Five years after the World Health Organization’s declaration of a global pandemic, judges continue to grapple with cases involving the reasonableness of employer mandatory vaccination policies.
The British Columbia Supreme Court’s decision in Clark v. City of Prince George, 2025 BCSC 812 represents the most recent instalment of these mandatory vaccination cases and provides a welcome endorsement of the implementation and application of mandatory vaccination policies.
Facts
Rob Clark worked as a Financial Analyst for the City of Prince George (the “City”). Mr. Clark’s role did not require him to interact with the public, and although he could partly work remotely under the City’s work-from-home policy, Mr. Clark preferred to work in the office. In November 2021, the City implemented a mandatory vaccination policy that required employees to provide proof of vaccination by December 20, 2021 (subsequently extended to January 14, 2022), unless they obtained an exemption under the Human Rights Code.
The City made compliance with the vaccination policy a condition of employment. If an employee did not comply with the policy, they would not be eligible to attend work after the deadline and would instead be placed on an unpaid leave of absence for a minimum of 30 days. If an employee became vaccinated while on leave, they would be returned to work. Employees that remained unvaccinated would be subject to employment consequences up to, and including, termination of employment.
Mr. Clark decided not to be vaccinated. As a result, Mr. Clark worked until January 14, 2022, and was then placed on an unpaid leave of absence. On February 17, 2024, Mr. Clark’s lawyer wrote to the City to advise that Mr. Clark was taking the position that he had been constructively dismissed and would be resigning his employment. In Mr. Clark’s view, the City had repudiated the essential terms of his employment contract by implementing the vaccination policy and placing him on an unpaid leave. At the time that his employment ceased, Mr. Clark had approximately 13 years of service.
The unpaid leave of absence was administrative
A primary issue in this case was whether Mr. Clark’s unpaid leave of absence was administrative or disciplinary in nature. In considering this issue, Justice Bantourakis noted that the vaccination policy made a distinction between “employment consequences” that attached to an employee’s decision not to be vaccinated and “disciplinary consequences” that attached to those who submitted fraudulent vaccination certificates or fraudulent human rights accommodation requests. In Justice Bantourakis’ view, the City did not discipline Mr. Clark for his decision not to get vaccinated; rather, Mr. Clark simply incurred the employment consequences of being placed on an administrative leave of absence without pay.
There was an implied term that allowed the City to introduce a mandatory vaccination policy
The analysis then turned to whether Mr. Clark’s employment contract permitted the City to unilaterally introduce a vaccination requirement. Mr. Clark argued that absent an express contractual term that required him to be vaccinated in order to work, the City was prohibited from introducing such a measure. Calling Mr. Clark’s position “illogical” and “unworkable,” Justice Bantourakis accepted the City’s argument that there was an implied term in Mr. Clark’s employment contract that allowed the City to implement workplace health and safety policies, like the vaccination policy.
The administrative suspension was reasonable and justified
In considering whether Mr. Clark’s administrative suspension was reasonable, Justice Bantourakis noted that “…factors such as the duration of the suspension, whether the suspension is with pay, and good faith on the employer’s part, including the demonstration of legitimate business reasons, will always be relevant.”[1] In addition, legitimate business reasons would also be a requirement.
Relying on the British Columbia Supreme Court’s previous decision in Parmar v. Tribe Management Inc., 2022 BCSC 1675, where the Court dismissed a constructive dismissal claim involving a similar vaccination policy and resulting unpaid leave of absence, Justice Bantourakis ruled that the City “…had legitimate business reasons for imposing the consequence of an unpaid leave of absence for non-compliance with the vaccination policy and that it acted in good faith.”[2] To that end, Justice Bantourakis noted that the analysis of the reasonableness of the mandatory vaccination policy had to be conducted in light of what was known about COVID-19 at the time the vaccination policy was implemented. On that basis, Justice Bantourakis noted that at the time that the City implemented the policy, COVID-19 case rates were higher and vaccination rates lower in Prince George and surrounding areas than elsewhere in British Columbia. Moreover, the Provincial Health Officer was recommending that large employers consider implementing vaccination policies.
Finally, Justice Bantourakis addressed Mr. Clark’s argument that he could have worked entirely from home and thus the vaccination policy was not necessary. Justice Bantourakis rejected Mr. Clark’s position, noting that “[t]he City was not required to implement a perfect policy, only one that was reasonable and justified.” To that end, Justice Bantourakis accepted the City’s argument that allowing exemptions other than on human rights bases would compromise and undermine the policy’s effectiveness.
Ultimately, Justice Bantourakis concluded that the vaccination policy did not force Mr. Clark to become vaccinated, but rather forced a choice between getting vaccinated and continuing to earn income or remaining unvaccinated and losing income. On that basis, the City did not breach Mr. Clark’s employment contract.
Takeaways for employers
This decision will be welcome news for employers that are currently engaged in litigation over their own mandatory vaccination policies. As Justice Bantourakis noted, the passage of time means that we might find ourselves “glossing” over the “extremity of the risk to public health and social order” first posed by COVID-19; however, “…it is important to remember that during the relevant period, individuals and institutions routinely faced difficult decisions in the face of significant risks and highly uncertain outcomes.”[3]
Further, apart from the impact on mandatory vaccination litigation, this case also serves as a helpful precedent to demonstrate that employers have an implied authority to implement workplace health and safety policies and, depending on the circumstances, an employer will be justified in placing an employee on an unpaid leave of absence due to their non-compliance.
For more information on this topic, please reach out to the authors, Andy Pushalik and Rachel Akinyemi.
[1] Clark v. City of Prince George, 2025 BCSC 812 at para. 59.
[2] Ibid. at para 63.
[3] Ibid. at para. 64.
