B.C.'s Human Rights Tribunal has tossed another COVID vaccine-mandate complaint without a hearing. This time, it's a Catholic SkyTrain attendant who was facing the jab or his job in 2022.

Simon Crimp, who worked for nearly 30 years for British Columbia Rapid Transit Company (BCRTC), the SkyTrain operator, asked for a religious vaccine exemption. Crimp cited Catholic teachings that vaccination is "not morally obligatory in principle so must be voluntary," and a moral duty to refuse vaccines "produced using human cell lines derived from direct abortions."

RELATED: A win for medical freedom: Unpacking Dr. Hoffe's win against his licensing college

His decision came after reaching an "informed and sure judgment in conscience" that his Catholic faith required him to refuse.

Nevertheless, when the company later told employees it would fire anyone not double-jabbed by March 31, he had "no choice but to finally break down" and get vaccinated so he would not lose his livelihood.

He later retired in March 2025.

Go Ad Free

Whether his rights were infringed upon won't be heard by the tribunal. Instead, it says it dismissed his case because he didn't answer his employer's questions.

"BCRTC is reasonably certain to prove Mr. Crimp cut the accommodation process short by not responding," tribunal member Rajwant Mangat wrote in the Oct. 27 decision.

"Mr. Crimp did not respond, either to answer BCRTC's questions or to make clear he did not agree that the employer required that information," the decision reads.

Why not? Crimp told the tribunal the questions were "ridiculous." In effect, the decision says, he argued he had already given BCRTC enough information for an exemption "and it was unreasonable for them to ask for more."

The tribunal found the questions were legitimate, pointing to an earlier arbitration case that upheld similar ones.

While he was on leave, BCRTC sent him five letters about the policy. Crimp accused the company of harassing him by sending them, saying they made his PTSD worse and "caused him unnecessary stress and anxiety."

The January letter with the termination warning was meant for working employees and was sent to him by mistake. His union flagged it and BCRTC corrected it.

Mangat found no evidence he told the company the letters were harming him: "I do not accept that BCRTC reasonably ought to have known that communicating with him about the Policy would adversely impact him in connection with his disability."

Crimp represented himself; BCRTC had a lawyer. The tribunal dismissed the complaint under a section of the Human Rights Code for complaints with no reasonable prospect of success, without making findings of fact. It was "dismissed in its entirety."