Fired paramedic loses vaccine religion case after never telling employer about his faith
Workers were hired without being required to declare their religious beliefs, but during the pandemic, the novel COVID-19 vaccination mandate became a condition of keeping their jobs — and one paramedic’s bid to challenge his dismissal has now been rejected twice without a hearing.
A paramedic fired for refusing the COVID-19 shot will not have his second attempt at reprieve heard by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The complaint against his employer failed on the grounds that he never told them about his religious affiliations.
Noams Friss worked for BC Emergency Health Services, part of the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA), when he was told on October 14, 2021, that he had two weeks to comply with provincial orders to show proof of vaccination.
Notably, the vaccination mandate was imposed by government order, not negotiated as part of Friss’ original employment contract. More broadly, novel COVID-19 vaccination mandates were not part of the employment contracts workers had signed before the pandemic.
Friss did not, however, show proof of vaccination, so PHSA put him on unpaid leave and, on November 15, 2021, fired him completely.
He then filed a complaint alleging discrimination in employment based on religion under section 13 of the B.C. Human Rights Code.
Tribunal member Jonathan Chapnick threw the complaint out on July 17, 2026, without a hearing. Chapnick cleared the PHO because he said its order did not require PHSA to fire anyone. PHSA "was reasonably certain to establish a justification defence because Mr. Friss never disclosed his religious objection to the vaccination requirements, and so PHSA was unaware of his religious beliefs when it terminated his employment."
Friss, who represented himself, asked Chapnick to reconsider. He said the tribunal ignored that he "lacks the financial ability, the linguistic skills and/or the judicial knowledge to represent [himself] to the level of the professional lawyers." He said telling PHSA about his faith would have been pointless: "even if PHSA would have known about the religious objection, they would have done absolutely nothing to accommodate it, because there were no such options given by the PHO."
On September 16, 2026, Chapnick refused.
"While [Friss] asserts that he experienced an unfair process, what his application really challenges is my analysis and decision-making," he wrote. The application "seeks to reargue issues that I have already decided." His answer: "These are not proper grounds for reconsideration."
The tribunal heard no evidence on whether accommodation was possible. The original decision records no findings of fact and no doubt about the sincerity of Friss' beliefs.
Chapnick was appointed a full-time member on November 1, 2023, according to the tribunal's members page, after a workplace law practice, a seat on B.C.'s Employment Standards Tribunal and 15 years in-house for unions and employers in B.C. and Ontario.
Under the tribunal's own rules, the first review of a member's call is that member deciding whether he was unfair. The decision can still be challenged by judicial review in the B.C. Supreme Court, though no such filing had been reported to date.
Featured Stories
08:34
