Lasfar v. Provincial Health Services Authority, 2026 BCHRT 202

Date Issued: September 22, 2026
File(s): CS-007073

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:

Nawal Lasfar
COMPLAINANT

AND:

Provincial Health Services Authority
RESPONDENT

REASONS FOR DECISION

APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)

Tribunal Member: Jonathan Chapnick
On her own behalf: Nawal Lasfar
Counsel for the Respondent: Karen Orr

I        INTRODUCTION

[1]             Nawal Lasfar alleges that the Provincial Health Services Authority [PHSA] discriminated against her in the area of employment based on the ground of religion in contravention of s. 13 of the Human Rights Code. Ms. Lasfar was employed by PHSA as a senior program coordinator. Her complaint arises from her refusal to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in accordance with an order of the Provincial Health Officer [PHO] beginning in October 2021.

[2]             Ms. Lasfar says her religious beliefs prevented her from getting vaccinated, and PHSA terminated her employment without exploring accommodation options. She says this was discrimination.

[3]             PHSA denies discriminating. It applies to dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code, asserting that there is no reasonable prospect it will succeed. It says Ms. Lasfar’s concerns about the vaccine were related to its safety and efficacy. It argues that the evidence does not support that her refusal to be vaccinated was based on a sincere religious belief.

[4]             My task in this application is to decide whether the complaint will proceed to a hearing. For the reasons that follow, I have decided that it will. I am not persuaded that the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success. PHSA’s application is therefore denied.

[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.

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, and it is not in dispute.

[7]             Ms. Lasfar worked for PHSA as a casual employee in laboratory services.

[8]             In September 2021, the PHO announced that all employees in the health sector needed to get vaccinated. PHSA subsequently notified its employees of the vaccination requirements, and warned them that failure to comply could result in the termination of their employment.

[9]             On October 14, 2021, the PHO issued the Hospital and Community (Health Care and Other Services) COVID-19 Vaccination Status Information and Preventative Measures order [Order], which required PHSA employees, including Ms. Lasfar, to provide proof of vaccination by October 26, 2021.

[10]         In a letter to Ms. Lasfar dated October 21, 2021, a human resources manager at PHSA [HR Manager] confirmed that, under the Order, Ms. Lasfar would not be allowed to work as of October 26 if she did not comply with the vaccination requirements. Further, the HR Manager stated that, in the event of her non-compliance, Ms. Lasfar would be placed on an unpaid leave of absence for three weeks, after which her employment could be terminated on November 15, 2021 if she remained non-compliant.

[11]         In subsequent email correspondence, Ms. Lasfar asserted that she had a “religious exemption … from getting the COVID-19 vaccine,” and asked whether PHSA could accommodate her. In response, she was told that PHSA could not make exceptions under the Order, except where an employee had a medical exemption from the PHO.

[12]         Ms. Lasfar did not comply with the vaccination requirements. As a result, PHSA placed her on leave effective October 26, 2021, and terminated her employment effective November 15, 2021. In the termination letter, the HR Manager confirmed that Ms. Lasfar’s employment was terminated because she was not vaccinated.

[13]         Ms. Lasfar filed her complaint to the Tribunal on June 16, 2022, and amended it in 2024 during the screening stage of the Tribunal’s process.

III    DECISION

[14]         Under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code, 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 PHSA to establish that Ms. Lasfar’s complaint should be dismissed. To meet this onus, PHSA must persuade the Tribunal that either Ms. Lasfar 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. The dismissal application before me is about the former. Despite pleading a justification defence in its April 29, 2025 response to the complaint, in its present application PHSA only asserts that the complaint should be dismissed because Ms. Lasfar cannot make her case.

[15]         To make her case at a hearing, Ms. Lasfar would need to establish that her circumstances engaged the ground of religion when PHSA terminated her employment, and her religion was a factor in the termination: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33; see Friesen v. Fisher Bay Seafood and others, 2009 BCHRT 1 at paras. 55-60; Sharp v. Vancouver Island Health Authority, 2025 BCHRT 227 at para. 7; Rebbitt v. Providence Health Care, 2026 BCHRT 140 at para. 37.

