Dodds v. BC Ministry of Health (Vital Statistics Branch), 2026 BCHRT 183
Date Issued: August 13, 2026
File: CS-006963
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:
Diane Amber (D) Dodds
COMPLAINANT
AND:
His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Ministry of Health (Vital Statistics Branch)
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Shannon Beckett
Complainant: Self Represented
Counsel for the Respondent: Jaclyn Salter
I INTRODUCTION
[1] D Dodds says his Majesty the King in right of the province of British Columbia as represented by the Ministry of Health (Vital Statistics Branch) [Vital Statistics] discriminated against them in the area of services based on their gender identity or expression, contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code [Code]. Specifically, Mx. Dodds says they wanted to change the gender marker on their provincial identification from “female” to “X”, but were unable to do so because they did not have a BC birth certificate. They allege that Vital Statistics did not assist them in obtaining this change and failed to provide them with information that would have helped them understand how to change their gender designation. They further suggest that Vital Statistics staff may have intentionally withheld that information. Finally, they argue that Vital Statistics breached its duty to accommodate their disability by failing to provide additional assistance in understanding the process.
[2] Vital Statistics denies discriminating. It says that that it does not have any authority to amend birth certificates issued outside of BC, or to amend other BC-issued identification. Vital Statistics says Health Insurance BC [HIBC] and the Insurance Corporation of BC [ICBC] are the provincial agencies responsible for changing gender designations on BC-issued driver’s licenses, identity cards, and services cards [Provincially Issued ID]. Accordingly, Vital Statistics says Mx. Dodds’ complaint should be dismissed because Mx. Dodds has no reasonable prospect of proving they experienced an adverse impact in relation to a service Vital Statistics provides. In any event, it says that at no time following the introduction of the “X” gender marker were people without BC birth certificates unable to change their gender markers to “X” on their Provincially Issued ID.
[3] This application turns on whether Vital Statistics has established that Mx. Dodds has no reasonable prospect of proving that it adversely impacted them in relation to a service it provides, intentionally withheld information from them, or failed to accommodate their disability. For the reasons that follow, I find that it has, and dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code.
[4] To make this decision, I have considered all the information filed by the parties. In these reasons, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision.
II BACKGROUND
[5] Vital Statistics operates under British Columbia’s Vital Statistics Act. It is responsible for registering and maintaining records of births, marriages, and deaths in British Columbia, and for issuing and amending birth, marriage, and death certificates based on those records.
[6] On November 1, 2018, the BC government made the “X” gender marker available as a third gender marker option on BC-issued birth certificates and Provincially Issued ID.
[7] On November 2, 2018, the Ministries of Health, Citizens’ Services, and Attorney General issued a news release describing the change and the reason for the change [the 2018 News Release]. The 2018 News Release was followed by a “backgrounder” document, issued the same day, that described the process for “how to change gender designation on an identity document”. The backgrounder document expressly set out two sets of instructions for how to change a person’s gender designation. The first set of instructions was applicable to people born in BC, and the second set of instructions was applicable to people who were not born in BC but who were now BC residents.
[8] On January 14, 2022, the Ministries of Finance (Gender Equity Office), Health, and Citizen’s Services, issued a news release in relation to improvements to the process by which people could change their gender designations on BC birth certificates and Provincially Issued ID [the 2022 News Release]. This news release specifically identified that government had removed the requirement for medical confirmation from a physician or psychologist before a person’s gender designation could be changed. This news release was followed by two “backgrounder” documents, issued the same day.
[9] The first backgrounder described the process for “how to change gender designation on a BC Services Card, BC Driver’s License, and BCID[1]”, and expressly set out two sets of instructions for how to do so. The first set of instructions was applicable to people born in BC, and the second set of instructions was applicable to people who were not born in BC but who were now BC residents. The second backgrounder set out the instructions for “how to change the gender designation on a BC birth certificate”, and expressly set out two sets of instructions for how to do so. The first set of instructions was applicable to people born in BC, and the second set of instructions was applicable to “people not born in B.C., but who were born in Canada and are now B.C. residents”. Individuals in the latter group who wished to amend their birth certificate were instructed to “[a]pply for a gender change in the province or territory where born”.
