Rebbitt v. Providence Health Care, 2026 BCHRT 140
Date Issued: June 5, 2026
File(s): CS-005970
Indexed as: Rebbitt v. Providence Health Care, 2026 BCHRT 140
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:
Jaclyn Rebbitt
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Providence Health Care
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Jonathan Chapnick
On her own behalf: Jaclyn Rebbitt
Counsel for the Respondent: Karen Orr
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Jaclyn Rebbitt alleges that Providence Health Care discriminated against her in the area of employment based on the grounds of physical disability and religion in contravention of s. 13 of the Human Rights Code. Ms. Rebbitt is employed by Providence in an administrative role. Her complaint arises from her refusal to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in accordance with applicable orders of the Provincial Health Officer [PHO] beginning in October 2021.
[2] Ms. Rebbitt filed her complaint form on January 19, 2022. In it, she said the COVID-19 vaccine could cause long term issues for her health conditions and was against her religious beliefs. She said Providence threatened to terminate her employment because she refused to be vaccinated, and she ended up going on medical leave due to stress and anxiety.
[3] Providence denies discriminating and applies to dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code. It says Ms. Rebbitt has no reasonable prospect of making her case, and so it should be dismissed without a hearing.
[4] I agree with Providence in part. For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that Ms. Rebbitt has no reasonable prospect of proving that religion was a factor in the alleged adverse impact in her employment. I reach the opposite conclusion, however, regarding her claim based on disability. As a result, Providence’s dismissal application is granted in part. The part of the complaint that is based on the ground of religion is dismissed. The complaint based on physical disability will proceed to a hearing.
[5] To make my decision, I have considered all the arguments and evidence filed. In my reasons, I only refer to what is necessary to explain what I decided. I make no findings of fact related to the merits of the complaint.
II BACKGROUND
[6] The following information is drawn from the materials before me and is set out here as background. It is not meant to be exhaustive.
[7] Information regarding the relevant PHO orders and their application to staff members at Providence and other health employers is outlined in several recent Tribunal decisions regarding COVID-19 vaccination: see, e.g., Lavoie v. Fraser Health Authority, 2025 BCHRT 8; Thompson v. Interior Health Authority, 2025 BCHRT 188; Zhou v. Fraser Health Authority, 2025 BCHRT 226; Sharp v. Vancouver Island Health Authority, 2025 BCHRT 227; Card v. Fraser Health Authority and another, 2025 BCHRT 231; Mondejar v. Provincial Health Services Authority, 2026 BCHRT 7; Maatz v. Interior Health Authority, 2026 BCHRT 27; Robert v. Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, 2026 BCHRT 95. I will not repeat all of that information here.
[8] In September 2021, the PHO announced that all employees in the health sector needed to get vaccinated. Providence subsequently notified its employees of the vaccination requirements, and warned them that failure to comply could result in termination of their employment.
[9] On October 7, 2021, Ms. Rebbitt gave Providence an email from her family doctor, which stated that Ms. Rebbitt “has two autoimmune diseases, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis and Celiac Disease,” and “will not be receiving her Covid 19 vaccines for the following reasons: at present there are little to no studies documenting the effect of the vaccines on people with autoimmune diseases. This is very concerning for her.” The doctor invited the reader of the email to support Ms. Rebbitt in her situation.
[10] On October 18, the office of the PHO told Providence that Ms. Rebbitt had submitted a request for a medical exemption from the vaccination requirements. On October 20, Providence told Ms. Rebbitt that, pursuant to the applicable PHO order, she could continue working until the PHO made a decision about her extension request.
[11] On November 8, Ms. Rebbitt gave Providence a “Religious Vaccination Exemption” letter [Exemption Letter] from the “Universal Church of Freedom, Peace, and Justice” [Universal Church], asserting her “right to apply for a religious exemption” from the vaccination requirements.
