Skip to content

An end to vaccine mandates? Considerations for employers

Mark Tector and Will Wojcik

On February 23rd, 2022, the Government of Nova Scotia announced that it will remove all public health restrictions by March 21, 2022, putting an end to approximately two years of mandatory restrictions. The decision is aligned with several other provinces that have announced similar timeframes for the removal of all restrictions, marking a new phase in the pandemic response strategy, characterized as “living with COVID”.

The announcements are cause for optimism that workplaces can start to return to pre-pandemic operations. However, the twists and turns of the pandemic have been difficult to predict with any certainty and unfortunately COVID-19 has not gone away. Employers must continue to implement workplace measures that comply with their Occupational Health and Safety (“OHS”) obligations to protect their employees and customers. Below we address some of the issues which employers are facing in this new phase of the pandemic and the impact on mandatory workplace vaccinations.

Does the removal of public health restrictions affect employers’ vaccine policies?

The removal of public health restrictions, including the vaccine passport system for discretionary activities, does not necessarily mean employers must discontinue their vaccine mandates.  Many employers introduced mandatory vaccination policies against COVID-19 in light of their legal responsibility to identify potential workplace hazards and to take every reasonable precaution to protect the health and safety of employees in accordance with provincial OHS legislation. This requirement exists irrespective of public health restrictions. However, what is considered a reasonable precaution in the circumstances is directly related to the severity of the hazard and advice of the applicable public health authority. This means that as the risk and severity of COVID-19 increased, so did the justification for strict workplace measures like mandatory vaccination.  Similarly, as we move toward “living with COVID”, existing safety measures may need to be updated, which may include the eventual removal of vaccine mandates or a more flexible policy which enables employers to pivot quickly if a new COVID-19 variant emerges.

Employers should consider the following factors when determining the risk posed by COVID-19 in their respective workplace, and the changes they will need to implement in relation to their safety protocols, including any vaccine mandate:

  • What are the current public health requirements and recommendations in your province? Employers will have to meet the minimum requirements, but may also need to consider the recommendations and even decide to impose additional safety requirements, depending on their workplace.  Provided it is reasonable, including in relation to the nature of the specific workplace, employers are not prohibited from imposing a safety standard that is higher than the public health requirements or recommendations.
  • Do you employ or work closely with vulnerable populations, which would justify stricter safety measures?
  • Do employees work in close proximity to each other, or with the public, which would justify stricter safety measures?
  • What proportion of your work force is vaccinated (if the data is available)? A highly vaccinated workforce may justify less strict safety measures.
  • Can you implement effective precautions other than mandatory vaccination?

Practical considerations  

With the above context in mind, there are also some practical steps to consider while reviewing existing policies:

  • Assessing the risk and appropriate precautions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in your workplace should be completed in accordance with existing OHS policies, through OHS committees or representative(s), as applicable, and with regard to applicable OHS legislation.
  • Employers with employees on unpaid leaves or layoff (because of their refusal to comply with vaccination mandates) should consider if/when these employees could be recalled to the workplace, and if so, under what circumstances. Employers will have to consider whether alternative OHS measures, such as masking, distancing, and testing (if available), could be put in place.
  • Employers should also consider implementing new and more dynamic policies to address pandemic risks going forward (e.g. perhaps modified to a “Pandemic Response” policy which can be invoked in the case of future outbreaks). Unionized employers may seek to negotiate terms within their unions, including in relation to vaccination.

Although government restrictions are being removed, the risk of COVID-19 infection in the workplace remains an OHS hazard. Employers should avoid wholesale removal of policies and instead take a measured and phased approach to easing their own restrictions in a manner that is consistent with their OHS obligations and reflects the circumstances of their respective workplaces and businesses.

We encourage employers to seek legal advice from our team as they navigate through the ever-changing COVID-19 landscape.


This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Labour and Employment group.

 

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Charter-ing a Different Course? Two decisions on TWU’s proposed law school

August 11, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…

Read More

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…

Read More

Client Update: SCC issues major decision affecting federal employers: Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

July 15, 2016

On July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a mortgage brokerage and mortgage administrator in New Brunswick

July 7, 2016

On April 1, 2016 New Brunswick’s Mortgage Brokers Act came into force, requiring businesses acting as mortgage brokerages or as mortgage administrators in New Brunswick to be licensed. A mortgage brokerage is a business that on behalf…

Read More

Copyright does not monopolize facts – documentary filmmakers’ claim against book author and publisher fails

June 29, 2016

In May 2016, the Federal Court of Canada confirmed that copyright does not protect facts, even where a book’s author is clearly inspired by the content of a film (Maltz v. Witterick, 2016 FC 524 (CanLII)).…

Read More

Solicitor-client privilege vs the Canada Revenue Agency: the SCC speaks

June 10, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor “…firms of notaries or lawyers…must not be turned into archives for the tax authorities”1 So says the Supreme Court of Canada in one of two highly anticipated decisions on solicitor-client privilege, offering lawyers…

Read More

Why can’t we be friends?: Lessons on corporate dissolution from Smith v. Hillier

May 30, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Clara Linegar2 As joint owners of a business, what do you do when the business relationship falls apart? And what if one owner undermines the business in the process? In Smith v Hillier,3 Justice Paquette…

Read More

Client Update: Supreme Court of Canada dismisses appeals in punitive damages cases

May 26, 2016

The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the appeals in Bruce Brine v. Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc.1 (with costs) and Luciano Branco, et al. v. Zurich Life Insurance Company Limited, et al.(without costs). Both of…

Read More

Client Update: Pension update: Countdown to Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans

May 17, 2016

On May 4, 2016, the Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act (“PRPP Act”) was proclaimed in force, and finalized Pooled Registered Pension Plan Regulations were released. While there were no major changes from the previously released draft regulations, the proposed rules…

Read More

Pension Primer: Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) in Nova Scotia

April 22, 2016

By Level Chan and Dante Manna Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) are closer to becoming a reality for Nova Scotian employers. PRPPs were established by the Federal government in an effort to address the lack of retirement savings…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top