[10] On June 2, 2022, Mx. Dodds emailed Vital Statistics and inquired about how to change their gender marker on their identification. A Vital Statistics staff member wrote back and provided Mx. Dodds with instructions on how to change their gender on their BC birth record.
[11] Mx. Dodds wrote back and advised the staff member that they were a British born person, and that as such, the instructions for changing their BC birth record were not helpful for them.
[12] A different Vital Statistics staff member responded to Mx. Dodds and apologized for the confusion and advised Vital Statistics did not issue any forms for persons born outside of Canada to change their gender designation. The staff member further advised that Mx. Dodds would have to directly contact each agency where they wanted to change their gender designation on their identification to inquire about what documentation each agency required to do so.
[13] Mx. Dodds wrote back stating they had “spoken with msp” who told them, “there is a form to have my gender changed from female to x”, and that they were not sure what agency it was with. They indicated in their email that they were sure the agency was not “Service Canada” or “ICBC”.
[14] The Customer Service team wrote back one more time and advised Mx. Dodds that Vital Statistics only issued forms for people born in BC, and that “[e]ach agency will have to advise what documentation is needed”.
[15] Mx. Dodds filed their human rights complaint on June 2, 2022, the same day they engaged in the above back and forth correspondence with Vital Statistics. In their complaint, Mx. Dodds very briefly described the details and origin of their complaint as being “I can not change my gender marker on provincial [identification] because I don’t have a BC birth certificate” and “called the ministry of vital statistics and received a discriminatory email”.
III DECISION
A. General Principles and Outline of Issues
[16] Vital Statistics applies to dismiss Mx. Dodd’s complaint on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success: Code, s. 27(1)(c). The onus is on Vital Statistics to establish the basis for dismissal.
[17] 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.
[18] 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.
[19] 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.
[20] To prove their complaint at a hearing, Mx. Dodds will have to prove that they had the protected characteristic of gender identity or expression, they were adversely impacted in the area of services, and their gender identity or expression was a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33.
[21] Vital Statistics does not dispute that Mx. Dodds has the protected characteristic of gender identity or expression. Rather, its core argument is that it did not adversely impact Mx. Dodds because it does not provide the services at issue. Specifically, it says it does not change birth certificates issued outside BC, and lacked authority to change Mx. Dodds’ gender designation on their Provincially Issued ID. Although framed as a justification argument, I view the latter point as going to whether Vital Statistics provided the relevant service and therefore consider it in that context. Vital Statistics also argues it did not have a duty to accommodate Mx. Dodds’ disability, and that Mx. Dodds’ allegations are not properly against it, but relate to other agencies.
[22] On the evidence before me on this application I find that Mx. Dodds has no reasonable prospect of proving:
i. Vital Statistics provided the service they say they were denied access to and, therefore, that Vital Statistics adversely impacted them in the area of services by denying them that service,
ii. Vital Statistics intentionally withheld information that would have helped them understand how to change their gender designation, or breached its duty to accommodate their disability by failing to meaningfully help them understand that process, or
iii. Vital Statistics is responsible for any difficulty Mx. Dodds experienced in changing the gender designation on their Provincially Issued ID because they did not have a BC birth certificate.
[23] I address each of these findings in turn below.
B. Mx. Dodds has no reasonable prospect of proving Vital Statistics provided the relevant service
[24] A foundational issue in this complaint is whether Vital Statistics provided the service Mx. Dodds says they were denied. More specifically, the issue is whether Vital Statistics had any authority to change Mx. Dodds’ gender designation on either their birth certificate or their Provincially Issued ID. While that issue is not determinative of every allegation advanced by Mx. Dodds, it is central to the aspect of the complaint based on an alleged denial of access to the requested change.
[25] It appears to me from Mx. Dodds’ submissions that they may not dispute Vital Statistics’ position that it lacked any legal authority to change their gender marker on either their British birth certificate or their Provincially Issued ID. However, for clarity and completeness I address the issue.
[26] Section 27 of the Vital Statistics Act provides that a person can apply to Vital Statistics to change their gender designation on their birth record. However, s. 27(1) specifies that a person can only apply to do so if “a person’s birth has been registered in British Columbia”. This limitation is also set out in the backgrounders to the 2018 and 2022 News Releases which state “[t]he Vital Statistics Agency cannot change gender designations on birth certificates from other jurisdictions”. Given this information and the absence of any information to the contrary, I find Mx. Dodds has no reasonable prospect of proving Vital Statistics had the authority to amend their gender marker on their British birth certificate.
