The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
COVID-19Employment RegulationHealth and SafetyHealth CareHuman Rights

Will Conservatives Add “Vaccine Status” to Human Rights Legislation?

by David Doorey February 9, 2022
written by David Doorey February 9, 2022

Written by David Doorey, York University

Readers of this blog will know that the starting presumption in Canadian employment law is that employers can terminate non-union employees for any or no reason at all, provided that they provide the legally mandated amount of notice.  There are a number of exceptions to this general rule.  Firstly, if an employer has “cause” for summary dismissal then it can terminate the employee without notice. Secondly, there may be a statute that restricts the employer’s right to terminate the employee for certain designated reasons.

For example, the federal jurisdiction, Nova Scotia, and Quebec have “just cause” laws that apply to eligible employees, which require employers to demonstrate a good reason for the termination.  Every jurisdiction in Canada has other rules that restrict termination for one reason or other on public policy grounds. For example, it is illegal everywhere in Canada for employers to terminate an employee for supporting a union or for seeking to enforce their statutory rights, such as their employment standards entitlements (anti-reprisal laws).  In addition, every jurisdiction prohibits employers from terminating employees for discriminatory reasons that fall within the list of “prohibited grounds” in human rights legislation.

This is the background legal context for ongoing debates relating to the termination of employees for not getting a COVID vaccination.  I have no clue how many people have been terminated for this reason in Canada, but we know that it is happening.  In the Common Law Regime, the main question is whether terminating an employee for not getting vaccinated amounts to cause for summary dismissal.  As my students will know by now, the answer to that question is “it depends” on the circumstances.

In the Regulatory Regime, a big debate is whether termination for vaccination status could fit within human rights legislation.  Only discrimination based on “prohibited grounds” is unlawful so the question is whether vaccination status fits within any of the listed grounds.  The grounds floated most often are disability and religion/creed.   I am not aware of a case yet that deals specifically with an employee challenging their termination on the basis of vaccination status and arguing that either of these grounds.  I suppose it is possible that a person can fit themselves into disability or creed, but I’m not aware of that argument being successfully made yet and the circumstances in which it would be will be rare. (Here is the OHRC’s discussion of vaccines and the Ontario HRC)

Vaccine Status as a Prohibited Ground?

However, my prediction is that a right-leaning government in Canada (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario come to mind, as well as a federal Conservative government were that party to win an election somehow) will soon consider amending human rights legislation to make it explicit that discrimination against a worker on the basis of their vaccine status is prohibited by human rights legislation.  It would not surprise me if I need to update this Chart from my Law of Work text again before the 3rd edition to add this new ground.

Introducing “vaccine status” into human rights legislation will be welcomed with open arms by the anti-vaccine, anti-mandate crowd that conservatives hope to woo, and as Canada moves towards opening up and relaxing mandates (Saskatchewan and Alberta have already announced this move) in its shift towards “living with COVID”.  Legislating an end to “vaccine discrimination” seems like an obvious step that conservatives might take.  It would prevent employers from asking about vaccine status or from discriminating against anyone who is or who is not vaccinated.  An employer that fired an employee for not being vaccinated would need to fit itself into a bona fide occupational requirement defence. An amendment like this might even get them onto Fox News and praise from that lunatic Donald Trump.

One problem with adding “vaccination status” to human rights legislation is that we don’t know what the next killer virus or variant will look like.  If medical evidence were to show that vaccine status does not effect transmissibility of a virus and that unvaccinated people do not pose any greater risk to vaccinated people, then there is at least a certain logic to the argument in favour of prohibiting vaccine status discrimination.  To be sure, there are strong countervailing arguments, such as the sensible public health policy goal of encouraging people to get vaccinated against deadly airborne viruses.  However, if the evidence shows that unvaccinated people do pose a greater risk to the vaccinated, then it would be reckless for a government to force employers to welcome the unvaccinated into their workplace by making it unlawful for employers to weed them out.

