Homann v Northern Health Authority, 2026 BCHRT 113
Tribunal Member Robb, May 6, 2026

Does requiring an unvaccinated employee to undergo a rapid COVID-19 test before each shift amount to treating her as though she has a disability? The BC Human Rights Tribunal held it does not — a neutral, universally applied infection-control measure is not, without more, evidence that an employer perceives a particular employee to be disabled.

Background

Janet Homann, an administrative assistant at a long-term care facility operated by Northern Health Authority (NHA), was subject to the Residential Care Staff Covid-19 Preventive Measures Order. Effective September 2, 2021, the Order required unvaccinated staff to wear a mask and undergo a rapid COVID-19 test before each shift, pending a vaccination deadline of October 11, 2021.

Starting September 16, 2021, Ms. Homann refused pre-shift testing and was sent home repeatedly. NHA barred her from the facility as of September 23, 2021 for non-compliance. She filed her complaint on October 7, 2021. NHA terminated her employment by letter dated November 2, 2021 for continued non-compliance, and told her on November 10, 2021 she could return if vaccinated. She did not respond.

Ms. Homann sent NHA “Notices of Conditional Acceptance” demanding extensive vaccine safety and efficacy information as a precondition to compliance. She said she declined testing because she believed the requirement was unlawful — not because of any disability-related barrier — and declined vaccination out of concern about side effects given her multiple sclerosis and other conditions.

The Complaint: Perceived Disability

In response to NHA’s application to dismiss, Ms. Homann clarified that her complaint was about perceived or imputed disability — specifically, that requiring her to undergo testing implied NHA perceived she might have COVID-19 or another disease. The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of establishing this. The testing requirement applied universally to all unvaccinated staff at all long-term care facilities province-wide. A general infection-control measure is not evidence that an employer perceives any particular individual to have a disability.

Actual Disability

Even treating the complaint as based on actual disability (multiple sclerosis), the Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of proving a barrier. Ms. Homann candidly acknowledged that she refused testing on principle, believing the rule to be unlawful — not because multiple sclerosis prevented her from being tested. As for vaccination, she asserted a generic, un-elaborated concern about potential side effects related to her MS without explaining how the condition would specifically affect her ability to be vaccinated.

The complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

Takeaway

This decision reinforces that neutral, universally applied public health and infection-control measures are not, without more, evidence that an employer perceives a particular employee to have a disability. A complainant alleging a disability-related barrier must connect the specific disability to a specific barrier with some evidentiary basis beyond bare assertion or principled objection to the rule itself. Philosophical or legal disagreement with a health measure — however strongly held — is not a disability-related barrier under human rights legislation.