When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, employers were required to make rapid decisions to protect workplace health and safety. Mandatory vaccination policies quickly became common, however they faced pushback and controversy. Clark v. City of Prince George, 2025 BCSC 812 is one of the many examples of employment disputes stemming from these policies that made its way to litigation.
Although most vaccine mandates are now a thing of the past, this decision remains relevant as it offers useful guidance to employers and employees alike about the relationship between employment suspensions and constructive dismissal, and some of the circumstances in which a court might imply a term into an employment contract.
The Facts
In late 2021, the City of Prince George implemented a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy requiring all employees to be fully vaccinated by January 14, 2022. Employees who refused were placed on unpaid leave for 30 days with benefits maintained.
The policy encouraged employees to access information and resources regarding vaccine safety and efficacy. Employees who became vaccinated during the leave period could return to work, while those who remained unvaccinated faced potential further employment consequences, including termination. The policy was subject to regular review and amendment in light of public health guidance and legislation.
Mr. Clark, a long-serving financial analyst, declined vaccination and proposed alternatives such as remote work or regular testing. The City refused, citing the need for consistent application of the policy. In response, Mr. Clark claimed he had been constructively dismissed and sued the City accordingly.
The Legal Framework
The Court applied the constructive dismissal test from Potter v New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 2015 SCC 10, which can be summarized as follows:
- A constructive dismissal occurs when an employer’s conduct shows an intention to no longer be bound by the employment contract.
- Constructive dismissals can take two forms:
- a single unilateral act breaching an essential term of the contract; or
- a series of acts showing repudiation.
- In cases involving a single act, the employee must prove:
- the employer unilaterally breached the contract; and
- a reasonable person in the position of the employee would view the change as substantial.
- Suspensions can be administrative or disciplinary. The analysis pertaining to whether the unpaid leave may amount to a constructive dismissal differs depending on the nature of the suspension.
- Where the suspension is administrative, the employer bears the burden of proving the suspension was reasonable and justified.
- There is no rigid framework for determining whether a particular administrative suspension is wrongful. Instead, the approach to be taken and the factors to be considered will depend on the nature of the circumstances of the suspension. Relevant factors include duration of the suspension, whether the suspension is with pay, and good faith on the employer’s part, including the demonstration of legitimate business reasons. In fact, legitimate business reasons are a requirement.
Key Issues and the Court’s Reasoning
- Was the unpaid leave disciplinary or administrative?
The Court found the unpaid leave was administrative, not punitive. Its purpose was to give employees time to reconsider vaccination, not to punish them. No employees were disciplined for refusing vaccination and the only consequence was temporary unpaid leave (with benefits intact.)
- Could the City implement a vaccination policy without express contractual authority?
Yes. The Court implied a term into the employment contract allowing the City to introduce workplace health and safety policies necessary to meet its statutory obligations under the Workers Compensation Act, RSBC 2019, c 1 and Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, BC Reg 296/97. A vaccination policy fell squarely within that scope.
The Court held that it would be “illogical, not to mention unworkable” to find the City was in breach of its employment contracts by simply implementing and enforcing workplace health and safety policies without express agreement from employees. The Court concluded that an implied term permitting the city to implement and enforce these policies was “reasonable and equitable, [was] necessary to give business efficacy to the contract, [was] obvious, [was] capable of clear expression and [did] not contract any express term of Mr. Clark’s contract.”
- Was the unpaid leave reasonable and justified?
Yes. The Court emphasized legitimate business reasons for the administrative suspension: heightened COVID-19 risks in the Northern Health region, public health recommendations, and the City’s duty to protect employees and the community. The policy reflected the prevailing approach at the time and was consistently applied.
Why This Decision Remains Relevant
Although vaccine mandates are rare today, Clark reinforces several employment legal principles:
- Courts are willing to imply terms allowing employers to implement health and safety policies.
- Reasonableness and good faith are the cornerstones of enforceable workplace policies.
- Constructive dismissal remains a high bar – unpaid leave alone doesn’t automatically qualify.
Key Takeaways for Employers
The decision in Clark v City of Prince George is more than a pandemic-era footnote – it’s a reminder of enduring principles in employment law. Courts will uphold workplace policies that are reasonable, justified, and implemented in good faith, even when they impose significant consequences like unpaid leave. For employers, this means documenting legitimate business reasons and applying policies consistently. For employees, it underscores the importance of understanding contractual obligations (both express and implied) before taking steps that could be treated as resignation.
As workplaces continue to evolve, whether in response to health risks, technological changes, or other challenges, the lessons from Clark remain clear: balance safety with fairness and seek legal advice early when navigating policy changes or employment disputes.
If you’re facing similar issues or planning workplace policy updates, contact lawyer Bridget Shebib or any of our lawyers on the Ascent team – we’re here to help!
