Solomon v. Thompson Rivers University (Nursing Department), 2026 BCHRT 186
Date Issued: August 25, 2026
File: CS-006936
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:
Omotolani (Sade) Solomon
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Thompson Rivers University (Nursing Department)
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Shannon Beckett
On their own behalf: Omotolani (Sade) Solomon
Counsel for the Respondent: Karen Orr and Annie E. Olson
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Sade Solomon is a practising Christian. She says the nursing department of Thompson Rivers University [TRU] discriminated against her in the area of services, based on her religion, when it delayed her placement in a practicum program because she refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Although she eventually obtained a practicum placement that did not require vaccination, it took over a year to secure the opportunity.
[2] TRU denies discriminating and asks the Tribunal to dismiss Ms. Solomon’s complaint on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success. TRU says that Ms. Solomon’s ability to complete her practicum depended on securing a placement with an organization willing to accept her. According to TRU, the COVID-19 pandemic significantly reduced placement opportunities, as many organizations were not accepting practicum students and most available placements were with provincial health authorities that required vaccination. TRU says it submitted numerous placement applications on Ms. Solomon’s behalf, but none were successful until March 2023. It submits that it could not compel an organization to accept a student or exempt a student from a particular organization’s vaccination requirements. In any event, TRU argues that Ms. Solomon has no reasonable prospect of proving that her refusal to be vaccinated was based on a sincere religious belief.
[3] This decision turns on whether TRU is reasonably certain to prove it took all reasonable and practical steps to help Ms. Solomon secure a practicum placement. I find it is. Specifically, I find TRU is reasonably certain to prove it inquired about and considered practicum placements suggested by Ms. Solomon that did not require vaccination and that it was not responsible for the vaccination requirements of third-party organizations with vaccination policies. In these circumstances, I am persuaded that TRU is reasonably certain to establish a justification defense, and I dismiss Ms. Solomon’s complaint under s. 27(1)(c) of the Human Rights Code [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. I make no findings of fact.
II BACKGROUND
[5] In January 2021, Ms. Soloman began the “Certificate in Interprofessional Mental Health and Substance Use Practice” program [the Program] at TRU. The Program was administered through the Faculty of Nursing and consisted of a series of four online theory courses followed by a 96-hour practicum with an external organization.
[6] In order to secure a practicum placement, a student was required to identify their “preferred organizations” to TRU for approval. TRU would approve preferred organizations if they were in an appropriate area and if they met the learning objectives of the Program.
[7] As of September 2021, Ms. Soloman had completed the theory portion of the Program and began seeking a practicum placement. At around the same time, BC’s Provincial Health Officer issued several public health orders requiring health care workers to become vaccinated against COVID-19 [the PHO Orders].
[8] Throughout her search for a practicum placement, Ms. Solomon repeatedly advised TRU that she did not intend to become vaccinated and requested “accommodation” into a placement that did not require vaccination, or “exemption” from the vaccination requirement. Program staff advised her on several occasions that they had no control over the student selection decisions of prospective placement organizations, and that the vaccination requirement was coming from those organizations in accordance with the PHO Orders, and not from TRU. TRU further encouraged Ms. Solomon to identify organizations that did not require vaccination against COVID-19, and it would submit practicum applications on her behalf.
[9] Between September 2021 and March 2023, TRU submitted five practicum applications to external organizations identified by Ms. Solomon. None were accepted until March 2023, when Salvation Army Services accepted the fifth application.
[10] In addition to the five applications noted above, Ms. Solomon advised TRU in June 2022 that she had identified a potential practicum placement with an organization called “New View Society”. However, when TRU contacted the organization, it learned that New View Society operated under a contract with Fraser Health Authority and therefore required practicum students to be vaccinated.
[11] Ms. Soloman completed her practicum with Salvation Army Services in July 2024 and graduated from the program.
[12] TRU filed its dismissal application on September 16, 2025.
[13] Ms. Soloman was given an opportunity to respond to TRU’s dismissal application, but did not do so, despite being provided with multiple extensions of time.
III DECISION
A. Section 27(1)(c) – No reasonable prospect of success
[14] TRU applies to dismiss Ms. Solomon’s complaint on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success: Code, s. 27(1)(c) The onus is on TRU to establish the basis for dismissal.
[15] 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.
[16] 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.
[17] 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.
[18] To prove her complaint at a hearing, Ms. Solomon would have to prove that she had a sincerely held religious belief that informed her decision to refuse vaccination against COVID-19, she was adversely impacted in the TRU Program she was enrolled in, and that her sincerely held religious belief was at least a factor in the adverse impact she experienced: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61. If she were to prove these elements, the burden would shift to TRU to justify the impact as a bona fide reasonable justification. If the impact is justified, there is no discrimination.
[19] TRU provides two bases for why it says this complaint should be dismissed. First, it argues that Ms. Solomon has no reasonable prospect of proving she had a sincerely held religious belief that informed her decision to refuse vaccination. Second, it argues that the accommodation she sought was beyond its control to provide, and that she therefore has no reasonable prospect of proving that it failed to satisfy its duty to accommodate.
[20] I find I can resolve this application by considering TRU’s argument about justification. As such, I find I do not have to consider its alternative argument about Ms. Solomon’s prospect of proving a sincerely held religious belief. For the purposes of this decision, I assume without deciding that Ms. Solomon has taken her case out of the realm of conjecture.
B. TRU is reasonably certain to prove a defense at the hearing
[21] Even assuming Ms. Soloman could establish that her refusal to become vaccinated was based on a sincerely held religious belief and that she experienced an adverse impact in the Program as a result, I am satisfied that her complaint has no reasonable prospect of success because TRU is reasonably certain to prove a defence at the hearing: Purdy v. Douglas College and others, 2016 BCHRT 117 at para. 50.