[12] On January 18, 2022, the office of the PHO told Providence that Ms. Rebbitt’s request for a medical exemption was rejected. It said the rejection would take effect in 14 days, at which time Ms. Rebbitt would need to be vaccinated in order to work. Providence then gave Ms. Rebbitt a letter, confirming that the rejection would take effect in 14 days. Providence advised that, pursuant to PHO orders, she had until February 1, 2022 to get her first dose of the vaccine, failing which it would terminate her employment on February 2.
[13] Ms. Rebbitt’s evidence is that, after receiving the letter from Providence, her manager abruptly told her to leave the workplace. She went on medical leave the next day, and ultimately ended up on long-term disability [LTD] leave beginning June 18, 2022.
[14] Ms. Rebbitt’s LTD ended on July 19, 2024, at which point Providence placed her on unpaid leave for failure to comply with the vaccination requirements. The provincial vaccine mandate was rescinded four days later, after which Ms. Rebbitt began a gradual return to work on August 4, 2024. She returned to full duties on August 30, 2024.
III DECISION
[15] Providence applies to dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code. Under this provision, the Tribunal can dismiss complaints that have no reasonable prospect of success and therefore do not warrant the time and expense of a hearing. This is part of the Tribunal’s gatekeeping function. The Tribunal’s task under s. 27(1)(c) is to look at the evidence provided 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 onus is on Providence to establish that Ms. Rebbitt’s complaint should be dismissed. To meet this onus, it must persuade the Tribunal that either Ms. Rebbitt has no reasonable prospect of making her case, or it is reasonably certain to establish a defence: Lado v. Hardbite Chips and others, 2019 BCHRT 134 at para. 25. In its dismissal application, Providence argues only the former, not the latter.
[16] Ms. Rebbitt alleges that Providence discriminated against her based on physical disability and religion. To succeed at a hearing, she would need to prove the three elements of her case, namely that (1) she had a protected characteristic, (2) she experienced an adverse impact in employment, and (3) her protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33. Providence says she has no reasonable prospect of doing so with respect to either of the protected characteristics in question.
A. Physical disability
[17] The first element of Ms. Rebbitt’s case based on physical disability is not in dispute. Providence does not deny that she has a disability. However, it argues that she did not experience an adverse impact in employment. Further, it argues that she has no reasonable prospect of establishing a connection between her disability and any adverse impact she might have experienced. I will address these arguments in turn.
1. Adverse impact
[18] Providence says it did not terminate, suspend, or discipline Ms. Rebbitt for her refusal to get vaccinated. It says she was off work receiving LTD benefits from January 19, 2022 to July 24, 2024 due to medical issues, then on unpaid leave for a short number of days, after which she gradually returned to full-time work. It queries what it ought to have done differently after her medical exemption request was denied by the office of the PHO. It says she remained an employee at all times and had access to her benefits and LTD. It argues that she “did not experience an adverse impact connected to her protected grounds, or at all.”
[19] I am not persuaded that there is no reasonable prospect of proving an adverse impact in this case.
[20] I acknowledge that Ms. Rebbitt says she was “dismissed from [her] job on January 18, 2022.” On the evidence, this statement appears to be inaccurate. In my view, however, the information filed could reasonably support findings of other adverse impacts in Ms. Rebbitt’s employment, even if she did not experience adverse consequences in the form of discipline or termination.
[21] Her evidence is that: she “was threatened to lose [her] job of 20 years” if she did not get vaccinated; she was the only one in her department to be called into her manager’s office and questioned about her vaccine history in October 2021, which she refused to disclose; and on January 18, 2022, her manager “did not read [the medical exemption rejection letter] but again pulled me into her office and abruptly told me to leave the premises.” Ms. Rebbitt says she had “to walk through many co-workers desks to get to [the manager’s] office, which is also right beside another co-worker’s desk.” She says this incident caused her “humiliation, anxiety, upset and ultimately forced [her] to go on medical leave.” Her evidence is that, since that time, she has “suffered depression and anxiety among other health issues.”
