LifeLabs ordered to change privacy practices after discrimination findings involving trans patients

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has ordered LifeLabs LP and its subsidiary, Excelleris Technologies, to improve patient privacy, update staff training and address misgendering in two patients’ records after finding they discriminated against three transgender and non-binary people.

Tribunal member Theressa Etmanski awarded a combined $32,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect in Moses and others v. Lifelabs LP and another, 2026 BCHRT 225. The decision, issued Oct. 29 and posted Nov. 3, also awards lost wages for attending the hearing and $11,100 for expert evidence.

The complaint succeeded only in part. Etmanski rejected a separate allegation about laboratory reference ranges and several allegations involving one complainant’s reports and the response to his concerns. The findings concerned individual encounters at LifeLabs patient service centres in 2019, rather than every instance of discrimination alleged.

A central issue was whether LifeLabs could insist on using a sex or gender marker matching a patient’s BC Services Card throughout its services, even after being told that the marker did not reflect the patient’s gender identity.

LifeLabs and Excelleris argued that their approach was necessary for identification, billing, accreditation and the electronic transmission of results. Etmanski accepted that ensuring MSP eligibility and accurate reports were legitimate purposes and that the standard had been adopted in good faith. But the respondents did not establish that accommodating the complainants would cause undue hardship.

Three encounters

Noa Moses, a non-binary transgender person, attended a Vancouver location in October 2019. Etmanski accepted that staff repeatedly asked Moses to select a male or female marker and ultimately made that selection a condition of obtaining bloodwork. The encounter lasted about an hour, according to Moses’s evidence.

The tribunal found that LifeLabs failed to respect Moses’s gender identity and compounded the harm by requiring the discussion near other patients. Staff also wrote a binary marker and an incorrect pronoun on the requisition despite Moses repeatedly explaining that they were non-binary.

Devan Snow experienced a similar refusal to update his gender information at a Burnaby location two days later. LifeLabs instead used the marker on his identification. The tribunal found this was misgendering and that the public setting worsened its impact.

Snow’s additional complaint about the reference ranges accompanying test results failed. Etmanski did not find evidence that patients could appropriately request different ranges independently of instructions from their referring health-care provider. Snow also had not established that the range provided was medically inappropriate. The tribunal therefore declined to order changes to reference-range practices.

Vincent Viezzer’s successful allegation concerned an employee writing “FTM” on his requisition in July 2019. Etmanski found that the notation was deeply offensive to Viezzer and unnecessarily exposed his transgender status to anyone who might subsequently handle the form. His identification and requisition already identified him as male, and no medical need for the notation was established.

The decision did not declare the term universally offensive. Its discriminatory impact depended on the circumstances, including Viezzer’s wishes, the health-care setting and the absence of justification for disclosing the information.

The tribunal rejected his timely allegations of misgendering on laboratory reports and found that the respondents reasonably investigated and addressed his concerns about older records. Allegations about events from 2014 to 2017 were outside the complaint’s scope, although the earlier records were relevant background.

Evidence fell short of undue hardship

Etmanski distinguished the obligation to verify eligibility for publicly funded services from the respondents’ policy of relying exclusively on the BC Services Card for demographic information throughout the service encounter and record keeping.

The Laboratory Services Regulations required identity verification, but did not establish that LifeLabs had to reject different gender information once MSP eligibility was confirmed. Nor did the evidence establish that accreditation or contractual obligations required the disputed approach.

The tribunal also considered the difficulty of changing LifeLabs’ integrated information system. Evidence showed that adding a separate gender field could take more than a year and require work across connected systems. However, the respondents provided no estimated costs or evidence about the financial impact of those changes. They also had not demonstrated that they explored all reasonable alternatives.

The decision acknowledged that information about a patient’s sex can be medically relevant. It did not find evidence that the particular requirement to match the BC Services Card was medically necessary.

Different deadlines for remedies

Moses and Snow were each awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, while Viezzer was awarded $2,000. Etmanski found no malicious intent by staff, but accepted that the incidents had significant effects, including creating barriers to returning for medically necessary services.

Within six months of the decision, the respondents must take reasonable steps to ensure transgender and non-binary patients have, and know about, an option to discuss sex or gender in a private space away from other patients.

The tribunal acknowledged significant staff-training efforts since the events, including work with TransCare BC in 2021, but ordered updated privacy training. The respondents must develop that training and provide it to all B.C. staff and management within one year. Within 18 months, they must take all reasonable steps to correct, remove or mask the misgendering arising during and after Moses’s and Snow’s 2019 visits.

The tribunal declined to order a public correction process for all patients, a separate accountability framework or a payment to a transgender organization. It also declined continuing supervision of the remedies, noting that enforcement can be sought in B.C. Supreme Court.