Petrunia v. BC Ministry of Health (Office of the Provincial Health Officer), 2026 BCHRT 203
Date Issued: September 22, 2026
File(s): CS-005144
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:
Jacqueline Petrunia
COMPLAINANT
AND:
His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Ministry of Health (Office of the Provincial Health Officer)
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Ijeamaka Anika
Complainant: No Submissions
Counsel for the Respondent: Alexandra MacCarthy
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Jacqueline Petrunia alleges that His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Ministry of Health (Office of the Provincial Health Officer) [the Ministry] discriminated against her in services based on her physical disability, contrary to the Human Rights Code. Ms. Petrunia says the Ministry did not provide her with a medical exemption from the proof-of-COVID-19 vaccination requirement which it introduced in 2021, and that as a result, she was excluded from participating in non-essential activities in her community. She says she was unable to receive the COVID-19 vaccine because of a previous vaccine injury which she attributes to an allergy to components used in the vaccine.
[2] The Ministry denies discriminating and applies to dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(c). It argues that the complaint is, in substance, a direct attack on the public health orders made by the Provincial Health Officer [PHO] in the exercise of a statutory power which does not create a service customarily available to the public within the meaning of s. 8 of the Code. In the alternative, the Ministry argues that Ms. Petrunia has no reasonable prospect of proving discrimination if the complaint proceeds to a hearing because Ms. Petrunia did not seek the medical exemptions that were available under the relevant public health orders.
[3] Ms. Petrunia did not file a response to the dismissal application. As set out below, I am satisfied she had notice of the application and an opportunity to respond to it, and I decide the application on the materials before me.
[4] For the following reasons, I allow the application and dismiss the complaint. I am satisfied that even if the public health orders engaged s. 8, Ms. Petrunia’s complaint has no reasonable prospect of success. She does not identify a service that she was denied, nor does she allege that she experienced an adverse impact connected to her disability. In reaching this conclusion, 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] The basic facts giving rise to this complaint do not appear to be disputed.
[6] On September 10, 2021, the PHO issued two orders: the Order of the Provincial Health Officer – Gatherings and Events,[1] and the Order of the Provincial Health Officer – Food and Liquor Serving Premises[2] [together, the Orders]. Pursuant to the Orders, the PHO introduced the BC Vaccine Card program, under which proof of vaccination could be shown by a vaccine card, a QR code, or proof of a medical exemption. As of October 24, 2021, the Orders required individuals attending certain events, gatherings, and recreational or hospitality venues to provide proof of COVID‑19 vaccination or a valid exemption. Individuals who could not provide such proof, including through a BC Vaccine Card or proof of exemption, were not permitted to enter those establishments. Under that process, a person could seek an exemption based on a medical contraindication by making a request for “reconsideration”. To do so, the person was required to provide their medical records and a signed statement from a medical practitioner, based on a current assessment, confirming that receiving a first or second dose of the vaccine would seriously jeopardize their health. On November 12 and December 23, 2021, the Ministry published guidelines on the PHO’s website explaining the process for requesting a medical exemption.
[7] The Orders were subject to various extensions and variances through the pandemic but were repealed as of April 8, 2022.
[8] Ms. Petrunia’s complaint does not identify a specific order which she says is at issue in her complaint. The Ministry submits that, given when it was filed, the complaint appears to be directed at the Orders. Ms. Petrunia did not address this in her complaint or respond to the dismissal application. Therefore, for the purposes of this application, I proceed on the basis that the complaint is directed at the Orders. Ms. Petrunia’s does not also state whether she sought a medical exemption or variance from the Orders by submitting a medical exemption request to the Ministry. She says that the Orders did not provide an exemption for individuals unable to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, and as a result, she was unable to participate in non-essential activities.
[9] On December 2, 2025, the Tribunal sent the parties a submissions schedule for the dismissal application. On February 13, 2026, the Ministry filed its dismissal application. On March 20, 2026, Ms. Petrunia informed the Tribunal that she would not file a response, stating that her complaint provided a “full and complete understanding of how I was discriminated against and why I feel that I was discriminated against.” I am satisfied that Ms. Petrunia had an opportunity to put forward any evidence or arguments she considered relevant to the dismissal application. Therefore, the only material before me from Ms. Petrunia is her complaint form.