[22] In a psychological assessment report, dated September 26, 2022 [Report], a registered psychologist stated that, after being questioned by her manager about her vaccination history in October 2021, Ms. Rebbitt “felt discriminated against at work because she was the only person in her unit that was unvaccinated.” The psychologist went on to describe the January 18, 2022 incident as follows:
Her manager met with her within 15 minutes [of the email informing her that she needed to get vaccinated within 14 days] and told her that she needed to leave the premises immediately. She felt embarrassed and began to cry. She subsequently called her union and was told to leave the premises as she was instructed, to avoid being accused of being insubordinate. Ms. Rebbitt stated that she cried all the way home, feeling overwhelmed, panicky and totally unappreciated at work.
[23] In the Report, the psychologist opined that, from that day forward, “due to the actions of her employer, Ms. Rebbitt’s anxiety about the work environment would have made it virtually impossible for her to return to work.”
[24] The Report describes Ms. Rebbitt’s “mistrust towards her employer due to how she was sent home from work in January 2022 and her manager asking about her vaccination history in October 2021.” The psychologist diagnosed Ms. Rebbitt with serious mental health conditions, observing that “she did not have any history of psychological or emotional difficulties prior to January 2022.” According to the Report, Ms. Rebbitt told the psychologist that her symptoms began after she was sent home from work:
She stated that she felt betrayed and let down by the employer and continues to feel that way. She explained that, despite giving her employer 20 years of service, they do not care about her and have treated her as disposable. She also expressed a sense of disappointment and discouragement with her union, feeling like no one cares to help her.
[25] The Report describes resulting or related physical health issues; functional impairments in activities of daily living; difficulties leaving her home due to fear of symptom flare-ups; difficulties sleeping and concentrating; daily feelings of sadness and emptiness; and lost interest and pleasure in almost all of Ms. Rebbitt’s usual activities. I appreciate that causing or contributing to an employee’s disability is not, on its own, discrimination: Basi v. District of Saanich and another, 2018 BCHRT 7 at para. 134, citing Vandale v. Town of Golden and others, 2009 BCHRT 219 at para. 43. This does not mean, however, that being made too ill to work by the conduct of one’s employer could not amount to an adverse impact in employment within the meaning of the discrimination analysis.
[26] In my view, on the above evidence, the Tribunal could reasonably find that Ms. Rebbitt experienced adverse impacts in her employment in 2021-2022 in the form of the prospect of job loss, being singled out for management scrutiny, being reprimanded in front of her co-workers, being forced to leave the workplace, and being made too ill to work.
2. Connection
[27] Providence says that, to establish a connection between her disability and an adverse impact, Ms. Rebbitt would need to prove that her disability “prevented her from being able to receive” the vaccine. It says that, to succeed in her complaint, she must show that her “disability necessitated an exemption” from the vaccination requirement. On the materials before me, I do not accept these formulations of Ms. Rebbitt’s burden.
[28] If the Tribunal finds that Ms. Rebbitt experienced an adverse impact in employment, she must only prove that her disability was a factor in that adverse impact in order to make her case. In every complaint, “the tribunal must decide on the factor or factors that played a role in the adverse treatment.” This determination “is a matter of fact.” In general, if a protected characteristic “contributed to the adverse treatment,” then it was a factor: Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corp., 2017 SCC 30 [Elk Valley] at para. 46.
[29] In some vaccination cases, there may be nothing preventing an employee with a disability from complying with a vaccination requirement. In others, the employee’s disability may rule out their compliance entirely, and a breach of the requirement “will be inextricably connected” with the disability. The remainder of cases will “exist somewhere between these two extremes”: Elk Valley at para. 39. At the end of the day, “[w]hether a protected characteristic is a factor in the adverse impact will depend on the facts and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.” Such a nexus “cannot be assumed and must be based on evidence”: Elk Valley at para. 39.
[30] In vaccination cases, evidence regarding an employee’s general safety concerns about the vaccine is not, on its own, enough to ground a nexus finding: see Sharp at para. 34. There must be some corroborative evidence of a disability-related barrier, sufficient to take the alleged connection out of the realm of conjecture: see generally Sharp at paras. 30-36; see also Robert at para. 23. Persuasive evidence could include information regarding the nature of the employee’s disability and what about it made the vaccine dangerous for them: Maatz at para. 41; see Sharp at paras. 32-34. Evidence of a request from a health professional that the employee be exempted from vaccination for disability-related medical reasons could also be persuasive: Sharp at para. 34; but see Bruneau at para. 29. In some cases, evidence of scholarly publications linking the employee’s disability to a serious adverse health event following vaccination could be considered in the Tribunal’s fact finding.
