Gillespie v BC Ministry of Health (Office of the Provincial Health Officer), 2026 BCHRT 134
Vice Chair Cousineau, June 3, 2026

Can an employee who was denied a medical exemption from a COVID-19 vaccination order bring a human rights complaint against the regulatory body that assessed her application? The BC Human Rights Tribunal found that while such a complaint is not automatically barred as an attack on legislation, the complainant must show some evidence connecting a protected characteristic to the adverse decision — mere disagreement with the outcome is not sufficient.

Background

Stephanie Gillespie experienced sudden hearing loss four days after her first COVID-19 vaccine dose in March 2021. Under the Provincial Health Officer (PHO)’s Hospital and Community COVID-19 Vaccination Status Order, she applied for a Medical Deferral (medical exemption). The PHO denied her application, concluding that the evidence did not demonstrate a sufficient causal link between her hearing loss and the vaccine such that further vaccination would seriously jeopardize her health.

Ms. Gillespie declined the second dose, was unable to work under the Order, and her employer (a health authority) terminated her employment. She filed a human rights complaint alleging the PHO discriminated against her based on disability (hearing loss), both in its services (s 8 of the Code) and regarding her employment (s 13 of the Code).

The Tribunal’s Analysis

The PHO applied to dismiss the complaint under s 27(1)(c) of the Human Rights Code — no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal addressed three issues:

First, the Tribunal found that the complaint was not simply a disguised attack on the Order itself. Administrative decision-makers performing a statutory function can still be said to be delivering a “service” that must be delivered without discrimination — distinguishing this from cases where a complaint is merely a bare attack on legislation.

Second, on the merits, there was no evidence that Ms. Gillespie’s disability — as opposed to a good-faith, non-discriminatory clinical assessment that the causal link and health risk did not meet the Order’s exemption threshold — was a factor in how the PHO processed or decided her exemption request.

Third, regarding the employment claim, the PHO itself did not terminate her employment (her employer, the health authority, did), and there was no evidence of discriminatory taint in the PHO’s decision-making process.

The complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

Takeaway

Complaints against administrative or regulatory bodies performing statutory functions can proceed as “service” discrimination complaints — they are not automatically barred as attacks on legislation. However, a complainant must still show some evidence connecting the protected characteristic to the adverse decision or process. Disagreement with the outcome of a good-faith assessment, or dissatisfaction with the threshold a decision-maker applied, does not without more establish that discrimination was at play. The Tribunal will not re-weigh the merits of another decision-maker’s substantive determination.