Staffing agency didn't save it from a human rights fight, but something else did
A utility argued it wasn't liable for a contractor's vaccine mandate fallout because a staffing agency technically employed him. A human rights tribunal disagreed but it sided with the company anyway.
In a decision dated July 23, 2026, tribunal member Theressa Etmanski of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a discrimination complaint the contractor brought against BC Hydro after it reduced his hours and ended his contract over his refusal to comply with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy for contractors.
Staffing agency didn't shield BC Hydro from the claim
The contractor worked as an Energy Coach on a fixed two-year contract, jointly engaged by BC Hydro and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Emissions through TEEMA Solutions Group Inc., a staffing firm. In November 2021, BC Hydro introduced a policy requiring contractors at its sites to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by Jan. 10, 2022, with exemptions limited to exceptional circumstances tied to protected grounds under the code.
BC Hydro argued TEEMA, not BC Hydro, was the contractor's actual employer, pointing to a services agreement making TEEMA responsible for accommodating its own workers. Etmanski disagreed. Applying the control-and-dependency test from the Supreme Court's decision in McCormick v. Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, she found BC Hydro directed his daily work, approved his timesheets, decided if he could work remotely, and could end his contract anytime. That was enough to establish an employment relationship with BC Hydro despite his arrangement with TEEMA.
Etmanski noted that while the services agreement assigned accommodation duties to TEEMA, parties cannot contract out of their human rights obligations. That agreement, she found, would still inform what efforts BC Hydro needed to make, rather than eliminating its responsibility altogether.
Religious claim advanced while family status claim didn't
The contractor first sought an exemption on Nov. 23, 2021, saying he could work off-site, without mentioning religion. Two weeks later, he filed a second request grounded in religious belief, backed by a sworn statement signed before his pastor on Dec. 6, 2021, citing Biblical passages and saying his faith barred him from a vaccine linked to fetal cell lines and a threat to his body's sanctity.
BC Hydro argued the shifting explanations, and what it called unreliable hearsay in the sworn statement, showed the belief wasn't sincere. Etmanski disagreed, noting the contractor had told BC Hydro of his religious objection on Nov. 17, 2021, before filing either request. That, along with evidence he attended church weekly, cleared the low bar for advancing the claim to a hearing.
His family status allegation, tied to his wife recently having given birth, was dismissed outright. He alleged in his complaint that "the 50% reduction of my weekly billable hours is mean and vindictive," but Etmanski found no evidence connecting the schedule change or termination to his family circumstances, calling the claim speculation with no reasonable prospect of success.
Accommodation record proved enough to end the case
Even with the religious complaint clearing the screening stage, BC Hydro could still win by proving a justification defence at a hearing. That meant showing the policy served a legitimate safety purpose, was adopted in good faith, and that the contractor had been accommodated to the point of undue hardship.
BC Hydro maintained 50 per cent of the role required in-person work with customers and at its offices, and could not be done remotely full-time. It offered the contractor three months of reduced-hours, work-from-home accommodation while he searched for other work, then ended the contract effective March 31, 2022. Etmanski accepted the role could not be performed fully remotely, and that paying for half its duties over the remaining 18 months would cause undue hardship.
Etmanski found that "BC Hydro is reasonably certain to make out a justification defence at the hearing," and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. BC Hydro suspended the contractor vaccination policy in September 2022, citing the pandemic's declining threat.
See Williams v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, 2026 BCHRT 163