[31] These examples are not exhaustive. The evidence before the Tribunal will be different in every case. I turn now to what is before me in this application.
[32] Ms. Rebbitt’s evidence is that her disability is “Hashimoto’s thyroiditis and Celiac Disease,” which are autoimmune diseases. She says she has had these disabilities for several years and they affect her everyday life, “from diet to body functions, etc.” Her evidence is that, as “a person who suffers from two autoimmune mediated diseases, I can’t expose my body to the possibility of having an adverse reaction [to the COVID-19 vaccine] or suffering another autoimmune mediated disease.” She says that, at the time of the PHO orders, her doctor “could not advise to the potential risk or effects of the new mRNA vaccine and what they could have on my autoimmune system … because it was a novel vaccine and little to no studies had been done, especially on people such as myself.” The evidence suggests that Ms. Rebbitt’s doctor was supportive of her wishes not to be vaccinated in October 2021, inviting Providence to support Ms. Rebbitt, given her concern about the lack of research studies at the time on the effect of the vaccine on people with her conditions.
[33] In my view, the evidence could support that Ms. Rebbitt had a serious, disability-related fear of the vaccine, which went beyond general concerns about its overall safety or efficacy. According to the Report, in fall 2021, Ms. Rebbitt told her doctor that she was worried about the potential impact of the vaccine on her autoimmune conditions, noting that she was highly sensitive to medications. The Report recounts that, after being sent home in January 2022, “she was constantly fearful that if she tried to return to work, [her employer] would force her to get vaccinated and she was too scared and anxious of that happening.” The Report indicates that, at the time of its writing, Ms. Rebbitt continued “to have high levels of anxiety that, if she were to return to work, she would be forced to be vaccinated.”
[34] I acknowledge Providence’s argument that a concern about the safety of the vaccine is not a disability and is not the same as a true medical contraindication to receiving it. I agree. However, the evidence suggests that Ms. Rebbitt could not know, at the time, if the vaccine was contraindicated in a person with her disability. The materials before me, including her doctor’s email, could support that her avoidance of the vaccine was rooted in a genuine fear of such a contraindication, and in serious concerns about how getting the vaccine might negatively impact her disability. The evidence suggests that her concerns were sufficient for her doctor to invite Providence to support her in not getting the vaccine.
[35] In sum, taken together I find that the information and evidence before the Tribunal could support a conclusion that Ms. Rebbitt’s disability contributed to her not complying with the vaccine requirement, which gave rise to the adverse impacts outlined above, thereby establishing a connection between her disability and those adverse impacts. I am therefore not satisfied that Ms. Rebbitt has no reasonable prospect of making this part of her case at a hearing.
[36] Because Providence has not argued that it is reasonably certain to establish a justification defence, my analysis of its application to dismiss Ms. Rebbitt’s disability-related claim ends here. This part of its application is denied. The complaint based on physical disability will proceed to a hearing.
B. Religion
[37] To succeed in her religion-based claim at a hearing, Ms. Rebbitt would need to establish that her circumstances engaged the ground of religion, she experienced an adverse impact in employment, and her religion was a factor in the adverse impact: Friesen v. Fisher Bay Seafood and others, 2009 BCHRT 1 at paras. 55-60. I have already determined that, based on the evidence filed, it would be open to the Tribunal to conclude that Ms. Rebbitt experienced an adverse impact in her employment. The remaining question is whether she has no reasonable prospect of proving either the first or third element of her case based on religion.
