- within Employment and HR topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in Canada
- with readers working within the Automotive, Healthcare and Oil & Gas industries
In Purolator Canada Inc. v. Canada Council of Teamsters, 2026 BCCA 3, the BC Court of Appeal overturned an arbitrator's decision to strike down a mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy. Reversing the lower court's decision, the British Columbia Court of Appeal clarified that policy decisions must be reasonable in the circumstances but are not required to be scientifically correct in times of uncertainty.
The Purolator decision concerned unionized employees that were placed on an unpaid leave of absence by Purolator. In 2021, the employer instituted a "safer workplaces policy" that mandated COVID-19 vaccinations for its employees. The policy required every employee to attest to being fully vaccinated against COVID-19. It did not however require that employees have booster shots or in any other way maintain their fully vaccinated status. Employees that did not complete the attestation were placed on an unpaid leave of absence.
The mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy remained in force until 2023. Several grievances were filed challenging the reasonableness of the policy in British Columbia.
An arbitrator struck down the policy, finding that by mid-2022 the protection offered by the vaccine was so minimal that the policy's infringement on employee privacy was no longer justified. The arbitrator reviewed a body of scientific evidence about the ineffectiveness of vaccination to prevent transmission of the COVID-19 virus, noting that the public health order by BC Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry that suggested that vaccination continued to protect against infections was an "outlier." The unvaccinated employees impacted by the policy were awarded lost wages and benefits for the period following June 30, 2022. The BC Supreme Court upheld the arbitrator's decision.
The BC Court of Appeal overturned the arbitrator's decision, finding that there was continuing uncertainty about the effectiveness of vaccination as reflected in the differing opinions from public health sources. Applying the precautionary approach, the policy was reasonable as it was not known whether potential risks would or would not materialize. Policy decisions made by employers are subject to a reasonableness standard. The Court of Appeal notes that the relevant question is what steps are reasonable, not what steps can be objectively demonstrated to be correct.
Key takeaways
The Purolator decision confirms that in times of scientific uncertainty, an employer is entitled to rely on evidence of relevant public health authorities in taking steps to comply with its obligations to ensure the health and safety of its workers. While Purolator provides helpful guidance for policy decision-making, employers should still be cautious when implementing mandatory workplace policies and seek guidance to ensure that the policy is reasonable in light of the surrounding circumstances.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