[27] Further, the Vital Statistics Act does not appear to address changes to Provincially Issued ID. The 2018 and 2022 News Releases identify two agencies outside of Vital Statistics, HIBC and ICBC, as the agencies responsible for making such changes. I do not have any evidence before me disputing that as of November 2018, HIBC and ICBC were the agencies that were responsible for effecting changes to gender markers on Provincially Issued ID. Further, I do not have evidence before me calling into question Vital Statistics’ submission that it did not, and still does not, have any authority to make changes to Provincially Issued ID. As such, I find Mx. Dodds has no reasonable prospect of proving Vital Statistics had the authority to change their gender designation on their Provincially Issued ID.
[28] Given Mx. Dodds has no reasonable prospect of proving Vital Statistics had the authority to change their gender designation on either their birth certificate or Provincially Issued ID, I find they have no reasonable prospect of proving Vital Statistics provided the service they say they were denied access to; namely changing the gender marker on their identification. Accordingly, to the extent the complaint is based the allegation that Mx. Dodds was adversely impacted by not being able to change their gender marker on their identification, I find they have no reasonable prospect of proving Vital Statistics adversely impacted them in relation to a service it provides.
[29] However, that does not entirely resolve the complaint, because Mx. Dodds also alleges that Vital Statistics adversely impacted them by withholding information and failing to accommodate their disability in relation to that process. I now explain my findings in relation to those allegations.
C. Mx. Dodds has no reasonable prospect of proving Vital Statistics purposely withheld information or breached any duty it had to accommodate them
[30] First, I find Mx. Dodds’ assertion that Vital Statistics deliberately withheld information about how to change their gender designation on their Provincially Issued ID does not rise above the level of speculation or conjecture. Mx. Dodds does not explain the basis for this belief, other than their inability to understand why no one at Vital Statistics was able to provide the specific information they say they needed. This is not sufficient to ground a reasonable inference that Vital Statistics purposely withheld information.
[31] Second, I find that Mx. Dodds has no reasonable prospect of proving that Vital Statistics breached a duty to accommodate them. This conclusion flows primarily from the scope of the complaint before the Tribunal. Mx. Dodds’ accommodation argument is based on their assertion that they had a disability requiring accommodation. However, the complaint was not accepted on the ground of physical disability. Although Mx. Dodds applied several times to amend their complaint to add that ground, the Tribunal rejected those applications. In these circumstances, Mx. Dodds cannot advance a claim that Vital Statistics breached a duty to accommodate a disability that is not part of the accepted complaint.
[32] In any event, even if the complaint had been accepted on the ground of physical disability, I am not persuaded that Mx. Dodds has a reasonable prospect of establishing a breach of the duty to accommodate. There is no indication in the materials before me – and Mx. Dodds does not assert – that Mx. Dodds informed anyone at Vital Statistics that they had a disability, or that they required additional assistance in changing their gender marker because of a disability-related need. Nor is there any indication that Vital Statistics otherwise knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that Mx. Dodds had a disability-related need requiring accommodation. Based on the materials before me, Vital Statistics is reasonably certain to prove that it neither knew nor ought reasonably to have known of any such need, and is therefore reasonably certain to prove that it did not breach any duty to accommodate Mx. Dodds.
[33] After reviewing the materials filed on this application, I became aware that Mx. Dodds had submitted a further Form 3 amendment on July 31, 2025, one day before Vital Statistics filed its application to dismiss. However, nothing in that proposed amendment would alter my conclusions in this decision. In particular, it does not identify any communication to Vital Statistics that would reasonably have put it on notice of a disability-related need for accommodation, nor does it provide a basis for concluding that Vital Statistics knew or ought reasonably to have known that accommodation was required.
[34] I turn finally to Mx. Dodds’ overarching argument that they were unable to change the gender designation on their Provincially Issued ID because they did not have a BC birth certificate.