III DECISION
[10] The Ministry applies to dismiss Ms. Petrunia’s complaint on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success: Code, s. 27(1)(c). The onus is on the Ministry to establish the basis for dismissal.
[11] 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.
[12] 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.
[13] 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 [Hill] at para. 27.
[14] To prove her complaint at a hearing, Ms. Petrunia will have to prove that she has a characteristic protected by the Code, she was adversely impacted in services, and her protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33. If she did that, the burden would shift to the Ministry to justify the impact as a bona fide reasonable justification. If the impact is justified, there is no discrimination.
[15] The Ministry says that the Orders were made by the PHO in exercise of emergency powers under the Public Health Act and cannot be considered a service to the public. It says that, in the alternative, Ms. Petrunia’s complaint has no reasonable prospect of success because she has not pleaded any actual adverse impact connected her disability and did not seek a medical exemption regarding the COVID-19 vaccine.
[16] First, I consider whether the Orders amount to a service under s. 8 of the Code.
[17] Section 8 of the Code prohibits discrimination in accommodation, services, and facilities customarily available to the public. To fall within s. 8, the activity said to be discriminatory must “be a service, customarily available, and customarily available to the public: British Columbia v. Crockford, 2006 BCCA 360 at para. 78.
[18] The Ministry argues that Ms. Gillespie’s complaint does not engage a service customarily available to the public. Rather, it says that her complaint is effectively a direct attack on the Order, which is akin to legislation. It cites case law finding that legislation is not a service customarily available to the public: Child L (by Mother L) v. BC Ministry of Education, 2025 BCHRT 27 at para. 14. It also cites a Tribunal screening decision, which determined that the making of a public health other is not in itself a service and complaints could not proceed where they were a bare attack on the PHO’s orders: David Murphy v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Ministry of Health (Office of the Provincial Health Officer) and Bonnie Henry, Case Number: CS-002718 (unreported), issued April 14, 2021).
[19] I accept that, to the extent Ms. Petrunia’s complaint is essentially a challenge to the Orders, it does not concern a service customarily available to the public under s. 8 of the Code. However, the Tribunal has recognized that an administrative decision-maker may provide a service when it adjudicates requests under a legislative scheme.: Gillespie v. BC Ministry of Health (Office of the Provincial Health Officer), 2026 BCHRT 134, at para 22. In doing so, the Ministry is required by the Code to ensure that its services are delivered without discrimination.
[20] The difficulty with Ms. Petrunia’s complaint is that it does not point to how she was adversely in a service in connection to her disability, beyond her bare assertion of discrimination. She does not allege that she applied for an exemption and was denied. The Ministry relies on the affidavit evidence from its Senior Advisor, Public Health Policy with the PHO, that Ms. Petrunia did not apply for a medical exemption. In her complaint, Ms. Petrunia states that she was excluded from “non-essential activities” in her community. She does not identify a particular establishment, event, or activity she sought to access and could not. Ms. Petrunia does not also say that she sought a medical exemption and was denied one. The Orders provided for exemptions from the outset, the process for requesting one was set out in the Orders, and the Ministry issued public guidance on that process in November and December 2021. Ms. Petrunia does not also allege that she attempted to use that process. Beyond her assertion that the Ministry did not provide her with a medical exemption from the proof-of-COVID-19 vaccination, Ms. Petrunia does not provide any particulars from which I can determine whether her complaint has a reasonable prospect of success.
[21] On this basis, I am satisfied that Ms. Petrunia has no reasonable prospect of establishing that she experienced an adverse impact connected to her physical disability. Therefore, I am satisfied that the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success.
IV CONCLUSION
[22] The complaint is dismissed under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code.
Ijeamaka Anika
Tribunal Member
Human Rights Tribunal
[1] ORDER OF THE PROVINCIAL HEALTH OFFICER (Pursuant to Sections 30, 31, 32, 39, 54, 67 (2) and 69 Public Health Act, S.B.C. 2008) GATHERINGS AND EVENTS – SEPTEMBER 10, 2021.
[2] ORDER OF THE PROVINCIAL HEALTH OFFICER (Pursuant to Sections 30, 31, 32, 39, 54, 67 (2) and 69 Public Health Act, S.B.C. 2008) FOOD AND LIQUOR SERVING PREMISES – SEPTEMBER 10, 2021.