[38] To prove the first element of her case, Ms. Rebbitt would need to establish that her circumstances engaged the ground of religion when she experienced the alleged adverse impact in employment. To do this, she would need to show that she “sincerely believe[d] in a practice or belief that has a nexus with religion”: Friesen at para. 57. In her case, the practice or belief in question was the practice of, or belief in, not receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. At a hearing, she would need to prove that she sincerely believed that this practice or belief was “experientially religious in nature,” in the sense that (1) it was “objectively required” by her religion, (2) she subjectively believed it was required by her religion, or (3) she sincerely believed that it engendered “a personal, subjective connection to the divine or to the subject or object of … her spiritual faith”: Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47 [Amselem] at para. 69. In this analysis, the assessment of sincerity “is a question of fact,” which may depend on various factors, such as the credibility of Ms. Rebbitt’s evidence, and whether her alleged sincere belief in not receiving the COVID-19 vaccine was consistent with her other religious practices or beliefs at the time: Amselem at para. 53.
[39] Providence argues that Ms. Rebbitt cannot prove the sincerity of her belief in not taking the vaccine. It says the only time she said she had a religious objection to the vaccine was when she provided the Exemption Letter in November 2021. Providence’s evidence is that an associate at the law firm of its legal counsel was able to purchase a similar standard form letter from the Universal Church for a fee of $100. It argues that Ms. Rebbitt’s stated religious objections to the vaccine are a pretext for her safety concerns.
[40] Ms. Rebbitt says her religious belief is sincere. Her evidence is that she was baptized at a church as a baby and “was raised in a traditional Anglican upbringing.” She states that “God and my faith have always been an integral part of my life.” In support of her response to the present dismissal application, she provides the Exemption Letter, her “1996 Grad write-up,” and a “Statement of Declaration regarding my Religion and Religious Beliefs,” which is dated July 25, 2024 and signed by her and her parents [Declaration].
[41] In the 1996 Grad write-up, Ms. Rebbitt wrote that her best memories of that year included watching movies and the David Letterman show, and that she hoped to be on a deserted island in 10 years, concluding: “Words to live by: Believe in yourself and follow your dreams and Matthew 19:26.” In the Declaration, she stated that she was baptized, attended church regularly as a child, attended “Pioneer Girls” (a Christ-centred program) for many years at her church, and is a member of the Universal Church, adding: “I attend online sermons and although I still have a traditional Anglican upbringing, [the Universal Church] appealed to me as a more modern and inclusive church which aligns with my core beliefs.” The Declaration concludes as follows:
God has always been an integral part of my life. I attest that it is my sincerely held religious belief that my body is the temple of his Holy Spirit. 1 Cor 6:19. My belief does not allow me to be injected with the Covid vaccine- I am pro-life and pro-humanity and this vaccine was developed and produced using fetal tissues of aborted babies. Moreover, I am guided by God to keep my body as healthy as possible as he intended.”
[42] For the following reasons, based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that Ms. Rebbitt has no reasonable prospect of proving that she had a sincere religious belief in not receiving the COVID-19 vaccine at the time of the alleged adverse impact in her employment.
[43] First, while the 1996 Grad write-up could generally support that Ms. Rebbitt is a Christian and believes in God, it is not evidence of her religious beliefs regarding vaccines generally, or the COVID-19 vaccine specifically. Similarly, the general information (in the Declaration and elsewhere in her materials) regarding her baptism, Anglican upbringing, childhood church-going, and participation in a church program, is not evidence of what she sincerely believed about the COVID-19 vaccine when she refused to get vaccinated.
[44] Second, on its face, the Declaration is a statement of Ms. Rebbitt’s religious beliefs in July 2024 – not of what she believed in 2021-2022. Further, I find that the part of the Declaration regarding her beliefs about the development of the COVID-19 vaccine and her body being the temple of his Holy Spirit can reasonably be viewed as a self-serving attempt to corroborate statements from the Exemption Letter from two years prior. There is nothing new in the Declaration in terms of information regarding Ms. Rebbitt’s religious beliefs and practices in 2021-2022 or how they fit with her alleged sincere belief in not receiving the COVID-19 vaccine at that time.