[16]         To prove that her circumstances engaged the ground of religion when PHSA terminated her employment, Ms. Lasfar 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 belief that she could not receive the COVID-19 vaccine. At a hearing, she would need to prove that she sincerely believed that this belief was “experientially religious in nature,” in the sense that either (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. Lasfar’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.

[17]         Ms. Lasfar’s evidence in the present application is primarily by affidavit. She says she has been a practicing Muslim her entire life, and Islam has guided her life since childhood. She says she prays “five times each day – at dawn (Fajr), noon (Dhuhr), afternoon (Asr), sunset (Maghrib), and night (Isha)” (reproduced as written). She says these prayers “are the foundation of [her] daily routine and a constant reminder of [her] relationship with God.” She says she fasts every year “during the holy month of Ramadan, as prescribed in the Qur’an.” She says the “Qur’an is the word of God … and is the ultimate source of truth and guidance for [her] life.”

[18]         Ms. Lasfar states that she believes “that every human being is created by God in a perfect and sacred form, and that we are entrusted with our bodies as an amanah – a sacred trust” (reproduced as written). As a result, her stated belief is that she has a duty to protect her body from substances or procedures that could alter or corrupt it. She says her “faith teaches that what we put into our bodies must be lawful (halal) and pure (tayyib)” (reproduced as written). She says this belief is not symbolic for her; rather, it is central to her spiritual identity and the way she lives each day.

[19]         Ms. Lasfar’s evidence is that she could not receive the COVID-19 vaccine during the time period relevant to the complaint because receiving it would have violated her religious beliefs in three ways.

[20]         First, she says she understood that all COVID-19 vaccines at the time “had used cell lines derived from aborted fetal tissue in either their development or in the testing required to bring them to market.” She says abortion is considered a sin in Islam (Surah Al-Isra, 17:31), and it “is also a sin to participate in sinful activities or benefit from them,” which means that “it is a sin to benefit from products which were developed or brought to market relying on the byproducts of abortion, such as aborted fetal cell tissue.” As a result, she says it would have been “a sin for [her] to receive the [COVID-19] vaccines and benefit from the sin of abortion.”

[21]         Second, Ms. Lasfar says that, at the relevant time, she was unable to find any publicly available information specifically about the contents of the COVID-19 vaccines. She says the information she read about vaccines, generally, indicated that they often contain gelatin, which she understands to be derived from the byproducts of pigs and cows, and therefore regards as containing pork gelatin. Ms. Lasfar says that, as a Muslim, she believes “it is unlawful (haram) to consume pork or any products derived from pigs” (reproduced as written). She says the Qur’an absolutely prohibits this (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:173; Qur’an 5:3, 6:145, and 16:115). She says this is “not a matter of personal preference or dietary choice – it is a clear commandment from God.” As a result, she says that, based on the information she had at the time, she “believed it would have been sinful to receive the COVID vaccines.” She says she believed that receiving the vaccines would have directly violated a central tenet of her faith.

[22]         Third, Ms. Lasfar says COVID-19 vaccines may alter the DNA of their recipient. She describes this issue in her 2024 amendment of the complaint:

… we know that COVID-19 vaccines are the first mRNA (Pfizer/Moderna) or adenoviral vector (J & J) vaccines. These vaccines do not operate in the same way as “traditional” vaccines. Specifically, instead of using a fragment of dead virus and an adjuvant to help induce an immune response, these CV-19 vaccine products are genetic coding instructions that purport to instruct your body to produce a spike protein that is not natural to your own human genetic system. While some scientists/authorities claim that this does not alter a human’s genetic structure and/or that the “vaccine” stays localized to the vaccination area (shoulder) and does not spread to the rest of the human body, other scientists and authorities disagree, and there is evidence to support their views. In any event, it is not fully known what these novel technologies are actually doing to our human DNA. The possibility of genetically altering the human body, the body created by God/Creator in His image, is one of my reasons for not wanting to take these novel gene therapy products in particular.

