Employers cannot be blamed for enforcing workplace vaccine mandates based on public health guidance, even if that advice later proves questionable, the British Columbia Court of Appeal has ruled after years of litigation over Purolator’s COVID-19 policy.Blacklock's Reporter says in a unanimous decision, the court upheld Purolator’s right to rely on public health authorities when it imposed a company-wide vaccination requirement on its workforce, rejecting arguments that the courier should have abandoned the policy once doubts emerged about its effectiveness.“Purolator did not have to be correct about whether the policy was objectively effective to protect against infection,” wrote Justice David Harris. “It was reasonable to continue the policy in the face of uncertainty and conflicting advice.”Purolator, a taxpayer-owned company, rolled out its Safer Workplace Policy on Christmas Day 2021, requiring employees to provide proof of vaccination or face suspension or termination. Evidence before the court showed 103 Purolator workers across Canada later tested positive for COVID-19, including four who were hospitalized..The company maintained the mandate until April 30, 2023, despite legal challenges from the Teamsters union. British Columbia’s provincial vaccine mandate remained in place until July 26, 2024, when public health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry finally lifted it.Teamsters lawyers argued Purolator’s policy became unreasonable after the federal government dropped its own vaccine requirement in 2022. The court disagreed, ruling there was no legal obligation for the company to reassess or abandon its policy in real time as scientific opinion evolved.“There is no requirement that Purolator get it right,” Harris wrote, noting that guidance from a provincial health officer carries special legal and practical weight. “It is the considered opinion of a provincial health officer charged with onerous responsibilities to act in the public interest.”The court acknowledged scientific uncertainty surrounding vaccines’ ability to prevent infection but said employers were entitled to rely on official guidance while evidence continued to develop. .Even if vaccination later proved ineffective at stopping transmission, the judges ruled it remained reasonable for Purolator to defer to public health authorities.Internal federal records revealed Ottawa lifted its own mandate just weeks after Privy Council research found it was unpopular and divisive. A polling report dated May 16, 2022, noted many Canadians felt vaccine requirements eroded trust in government and unfairly targeted those who chose not to be vaccinated.“All participants were of the view vaccine requirements had been largely harmful, believing they had been divisive, ineffective and unfairly targeted,” the report stated.There is still no comprehensive accounting of how many Canadians were fired or suspended without pay under vaccine mandates. Treasury Board figures estimate 2,560 federal employees faced discipline for refusing to provide proof of vaccination.
