BC tribunal looks at case involving RN who resigned after COVID-19 vaccine mandate
On Jan. 22, 2026, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ruled a medical note was not enough to justify a registered nurse’s complaint about a vaccine mandate.
Member Shannon Beckett dismissed the complaint of a registered nurse who resigned from Interior Health Authority after 25 years rather than comply with a COVID-19 vaccination order.
The Tribunal concluded that the Code "does not exempt individuals from having to comply with legal instruments like provincial health orders or rules, even if their disagreement with the orders or rules is grounded in a genuinely held political belief."
The decision makes clear that a vague medical exemption does not establish a protected disability, and enforcing a legally binding health directive is not discrimination.
Doctor’s note on vaccination
The RN worked as a clinical coordinator at a long-term care facility in Creston, B.C. On Sept. 2, 2021, the Provincial Health Officer issued a legally binding order mandating vaccination for residential care staff. By Sept. 16, unvaccinated employees were required to undergo rapid testing before each shift. The RN refused and was placed on unpaid leave.
Her medical evidence was a June 24, 2021, note from her family physician, Kurt Jordan: "Please be advised that, due to a combination of medical and personal history, this patient is unable to receive COVID vaccination. Any other infectious risk precautions recommended in such cases is advised."
On Oct. 3, Maatz resigned, writing that "after discussions with my doctor and much research I have decided that I will not take the COVID vaccine for my safety and therefore with the PHO orders from Bonnie Henry I have no other option but to leave my job."
When fears don't equal disability
Jordan's medical notes showed the RN had self-reported childhood febrile seizures from immunizations, that it took her "weeks to recover from the HBV vaccine," and that her son had post-vaccination seizures. No further medical evidence was provided. On Sept. 27, IHA provided Maatz with documents explaining the medical exemption protocol, but she did not apply.
Beckett found the note "brief, vague, and attributes her inability to get vaccinated to a combination of undisclosed medical and personal history." The Tribunal noted that the Code "does not protect people who refuse to get vaccinated as a matter of personal preference, because they do not believe in the efficacy of vaccinations, or because they disagree with the requirement to be vaccinated."
The RN’s own account of her condition shifted from seizure concerns to claims of anaphylactic risk without supporting evidence. The Tribunal held that "speculation about the possibility of negative outcomes – particularly outcomes that are self-reported without supporting evidence, appear remote, and appear to have been transitory – is not enough to take an allegation of disability out of the realm of conjecture."
Discrimination claim debunked
The RN also claimed discrimination based on political belief, arguing the government had no right to mandate medical procedures. She alleged there was no real pandemic in B.C., that the WHO and World Bank were involved in a COVID-related money laundering scheme, and that Canada had a secret agreement with Pfizer.
The Tribunal found these lacked "any level of cogency or cohesion” but acknowledged that the RN’s distinct belief about government overreach and medical autonomy had "a reasonable prospect of amounting to a Code-protected political belief."
The RN also alleged constructive dismissal through rude colleague comments and lack of management support, but provided no specifics about who said what or when.
The complaint was dismissed.