[23]         In support of her response to PHSA’s dismissal application, Ms. Lasfar refers to “research that has found that mRNA from the Pfizer BioNTech COVID vaccine has been reverse transcribed into the DNA of human cells,” and provides a copy of a journal article: Markus Aldén et al. “Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line” (2022) 44 Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 1115.

[24]         Ms. Lasfar’s evidence is that, as a Muslim, she believes “that the human body is a sacred creation of God, and it is [her] religious duty to protect the integrity of that creation.” She says the Qur’an “teaches that God is the best of creators, and that He fashioned every human being in a perfect form and balance” (Surah At-Tin, 95:4). Because of this, she believes that “it is impermissible (haram) to intentionally alter the genetic structure that God has designed,” and that any “medical intervention that carries a risk of modifying or interfering with the genetic code of the body would violate my faith and the trust (amanah) that God has placed in me to preserve the natural state of my body as He created it” (reproduced as written).

[25]         In applying to dismiss her complaint, PHSA argues that “Ms. Lasfar’s stated barriers to vaccination,” combined with the documents that she has disclosed during the Tribunal’s process, “make it clear that she will not be able to prove a religious objection to the Covid-19 Vaccine as per Amselem.”

[26]         PHSA asserts that it is not accurate that the vaccine contains pork gelatin, and Ms. Lasfar has provided no evidence showing otherwise. Similarly, it asserts that she has provided no “documentary evidence that Muslims generally are prohibited from taking the Covid-19 Vaccine on the basis of the involvement of fetal cell lines,” noting that Muslim organizations have taken the opposite position.

[27]         In support of these assertions, PHSA provides a “Statement on Vaccination Ruling & Issues” from the Canadian Council of Imams, dated September 16, 2021 [Imams Statement] and a 2025 printout of information from Health Canada’s website [Health Canada Printout]. The Health Canada Printout provides a transcript of a YouTube video in which a family physician states that both “the Muslim Medical Association of Canada and the Canadian Council of Imams have taken the position that the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and AstraZeneca Oxford COVISHIELD COVID-19 vaccines are Halal and permissible in the Islamic faith.” The Imams Statement strongly recommends COVID-19 vaccination, advises that available vaccines “are free from Haram (forbidden) components,” and declares that there “is no valid reason for religious exemption for Muslims.”

[28]         PHSA also challenges Ms. Lasfar’s concern regarding DNA alteration, asserting that it is about the safety of the vaccine and is not clearly linked to her religion. It adds that this concern “is reflected in nearly all of the documents that Ms. Lasfar has listed [in her document disclosure form] in support of her Complaint, which relate to the safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 Vaccine (in particular the Pfizer vaccine), and are dated after Ms. Lasfar’s termination.”

[29]         PHSA submits that “Ms. Lasfar’s true concerns with the Covid-19 Vaccine relate to safety and efficacy, not a religious objection,” and that she is effectively trying to “bootstrap” these concerns into the Code’s protection against religious discrimination. PHSA argues that Ms. Lasfar’s personal opinions and objections to the vaccine based on safety and efficacy are not sincerely held religious beliefs, and the Code does not protect people who refuse to get vaccinated based on personal preference: Lavoie v. Fraser Health Authority, 2025 BCHRT 8 at para. 16. It says Ms. Lasfar “has not produced any evidence to substantiate her allegations that she has an objection to the Vaccine Requirement based on a sincere religious belief.”

[30]         In response, Ms. Lasfar rejects PHSA’s characterizations of her beliefs, which she says are “not based on politics, science skepticism or general mistrust of vaccination, but on my understanding of Islamic principles regarding purity (tahārah), the sanctity of creation and the obligation to avoid substances or technologies I sincerely believe to be impermissible (haram)” (reproduced as written). She argues that Amselem “does not require conformity with official doctrine or majority opinion within a faith community – only sincerity of belief.” Further, she asserts that “Islam is a pluralistic faith with diverse jurisprudential schools, and followers may in good conscience adopt differing interpretations.” She says “the production methods and ingredients of vaccines are a legitimate matter of Islamic bio-ethical deliberation,” citing a “fatwa-statement of the Islamic Fiqh Council of the Muslim World League” opposing the use of aborted fetal tissue. She argues that her refusal of the COVID-19 vaccine “is therefore situated within an established framework of religious concern regarding bodily integrity, permissible materials, and moral complicity – not simply a personal preference.” She adds that PHSA “mischaracterizes [her] objection to mRNA and vector-based vaccines” as being scientific in nature and arising from doubts about vaccine safety. She says this is not accurate:

My concern arises from my faith … . In Islam, the human body is a sacred trust from God (amanah). I believe I must not take actions that risk altering the divine creation.

