Robert v Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, 2026 BCHRT 95
Tribunal Member Takayanagi, April 10, 2026

Does an employee’s refusal to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination mandate — framed around vaccine safety concerns and demands for legal liability assurances — amount to a sincerely held religious belief? The BC Human Rights Tribunal held it does not, dismissing the complaint for having no reasonable prospect of success on either religious belief or disability grounds.

Background

Barbara Robert, an adult/older-adult program assistant at Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA), was terminated in November 2021 for refusing to comply with the Provincial Health Officer (PHO)’s October 2021 vaccination mandate for health authority staff. The mandate allowed only a narrow medical exemption, not religious exemptions.

Ms. Robert had called in sick in mid-October 2021 and provided a doctor’s note citing “medical reasons”. She emailed VCHA raising questions about vaccine safety and liability, stating she would get vaccinated only if VCHA provided assurances of no harm and accepted legal and financial responsibility. She never told VCHA she was seeking a religious or medical exemption. VCHA made repeated attempts — through emails and meetings on November 5, 10, and 19, 2021 — to discuss her non-compliance. She did not respond or attend. She was terminated November 19, 2021.

Religious Belief

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of establishing that Ms. Robert’s refusal was based on a sincerely held religious belief. Her contemporaneous correspondence raised safety, efficacy, and liability concerns — not religious objections. The only religious evidence was a self-report referencing the “sanctity of life” and a letter from a reverend at a Nebraska church, dated after her termination, that did not confirm her membership.

Critically, her own words — “Once I have received the above information in full and I am satisfied there is NO threat to my health, I will proceed accordingly” — were inconsistent with a sincerely held, non-negotiable religious conviction and instead reflected a conditional personal safety concern. Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s framework in Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem, 2004 SCC 47, the Tribunal concluded the claim could not succeed.

Disability

Ms. Robert provided no medical information connecting any disability to an inability to be vaccinated or to her termination. VCHA had offered information about the PHO’s medical exemption process, which she did not pursue. The only “evidence” was the coincidental timing of her medical leave and her termination — which alone does not support an inference of discrimination where the employer has a clear, consistent, non-discriminatory explanation (termination solely for vaccine mandate non-compliance).

The complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

Takeaway

A complainant must show some objective evidentiary basis connecting a protected ground to an employer’s decision. Personal safety or legal-liability concerns about a vaccine — without more — will not be treated as a sincerely held religious belief. The test requires a genuine connection to religion, not a conditional objection that would evaporate if the safety concern were addressed. Similarly, mere timing or coincidence between a medical leave and a termination is insufficient to establish disability as a factor where the employer demonstrates a clear, non-discriminatory basis for its decision.