Nova Scotia’s human rights legislation already prohibits discrimination on the basis of an “irrational fear of contacting an illness or disease”.  My understanding is that ground was added during the years when people were afraid of getting HIV and there was still a lot of uncertainty about how that disease was spread.  The ground was added to protect HIV positive workers from being denied employment on the basis that employers or other workers were afraid that HIV could be spread simply by being in the same room as an HIV positive person.  This is another option that could potentially apply to unvaccinated workers that is narrower than an outright ban on discrimination on the basis of vaccination status. It would prohibit discrimination on the basis of vaccine status but only once the medical evidence indicates that the unvaccinated pose no greater risk to coworkers and customers than the vaccinated.

This may already be the state of the law in Nova Scotia.  It would be interesting to see how the human rights tribunal there would deal with the argument that discrimination on the basis of vaccine status is discrimination on the basis of an “irrational fear of contacting an illness or disease”.  Whether a fear of contracting an illness is “irrational” presumably depends on medical evidence about how the disease or illness is transmitted and, for our purposes, what role if any vaccinations play in that calculus.

My point in this quick post is simply that it would not surprise me if we soon start hearing talk of legislating a ban on discrimination on the basis of vaccine status reverberating across Canada’s prairies and in Ottawa, as the Conservatives gear up for an election with a new leader.

What do you think of the possibility of vaccine status being added to the list of prohibited grounds in Canadian human rights legislation?

D. Doorey, “Will Conservatives Add “Vaccine Status” to Human Rights Legislation?” Law of Work (February 9 2022): https://lawofwork.ca/when-conservativ…ghts-legislation/

 

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

previous post
Is UFCW’s Mysterious “Agreement” With Uber Lawful?
next post
Can Human Rights Law Help Workers Fired for Supporting the Ottawa Insurrection?

You may also like

What Might a Right to Strike for Non-Union...

December 16, 2022

Lessons for the Railway Showdown from a Victory...

November 30, 2022

Why Gig Workers Are NOT Independent Contractors: A...

September 19, 2022

CUPW’s Unfair Labour Practice Complaint Against Uber Raises...

September 16, 2022

How Canadian Unions Responded to Vaccine Mandates, Protests,...

March 17, 2022

Reforming Non-Compete Law: A Cross Border Perspective

March 3, 2022

The Problem With Ontario’s Proposed Gig Worker Law...

February 28, 2022

Can Human Rights Law Help Workers Fired for...

February 18, 2022

Is UFCW’s Mysterious “Agreement” With Uber Lawful?

January 27, 2022

Would the Recommendations in Ontario’s New Report on...

December 10, 2021

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @CLJEHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

TheLawofWork
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
4h

My fingers are just too big to play an A chord on the #guitar.

Otherwise I would be a rock star. This is the only thing holding me back.

Reply on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Retweet on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Like on Twitter 1623109078431027200 12 Twitter 1623109078431027200
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
4h

Not seen comparable stats for Canada.There are terminations, but also better laws in most Canadian jurisdictions, including

- remedial certification
- interim reinstatement
- card-check/quick votes

“1 in 5 workers in US is fired for organizing a union” https://onlabor.org/labor-law-reform-is-needed-for-unions-to-succeed/

Reply on Twitter 1623103873161330688 Retweet on Twitter 1623103873161330688 Like on Twitter 1623103873161330688 1 Twitter 1623103873161330688
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
4h

This is Canada's federal Minister of Labour.

Bill 377 was a labor bill disguised as a tax law (so Cons could pretend it was federal jurisdiction) that buried unions in red tape & reporting requirements not applicable to any other orgs.

https://www.parl.ca/Content/Bills/411/Private/C-377/C-377_3/C-377_3.PDF

Bill 525 ...

1/2

Seamus O'Regan Jr @SeamusORegan

Bills 377 and 525 were two of the most anti-worker, union-bashing bills this country has ever seen - put forward by the Harper Conservatives.

We scrapped them. We believe in unions. We believe in workers.

Reply on Twitter 1623097471407644673 Retweet on Twitter 1623097471407644673 10 Like on Twitter 1623097471407644673 33 Twitter 1623097471407644673
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.