Blake v University Health Network 2021 ONSC
Recently, the Court ruled that employees who were on the brink of termination for refusing to comply with their employer's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy could not seek injunctive relief from the Courts. Though the Court did not discuss the legality behind the mandatory vaccination policy, the decision in Blake v University Health Network, 2021 ONSC provides comfort to employers who experienced backlash from employees who refused to comply with their workplace vaccination requirement.
In Blake, the plaintiffs, who were both unionized and non-unionized employees working for the University Health Network, disputed the validity of the recent mandatory vaccination policy, which required them to be fully vaccinated by October 22 or face termination of their employment. The Plaintiffs filed a notice of action seeking an injunction that they hoped would put the policy on hold while other proceedings determined its validity and legality. They claimed that irreparable harm would ensue if the injunction were not granted.
To succeed, the Plaintiffs needed to satisfy the test from RJR-MacDonald Inc. v Canada (Attorney General), namely:
1. Is there a serious issue to be tried on the question of liability?
2. Is there a real potential for irreparable harm to ensue if relief is not granted? and
3. Does the balance of convenience favour the granting of relief at this early stage?
However, before getting into the test criteria, the Court questioned whether the unionized employees had the requisite standing to bring the claim at all.
The Court found that the unionized employees did not have the requisite standing to bring the claim because the dispute fell squarely within the management rights clause, which is granted to the employer by the collective agreement. Due to the labour relations nature of the claim, the Court found that only an arbitrator has exclusive jurisdiction to hear this matter. In concluding this issue, the Court noted the importance of arbitral jurisdiction within the context of labour relations and their independence from external interference.
For the non-union employees, the Court applied the RJR test and found that this group of employees would not suffer irreparable harm from the threat of termination of employment implemented through the vaccination policy. If the policy is found to be illegal, the Court noted that the employees are not entitled to their jobs back but rather to monetary compensation, which can be paid later. Because of this, the Court found that there was no potential for irreparable harm.
Though this case does not address the legality of the mandatory vaccine policy, it clarifies where and when claims can be brought against an employer and the criteria that must be met to invoke an injunction. If seeking injunctive relief from the Court due to a newly-instituted COVID-19 vaccination policy, the plaintiff must demonstrate irreparable harm. This case also reinforces arbitral jurisdiction enforcing the notion of labour relations being distinctly separate from the judicial system. Though not exactly a "win" for employers, this is a step in the right direction. Our next article will discuss the Paragon decision of Arbitrator Von Veh which found a mandatory vaccination policy was reasonable.
As the law continues to evolve, we are here to help you keep up. Call us with your questions!