Whether or not scientists agree that these vaccines affect human DNA is beside the point. What matters is that, in my conscience and faith, I view these technologies as potentially interfering with God’s design. My objection is therefore theological and moral, not medical. The Code protects sincerely held religious beliefs, even when others do not share them.

[31]         Ms. Lasfar distinguishes her case from the circumstances in Thompson v. Interior Health Authority, 2025 BCHRT 188. In that case, the Tribunal observed that the evidence before it did not “identity [the complainant’s] religion or connect the belief that he must reject the COVID-19 vaccine … with any particular religious belief held by him.” In contrast, Ms. Lasfar argues that she has explicitly identified herself as a practicing Muslim and has explained the specific Islamic principles that guided her decision-making regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. I agree and find that she has done so persuasively.

[32]         For the following reasons, PHSA has not convinced me that Ms. Lasfar has no reasonable prospect of making her case at a hearing.

[33]         First, Ms. Lasfar’s concerns regarding pork gelatin, fetal cells, and DNA alteration do not necessarily need to be based in objective fact for her case to succeed: see Sharp at para. 21; Mondejar v. Provincial Health Services Authority, 2026 BCHRT 7 at para. 37. A sincere religious objection based on genuine perceptions at the material time may be sufficient to engage the Code’s protection: see Sharp at para. 21.

[34]         Second, Ms. Lasfar is not required to prove that her religious practices or beliefs “are supported by a mandatory doctrine of faith”: Amselem at para. 49. She is correct in asserting that, to make her case, she must prove the sincerity of her religious beliefs, not their conformity with religious authorities or majority opinion within her faith community.

[35]         Third, I do not accept PHSA’s characterization of Ms. Lasfar’s concern regarding DNA alteration as being all about safety. In the present application, Ms. Lasfar has put forward evidence to connect this concern to Muslim teachings and a related belief that “it would be sinful to receive a medical treatment which poses the serious risk of altering [her] DNA and violating [her] religious commitment to preserving the sanctity of the body that God” gave her. Further, even accepting that Ms. Lasfar’s document disclosure is comprised mostly of secondary materials (e.g., journal articles, research papers, open letters) related to the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine, the fact remains that her evidence in this application overwhelmingly centres on her religious faith and spiritual identity as a practicing Muslim, and on the nexus between those things and her belief that she could not get vaccinated. In any event, her objection to receiving the vaccine does not need to be based only on religious beliefs and nothing else: Sharp at para. 26. Here, as in Mondejar, there is evidence capable of supporting that Ms. Lasfar’s objection to taking the vaccine was, at least in part, based on her religion: Mondejar at para. 36.

[36]         Ms. Lasfar’s affidavit evidence in this application is straightforward, clear, and detailed. Based on that evidence, considered as part of the whole of the information and submissions provided by the parties, I am not persuaded that she has no reasonable prospect of proving that she either subjectively believed that refusing the COVID-19 vaccine was required by her religion, or sincerely believed that not doing so engendered a connection to the divine or to the object of her spiritual faith. In my view, the materials filed could support that Ms. Lasfar held a sincere religious belief that she could not get vaccinated at the time when she was terminated for not complying with the applicable vaccination requirements. The evidence before me takes her complaint out of the realm of conjecture, which is sufficient for the complaint to proceed to a hearing: Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal v. Hill, 2011 BCCA 49 at para. 27.

IV    CONCLUSION

[37]         The dismissal application is denied. The complaint will proceed to a hearing.

Jonathan Chapnick
Tribunal Member