D. Mx. Dodds has no reasonable prospect of proving Vital Statistics is responsible for difficulties they experienced changing the gender designation on their Provincially Issued ID due to their lack of a BC birth certificate
[35] One of Mx. Dodds’ primary arguments is that at the relevant time, there was no available process for them to change their gender marker because they did not have a BC birth certificate. They rely on the wording of the 2018 and 2022 News Releases, which they say indicated that gender designation changes were not available to people born outside BC or Canada. Mx. Dodds also points to their interactions with ICBC. They say that when they attended ICBC in 2020, they were directed to Vital Statistics because ICBC could not assist them. After Vital Statistics advised them on June 2, 2022, to contact individual agencies directly, Mx. Dodds again contacted ICBC and was told that ICBC could not help because they were not born in BC, and that they should pursue a human rights complaint. According to Mx. Dodds, these circumstances demonstrate that no pathway existed for them to change their gender marker because they did not have a BC birth certificate and were born outside BC.
[36] Given my above finding that Mx. Dodds has no reasonable prospect of proving Vital Statistics provided the service they were attempting to access, it is unnecessary to determine whether other agencies provided an adequate pathway for Mx. Dodds to change their gender marker. At its highest, this aspect of Mx. Dodds’ argument raises concerns about the conduct of other entities, such as HIBC or ICBC, or the design and implementation of the broader administrative regime. Those issues fall outside of the scope of the complaint before me, which concerns the conduct of Vital Statistics. While Vital Statistics operates within the Ministry of Health, Mx. Dodds’ allegations and submissions focus on the actions and decisions of Vital Statistics. There is no evidentiary foundation before me to conclude the Ministry of Health’s broader role in developing or implementing the gender designation framework gives rise to a viable claim against Vital Statistics in relation to the matters alleged in this complaint.
[37] Further, and in any event, the materials relied on by Mx. Dodds do not appear to support the proposition that a person born outside Canada was categorically unable to change the gender designation on Provincially Issued ID. On their face, the backgrounders to the 2018 and 2022 News Releases describe a process by which a person could update Provincially Issued ID without first obtaining an amended birth certificate. The backgrounder to the 2018 News Release sets out instructions for “people not born in B.C. but who are now B.C. residents” and indicates that these people must fill out an application form, send it to HIBC along with supporting information from a physician or psychologist, then, when HIBC has completed the update, go to an ICBC office and update their driver’s license. There is no apparent requirement for an updated birth certificate in this process.
[38] To the extent the backgrounder to the 2022 News release provides instructions on changing a gender designation under the heading “for people not born in BC but who were born in Canada and are now BC residents”, the instructions specify that the instructions are applicable to “[i]ndividuals who do not want to update their birth certificate”. The backgrounder indicates that these people can “submit an Application for Change of Gender Designation (HLTH509a) to HIBC or take directly to a B.C. driver licensing office”. It goes on to say that for these people, “HIBC will send a letter when the update has been completed and direct the requestor to an ICBC counter to have the Photo BC Services Card and B.C. driver’s license or BCID updated”. While the 2022 backgrounder refers to individuals born outside BC but within Canada, nothing in the materials before me explains why the described process would be unavailable to a person born outside Canada. Further, the actual application form that was applicable as of January 2022 (HLTH509a) clearly provides two options for updating Provincially Issued ID; one “with an updated birth certificate”, and one “without an updated birth certificate”.
IV CONCLUSION
[39] I accept that Mx. Dodds experienced frustration and delay in attempting to change their gender marker. The materials suggest that part of the difficulty arose from uncertainty about which agency could assist them and what steps were available to a person in their circumstances. That confusion is regrettable and appears to reflect the challenges that can arise when individuals must navigate a complex administrative scheme involving multiple agencies and overlapping responsibilities. However, administrative complexity, misunderstandings between agencies, or gaps in publicly available information do not, without more, support a finding that Vital Statistics discriminated against Mx. Dodds. Accepting Mx. Dodds’ evidence at its highest, there is no reasonable prospect that they will prove that Vital Statistics discriminated against them. Accordingly, there is no reasonable prospect that their complaint will succeed.
[40] For the above reasons, I dismiss Mx. Dodds’ complaint under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code.
Shannon Beckett
Tribunal Member
Human Rights Tribunal