[22] To justify the delay in Ms. Solomon’s practicum placement at a hearing, TRU would have to prove that: (1) its conduct that adversely impacted Ms. Solomon was undertaken for a purpose rationally connected to the function being performed, (2) it engaged in the conduct in an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfillment of that purpose; and (3) its conduct was reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of that purpose. This third element encompasses TRU’s duty to accommodate Ms. Solomon to the point of undue hardship: British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights), [1999] 3 SCR 868 [Grismer] at para. 20.
1. Rational Connection and Good Faith
[23] In the present case, the conduct at issue is TRU’s requirement that students complete a practicum placement with an external organization as a condition of completing the Program. I find TRU is reasonably certain to establish that this requirement was adopted for a purpose rationally connected to the function being performed. The evidence before me, including the Program’s Practicum Guide, indicates that the Program is competency-based and includes both academic and skills-based components. In that context, TRU is reasonably certain to prove that the practicum requirement was adopted for the purpose of providing students with opportunities for supervised practical training and real-world application of Program learning outcomes. The function being performed by TRU was the delivery of a competency-based educational program and the assessment of whether students had achieved the competencies required for successful completion of that Program. I am satisfied that TRU is reasonably certain to prove that the purpose of the practicum requirement was rationally connected to that educational function.
[24] Further, there is no basis in the evidence before me on this application to suggest that TRU adopted the practicum requirement other than in the good faith belief that it was necessary to achieve the purpose of providing students with supervised practical training through which they could develop and demonstrate the competencies the Program was designed to teach. As the Program is competency-based and includes skills-based learning objectives, TRU is reasonably certain to prove that the requirement that students complete a practicum is a normal and expected component of the Program.
[25] Finally, TRU is reasonably certain to prove the practicum requirement and how it administered the practicum requirement was reasonably necessary to accomplish the Program’s educational objectives, and that no further reasonable accommodation measures were available to address Ms. Solomon’s religious objection to receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. The undisputed evidence before me on this application is that completion of a practicum was an essential component of the Program and that practicum placements were provided by independent third-party organizations. Ms. Solomon does not dispute that TRU did not control the admission decisions of those organizations, could not require them to accept students, and had no authority to exempt students from any vaccination requirements they imposed. In these circumstances, the accommodation sought by Ms. Solomon depended on the decisions of third-party organizations, rather than on any decision TRU could make itself.
[26] In my view, TRU is reasonably certain to prove that the duty to accommodate did not require it to waive an essential program requirement or to provide an accommodation that was beyond its authority or control to provide. Rather, the evidence indicates that TRU took the accommodation measures that were reasonably available to it. In particular, TRU submitted several practicum applications on Ms. Solomon’s behalf and, where opportunities were identified with organizations that did not require vaccination, pursued those opportunities for her. TRU is reasonably certain to prove that it had no ability to compel a third-party placement provider to accept Ms. Solomon or to exempt her from vaccination requirements imposed by that provider.
[27] To the extent that the evidence shows that in January 2023, Ms. Solomon requested placement in a mental health research position within TRU, the correspondence demonstrates that TRU considered this request and explained in detail why the position would not satisfy the practicum requirements of the Program. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that TRU is reasonably certain to prove that the proposed research position would not have met the competencies and hands-on learning objectives that the practicum component was designed to achieve. In any event, I note that within a few months of making this request, Ms. Solomon identified and was accepted into a practicum placement that satisfied the Program requirements and enabled her to complete the Program.
[28] To the extent Ms. Solomon’s complaint may be understood as alleging that TRU intentionally delayed her placement because of her vaccination status, I find that allegation does not rise above the level of speculation and conjecture. In my view, TRU is reasonably certain to establish that there is no evidentiary foundation for such a claim.
[29] First, the email correspondence between Ms. Solomon and TRU Program staff indicates that TRU regularly invited Ms. Solomon to identify organizations that did not require students to be vaccinated. When she did so, including when she proposed a placement with the New View Society, TRU followed up with the organization to assess its suitability and communicated the organization’s vaccination requirements to Ms. Solomon promptly and clearly. Beyond that request, the evidence before me indicates that the only other organization identified by Ms. Solomon as not requiring vaccination was Salvation Army Services. TRU pursued that placement opportunity on her behalf, and the application was accepted in March 2023.
[30] Second, the evidence before me, including the timing of Ms. Solomon’s search for a practicum placement, the relevant PHO Orders, and the evidence of the Associate Dean who corresponded with her at the time, supports TRU’s position that practicum placements were particularly difficult to secure during the COVID-19 pandemic. The evidence suggests that many organizations were experiencing workload and staffing challenges that limited their ability to supervise practicum students. Of the five applications TRU submitted on Ms. Solomon’s behalf, two appear to have been declined because the organizations lacked the capacity to supervise a practicum student, one appears to have been declined because Ms. Solomon did not meet the organization’s prerequisites, and one received no response. Rather than suggesting bad faith on TRU’s part, this evidence supports its position that external circumstances significantly constrained the availability of practicum placements during the relevant period.
[31] While I acknowledge that Ms. Solomon experienced a significant delay in obtaining a practicum placement, I am satisfied that TRU is reasonably certain to prove that it took all reasonable and practicable steps to facilitate a practicum placement for her. Further, TRU is reasonably certain to prove that the barriers she faced arose from the decisions and requirements of independent third-party organizations. In these circumstances, I find TRU is reasonably certain to prove it discharged any duty it may have had to reasonably accommodate Ms. Solomon.
IV CONCLUSION
[32] For the above reasons I find TRU is reasonably certain to prove a defense at the hearing. As such, Ms. Solomon’s complaint has no reasonable prospect of success, and I dismiss it under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code.
Shannon Beckett
Tribunal Member
Human Rights Tribunal