Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

Canadian Employment & Labour Law

Making the law work for your workplace.

open menu close menu

Canadian Employment & Labour Law

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Topics
    • Topics
    • Labour
    • Workplace investigations

British Columbia Supreme Court: Unpaid leave following refusal to comply with mandatory vaccination policy is not constructive dismissal

By Victoria Merritt and Rachel Au
October 6, 2022
  • Constructive Dismissal
  • COVID-19
  • General
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

The question of how employers should address employees who choose not to vaccinate, and whether mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies are reasonable in the workplace, was recently addressed by the British Columbia Supreme Court in Parmar v. Tribe Management Inc., 2022 BCSC 1675 (Parmar). In short, while the analysis of what constitutes a constructive dismissal will always be “intensely” fact specific, those that fail to comply with law employer policies – including mandatory vaccination policies – will need to be prepared to face the consequences of their choices.

Parmar v Tribe Management Inc.

The question in Parmar was whether an employer could place its employee on an unpaid leave of absence for failing to follow a mandatory workplace vaccination policy or whether this amounted to constructive dismissal. At issue was whether the leave was reasonable and justified based on the facts and the state of knowledge about COVID-19 when the policy was implemented.

Tribe Management Inc., a strata management company, implemented a mandatory vaccination policy with medical and religious exemptions available for eligible employees. The plaintiff, Ms. Parmar, did not assert that she qualified for such an exemption when she refused to get vaccinated. The defendant employer subsequently placed the plaintiff on unpaid leave for three months, subject to a reassessment at the end of that period. Ms. Parmar sued the employer for constructive dismissal.

In considering the reasonableness of the leave, Justice MacNaughton of the British Columbia Supreme Court drew parallels to an Alberta case from earlier this year. In this case, the plaintiff’s constructive dismissal case was dismissed after he was found to have resigned when he took another job after being placed on an unpaid leave of absence for refusing to comply with the employer’s mandatory mask policy.

The employment bargain struck between employer and employee is that the employee will work and the employer will pay. Analogous to an employee that chooses not to wear a mask, an employee that does not vaccinate chooses to do so. By choosing not to vaccinate, an employee effectively chooses not to work.

The consequence of a mandatory vaccination policy is not to force an employee to become vaccinated; rather, it presses the employee to decide whether to get vaccinated and continue earning an income or remain unvaccinated and lose that income. Refusal to comply constitutes the employee’s repudiation of their employment contract.

Context is key

Context factored heavily in this decision. When the mandatory vaccination policy was imposed, the prevailing laws required proof of vaccination at most public events, health sector and public service employees were required to be vaccinated, and vaccinations were readily available to the public. The employer, Tribe Management Inc., was considered an “essential service” by ensuring the safe operations of residences. The Court found that the company took significant steps to be informed about the pandemic and its workers’ health and vaccination status. The Court took judicial notice (as have other cases) that Covid-19 vaccinations are safe and effective,  meaning Tribe Management Inc. did not have to consult an expert to implement its policy.

The employer was required to balance Ms. Parmar’s personal beliefs against its interests to protect the health and safety of all employees, its clients’ interests, and the interests of the people it services. The judge concluded that with what was known about the coronavirus and vaccinations at the time, imposing the policy was reasonable and also consistent with the company’s statutory obligation to provide a safe workplace under the British Columbia Worker’s Compensation Act.

It is also notable that while Ms. Parmar proposed safe alternatives to vaccination, such as working remotely, submitting to rapid testing at her cost, or adhering to strictly-controlled in-person office visits, the company was permitted to refuse same.

The policy imposed respected Ms. Parmar’s personal choices. Rather than dismissing or disciplining her, she was placed on a three-month leave of absence. The company did not fill her position and was prepared to extend her leave of absence if necessary or reinstate her if her vaccination status changed. This policy was applied consistently and to all workers.

Conclusion: Imposing unpaid leaves of absence may not amount to constructive dismissal

This decision illustrates that taking steps to enforce a lawful workplace policy, such as placing employees on unpaid leaves of absence for refusing to vaccinate, likely does not ground an action in constructive dismissal. However, context is key. Courts will look to the surrounding circumstances, including the duration of the leave, whether the employee on leave can return to their position, the reasonableness of the leave itself, and the consistency with which the policy is implemented. While employees are entitled to their personal beliefs, they cannot simply refuse to comply.

For more information, please contact the authors, Victoria Merritt and Rachel Au.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Victoria Merritt

About Victoria Merritt

Victoria Merritt is an associate in the Employment and Labour group in the Dentons Vancouver office.

All posts Full bio

Rachel Au

About Rachel Au

Rachel Au is an associate in the Litigation and Dispute Resolution and Employment and Labour groups in Dentons’ Vancouver office.

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • Constructive Dismissal

SCC Says Suspension with Pay can Amount to Constructive Dismissal

A non-unionized employee on an indefinite suspension with pay successfully claimed that he was constructively dismissed by his employer and […]

By Matthew Curtis
  • General

National Day for Truth and Reconciliation – Is September 30 a statutory holiday for your employees?

By Emily Kroboth
  • General

Update on the implementation of alcohol and drug testing regulations in Canadian nuclear industry workplaces

By Jennifer A. Thompson and April Kosten

About Dentons

Dentons is designed to be different. As the world’s largest law firm with 20,000 professionals in over 200 locations in more than 80 countries, we can help you grow, protect, operate and finance your business. Our polycentric and purpose-driven approach, together with our commitment to inclusion, diversity, equity and ESG, ensures we challenge the status quo to stay focused on what matters most to you. www.dentons.com

Dentons boilerplate image

Twitter

Categories

  • Amendments to Safety Laws
  • Confidentiality/Trade Secrets
  • Constructive Dismissal
  • COVID-19
  • Criminal Offences by Employees
  • Employment Standards
  • Executive Compensation
  • General
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Labour
  • Occupational Health and Safety
  • Pay Equity
  • Pensions and Benefits
  • Privacy
  • Restrictive Covenants
  • Union Issues
  • Workers' Compensation
  • Workplace investigations
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • WSIB

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

Dentons logo

© 2023 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site