thompson has no reasonable prospect of proving a sincerely held religious belief, which required him to decline the COVID-19 vaccine.
[4] Because, based on the materials before me, Mr. Thompson has no reasonable prospect of proving that his religious beliefs prevented him from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, I dismiss Mr. Thompson’s complaint. To make this decision, I have considered all the information filed by the parties. In these reasons, I refer only to what is necessary to explain my decision. I make no findings of fact.
II BACKGROUND
[5] On September 2, 2021, the Provincial Health Officer of British Columbia issued a public health order [PHO]. The PHO required all staff working at long term care facilities to have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine by October 11, 2021, unless they had a medical exemption. At the time, Mr. Thompson was employed at a long-term care facility operated by Interior Health.
[6] On September 9, 2021, Interior Health notified its employees, including Mr. Thompson, of the upcoming vaccine requirement, and warned employees that failure to comply with the PHO could result in termination of employment.
[7] On September 21, 2021, Interior Health sent a follow-up letter to Mr. Thompson to warn him that the failure to comply with the PHO would result in him not being permitted to work on October 12, 2021, with a loss of pay and other employment consequences, up to and including termination of employment.
[8] On September 24, 2021, Mr. Thompson expressed concerns relating to his ability to give “informed consent” to the COVID-19 vaccine without further information. In this correspondence, Mr. Thompson sets out a number of questions relating to safety of the COVID‑19 vaccine and says “once I have received the above information in full and am satisfied that there is NO threat to my health, I will be happy to accept your offer to receive the treatment”, but only upon Interior Health’s acceptance of certain conditions.
[9] Mr. Thompson asked his manager for a form to apply for a religious exemption to the vaccine requirement on October 4, 2021.
[10] Interior Health says that the PHO made an exception to the vaccine requirement for medical reasons only. It did not provide for a religious exemption. It says Mr. Thompson did not provide evidence of vaccination before the October 11, 2021 deadline, and he was placed on an unpaid leave of absence on October 12, 2021.
[11] On October 21, 2021, Mr. Thompson asked his manager “Do you have any information regarding risks of being vaccinated so that I can provide my informed consent? I am not against vaccination, but I do require you to provide the risks to me, as you are requesting my vaccination with an experimental MRNA vaccine that is in phase 3 of trials.”
[12] Interior Health terminated Mr. Thompson’s employment effective October 27, 2021 due to an inability to perform his job duties because he had not complied with the PHO.
III DECISION
A. Section 27(1)(c) – No reasonable prospect of success
[13] Interior Health applies to dismiss Mr. Thompson’s complaint on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success: Code, s. 27(1)(c). The onus is on Interior Health to establish the basis for dismissal.
[14] Section 27(1)(c) is part of the Tribunal’s gate-keeping function. It allows the Tribunal to remove complaints which do not warrant the time and expense of a hearing.
[15] The Tribunal does not make findings of fact under s. 27(1)(c). Instead, the Tribunal looks at the evidence to decide whether “there is no reasonable prospect that findings of fact that would support the complaint could be made on a balance of probabilities after a full hearing of the evidence”: Berezoutskaia v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2006 BCCA 95 at para. 22, leave to appeal ref’d [2006] SCCA No. 171. The Tribunal must base its decision on the materials filed by the parties, and not on speculation about what evidence may be filed at the hearing: University of British Columbia v. Chan,2013 BCSC 942 at para. 77.
[16] A dismissal application is not the same as a hearing: Lord v. Fraser Health Authority,2021 BCSC 2176 at para. 20; SEPQA v. Canadian Human Rights Commission,[1989] 2 SCR 879 at 899. The threshold to advance a complaint to a hearing is low. In a dismissal application, a complainant does not have to prove their complaint or show the Tribunal all the evidence they may introduce at a hearing. They only have to show that the evidence takes their complaint out of the realm of conjecture: Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal v. Hill, 2011 BCCA 49 at para. 27.
[17] To prove his complaint at a hearing, Mr. Thompson will have to prove that he has a characteristic protected by the Code, here a sincerely held religious belief, he was adversely impacted in employment, and his protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33. If he did that, the burden would shift to Interior Health to justify the impact as a bona fide occupational requirement. If the impact is justified, there is no discrimination.
