The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed a former SkyTrain attendant’s complaint over his employer’s COVID-19 vaccination policy, concluding that the employer was reasonably certain to establish that it had met its accommodation obligations.

The October 27 decision in Crimp v. British Columbia Rapid Transit Company Ltd., 2026 BCHRT 224, turned on Simon Crimp’s failure to respond to questions about his requested religious exemption and the absence of evidence that the company knew its policy letters were worsening his disability.

Tribunal member Rajwant Mangat dismissed the religious-belief and disability complaint without a hearing under section 27(1)(c) of the Human Rights Code. Mangat stressed that the decision made no findings of fact. For the application, the tribunal assumed that vaccination conflicted with Crimp’s religious beliefs and that the correspondence aggravated his disability, then considered whether the employer was reasonably certain to justify its conduct.

Unanswered questions ended the accommodation process

British Columbia Rapid Transit Company introduced a vaccination requirement in October 2021, subject to accommodation. Crimp sought an exemption based on his Catholic beliefs the following month.

The company declined his request on the information provided but invited him to explain whether those beliefs also led him to object to other vaccinations, medications or medical treatments, and to identify them.

Crimp did not answer. In the tribunal proceeding, he said the questions were unnecessary and that he had already supplied enough information. But Mangat noted that he had not communicated that objection to the company at the time.

Although employers have primary responsibility for accommodation, employees must take reasonable steps to participate in the process, the tribunal explained. On this record, the company was reasonably certain to prove that Crimp had cut the process short by not responding.

Mangat distinguished three decisions concerning other religious vaccine objections. In Matembe, a complaint survived a dismissal application; in Marzhakov and an Air Canada arbitration, employees succeeded on the merits. The employees in Matembe and Marzhakov had answered questions and continued the accommodation discussion. The Air Canada case involved an employer requiring letters from religious leaders, which the company had not demanded from Crimp.

One arbitration decision involving the same transit employer had criticized its later questioning of a different employee’s religious sincerity. Mangat acknowledged that history but found it would be speculative to assume that Crimp’s application would inevitably have received the same treatment, since he had not responded to the initial questions.

Medical leave did not establish knowledge of harm

Crimp also alleged that five letters about the vaccination policy caused stress and anxiety while he was on medical leave.

One letter, intended for employees who were actively working, was sent to him in error. His union brought the mistake to the company’s attention, and the company explained the error and said it would send the appropriate letter.

The tribunal found no evidence that Crimp or his union told the company that policy correspondence generally was worsening his disability or asked it to stop sending such communications. Knowing he was on medical leave did not, in these circumstances, establish that the company should have known the letters were harmful.

Mangat found the employer was reasonably certain to justify sending the correspondence. The reasons did not establish a blanket rule permitting all communications with employees on medical leave.

Crimp was vaccinated and returned to full-time work in April 2022. He later retired in March 2025. His complaint was dismissed in its entirety; political-belief allegations had already failed to pass an earlier screening stage and were not decided in this ruling.

Source: Crimp v. British Columbia Rapid Transit Company Ltd., 2026 BCHRT 224.