[45] Finally, there is the Exemption Letter itself. Ms. Rebbitt provides no information about the letter’s origins, and makes no submissions regarding its contents. She says the Universal Church is based in New York State and “is a non-denominational and unconventional church,” which “accepts many Christian based faiths.” She states that she began to follow and decided to join the Universal Church “years ago,” but does not specify when. She states that the church “aligns with many of my core beliefs,” but only specifies one: “the most important one being- that my body is the temple of his Holy Spirit 1 Cor 6:19.” She states that sermons take place on YouTube, and are conducted by a person named “Deacon Celente.” She says the church also hosts get-togethers and rallies.
[46] The Exemption Letter is a standard form document, with underlined spaces where Ms. Rebbitt entered her information. It begins as follows:
Dear Providence Health Care ,
In God We Trust. In the Grace of God, I Jaclyn Rebbitt (Hope) as member of The Universal Church of Freedom, Peace and Justice, exercise my right to apply for a religious exemption to the Provincial Health Office of British Columbia’s COVID-19 vaccination policy requirement. It is my sincerely held religious belief that my body is the temple of his Holy Spirit. 1 Cor 6:19.
Our God created Nature and life on Earth. I base my request on religious grounds. My faith in God who I worship forbids me to be injected with a COVID-19 vaccination [reproduced as written].
[47] In my view, this evidence – considered on its own or in combination with the other evidence discussed – does not take Ms. Rebbitt’s alleged sincere belief in not taking the COVID-19 vaccine out of the realm of conjecture. I reach this conclusion based on the nature, timing, and content of the Exemption Letter, and the lack of information regarding what the Universal Church is and when Ms. Rebbitt started following it.
[48] The Exemption Letter is the only timely evidence before me of Ms. Rebbitt’s alleged sincere belief. It is not disputed that she sent the letter to Providence over a month after she raised her primary, disability-related objection to the vaccine. This timing could support a finding that Ms. Rebbitt’s secondary assertion of her religious rights was pretext for bolstering her disability-related refusal.
[49] The Exemption Letter itself is as much about broad notions of individual liberty and personal freedom as it is about religion and spirituality. The former are substantively secular, albeit framed in the letter as endowed by God. The Exemption Letter also spends several paragraphs on the general safety and efficacy of the vaccine, focussing in particular on the Johnson & Johnson vaccine – even though Ms. Rebbitt specifically states in her materials that taking the “mRNA vaccine” is what is against her religious beliefs and forbidden by her religion. I take notice that it is widely known that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was not an mRNA vaccine.
[50] In addition, the Exemption Letter is, on its face, a generic document, which is not specific to Ms. Rebbitt. There is no evidence that Ms. Rebbitt authored it; rather, its contents could strongly support a finding that it was written by the Universal Church for mass use. There is no evidence that Ms. Rebbitt followed the Universal Church before obtaining the letter. She simply states in her recent response submission that she began following the Universal Church “years ago.”
[51] Further, Ms. Rebbitt’s description of the Universal Church is vague. She has not explained when it was founded or provided details about how she follows it. She references YouTube sermons, but does not say what they are about. In this regard, I note that the screenshot provided of the sermon YouTube page shows the description of four sermons, the titles of which are: “United we stand, divided we die … Join us for tomorrow’s peace and …,” “Comedian clown Seinfeld hates those who hate genocide,” “Israel keeps slaughtering Palestinians and starving them to …,” and “Israel’s bombing Iran puts world on bring of nuclear annihilation.” These topics could reasonably be viewed as political in nature, not religious or spiritual.
[52] In sum, considering it as a whole, I find that the evidence before me could not reasonably support a finding that Ms. Rebbitt held a sincere belief in not taking the COVID-19 vaccine with a nexus to religion when she experienced the alleged adverse impact in her employment. As a result, I am satisfied that her complaint based on the ground of religion has no reasonable prospect of success. This part of Providence’s dismissal application is therefore granted.
IV CONCLUSION
[53] Providence’s application under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code is granted in part. The part of the complaint that is based on the ground of religion is dismissed. The complaint based on physical disability will proceed to a hearing.
Jonathan Chapnick
Tribunal Member