[18] Interior Health argues that Mr. Thompson has no reasonable prospect of proving that he holds a sincere religious belief that prevented him from getting the COVID-19 vaccine. I agree that Mr. Thompson has not taken this aspect of his complaint out of the realm of conjecture.
[19] To trigger protection on the basis of religious belief or practice, Mr. Thompson would have to show that he sincerely believed that refusing the COVID-19 vaccine:
a. has a connection with religion; and
b. is “experientially religious in nature” because:
i. it is objectively required by the religion;
ii. he subjectively believes it is required by the religion; or
iii. he sincerely believes that “the practice engenders a personal, subjective connection to the divine or the subject or object of [his] spiritual faith”.
Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47 at para. 69; Griffith v. Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, 2020 BCHRT 209 at para. 24; see also Barker v. St. Elizabeth Health Care, 2016 HRTO 94 at paras. 8-9.
[20] Mr. Thompson’s evidence is key in establishing he has taken his subjective belief out of the realm of conjecture, with the protection focused on “personal choice of religious beliefs”: Amselem at para. 43. He is not required to show an objective religious obligation, requirement, or precept: Amselem at para. 65, applied by the Tribunal in Macapagal and others v. Capilano College Students’ Union (No. 2), 2008 BCHRT 13 at para. 29; Friesen v. Fisher Bay Seafood and others, 2009 BCHRT 1 at para. 57.
[21] As the Tribunal said in Lovado v. BC Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, 2019 BCHRT 167 at paras. 41:
The sincerity of a complainant’s religious belief is a question of fact based on their credibility and factors such as whether their alleged belief is consistent with their religious practices at the material times: Amselem at para. 53. The law is well established that a claim of religious discrimination only requires a complainant to show their belief is sincere, not that it is valid according to others or that it is required or in conformity with the position of religious officials: Amselem at paras. 43-47.
[22] Here, the materials before me do not allow me to assess the factors set out in Amselem. In particular, there is no information in the materials that would allow me to identify Mr. Thompson’s religion, or how his refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccine was connected to religion and was “experientially religious in nature.” His complaint says:
I had sought to file a religious exemption that would not require me to have to receive the Covid 19 vaccination. My employer denied my request, and would [sic] provide any other acumination [sic].
I hold my religion and spirituality in high regard. I am aware that the Covid 19 Vaccines contain my [sic] ingredients that are harmful, some of which are aborted cells from a Human Fetus, as well as ingredients such as graphene oxide, and PEG, which are know to cause harm to humans. I was told If I did not comply with getting the vaccine I would be put on unpaid leave. My Manager Clarke Alger told me the purpose of putting me on unpaid leave was to coerce me into getting vaccinated as I would be without my regular income.[reproduced as written]
[23] Mr. Thompson says he is religious and that he believes that the COVID-19 vaccines contain aborted fetal cells; however, he does not connect the two. In the materials before me are emails between Mr. Thompson and Interior Health where he requests a religious exemption from the vaccine. However, those materials also do not identify his religion or connect the belief that he must reject the COVID-19 vaccine because he thought it contained aborted fetal cells with any particular religious belief held by him.
[24] Interior Health identified these deficiencies in their application to dismiss. Mr. Thompson does not respond by explaining the connection between his religious beliefs and his refusal to get vaccinated. He says:
The respondent failed to establish or communicate a clear process for submitting or reviewing medical and religious exemption requests. This lack of procedural fairness placed undue burden on myself and contributed to the discriminatory outcome of my termination.
…
My termination letter explicitly stated that my refusal to vaccinate was the sole reason for dismissal. This forced me to choose between my deeply held beliefs, my health, and my livelihood-an unfair and discriminatory ultimatum.
[25] I dismiss Mr. Thompson’s complaint because he does not identify what his “deeply held beliefs” are or how they are connected with religion. I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect on the materials before me of Mr. Thompson proving a sincerely held religious belief.
IV CONCLUSION
[26] I dismiss Mr. Thompson’s complaint under s.27(1)(c) of the Code. The complaint will not proceed.
Robin Dean
Tribunal Member