Mandatory Vaccination Policy Was Not Constructive Dismissal

In Clark v. City of Prince George, 2025 BCSC 812, the British Columbia Supreme Court determined the reasonableness of an employer-mandated vaccination policy.

Facts

In late 2021, the City of Prince George (the “City”) implemented a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy for its employees. Proof of vaccination was required by December 20, 2021 (extended to January 14, 2022) unless the employee obtained an exemption under the Human Rights Code.  

Mr. Clark, a City employee, chose not to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and the City subsequently placed him on unpaid leave of absence for failure to comply with the policy.  The employee asked to work remotely, but the City refused. The employee argued that the City constructively dismissed him.

The City made compliance compulsory and a condition of employment. If an employee did not comply with the policy, they would be placed on unpaid leave of absence. If an employee submitted proof of vaccination at any time on leave, they would be allowed to return to work.

Issues

One of the issues at trial was whether the employee’s unpaid leave of absence was administrative or disciplinary in nature. The Court noted that the vaccination policy made a distinction between “employment consequences” (related to the decision not to be vaccinated) and “disciplinary consequences” (expected for those who submitted fraudulent documentation). Ultimately, the Court found that the employee’s unpaid leave of absence was administrative, not disciplinary.

The second issue was whether the employment contract permitted the City to unilaterally implement a vaccination policy. While there was no express term of the employee’s employment contract requiring him to be vaccinated to work, the City argued it was permitted to implement workplace health and safety policies that the employee had to comply with. The Court agreed with the City.

Finally, the Court discussed whether the employee’s leave without pay was reasonable and justified. The Court considered factors, including the duration of the suspension, whether the suspension was with pay, and the justification for the policy. While the employee was ineligible to work and not being paid, he still received benefits, and his position remained available for him until he filed the legal action for constructive dismissal. The vaccination policy did not force the employee to choose between his employment and receiving the vaccine.  The only employment consequence was a temporary unpaid leave of absence and the corresponding loss of income.

Key Takeaways:

This decision affirms that employers possess an implied authority to implement reasonable workplace health and safety policies that are binding on employees.

The link to the full decision is available here.

For more information about this topic or any other workplace law matters, please contact Scott Marcinkow or a member of our Workplace Law team. You can also explore more insights by browsing our latest blog posts here.