This is an update to our blog originally posted on July 6, 2021.
There is no federal or provincial legislation requiring eligible individuals to be vaccinated against COVID-19. However, employers may impose their own vaccination policies as part of a good faith effort to follow public health guidance, stop the spread of COVID-19 and protect their business interests. Whether these policies are enforceable is a question which must be decided by the courts—but they have yet to do so. Labour arbitration decisions provide insight as to which policies may be reasonable and in which circumstances.
It is likely that employer policies with respect to COVID-19 will be enforceable only where reasonable in the full context of all the facts and circumstances. Mandatory vaccination for employees may be reasonable in high-risk circumstances, while the same policy may be unreasonable where practical alternatives exist. Conditions with respect to testing and other restrictions for unvaccinated employees are also likely reasonable. A policy will likely be enforceable only where it is carefully custom-tailored to the particular facts and adaptable to the circumstances of the workplace and the employees. There may be consequences for employees who breach their employer’s vaccination policy.
Facts and circumstances are dynamic. The shifting conditions of the pandemic—such as the emergence of the Omicron variant—present additional challenges and considerations for employers. Dynamic facts demand constant vigilance to ensure that policies are adaptable and reflect the circumstances of the day.
Employers have a statutory duty to safeguard the health and safety of their employees pursuant to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. By law, an employer must take every reasonable precaution to maintain a safe working environment. These steps include following COVID-19 public health guidance in good faith. For example, an employer may impose policies mandating physical distancing, masking, screening—and vaccination.
In Ontario, there are statutory protections for liability as a result of potential exposures or infections to COVID-19 so long as that person was making “a good faith effort to act in accordance with public health guidance,” pursuant to Supporting Ontario’s Recovery Act. Under the Recovery Act, “person” includes “any individual, corporation or other entity.”
However, the Recovery Act excludes protections for many employers; i.e., any employer in a schedule one or two industry (as defined by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act). This specification is broad and nearly all-encompassing. These employers do not enjoy statutory protections from their employees for COVID-19 liability. Therefore, it is possible that an employee who becomes infected with COVID-19 in the course of their employment may be able to sue their employer—even if that employer was making a good faith effort to follow public health guidance. These statutory protections and exclusions have not yet been tested by the courts. The court will ultimately need to determine whether the employer took all reasonable steps in the circumstances to prevent a COVID-19 outbreak in the workplace.
Public Advice About COVID-19 Vaccines
According to the World Health Organization, there are “safe and effective vaccines that prevent people from getting seriously ill or dying from COVID-19.” Its advice is to “take whatever vaccine is made available to you first, even if you have already had COVID-19.” The Canadian National Advisory Committee on Immunization “strongly recommends a complete mRNA COVID-19 vaccine series” for all eligible persons. As per Health Canada, “vaccination is one of the most effective ways to protect our families, communities and ourselves against COVID-19.”
The courts have taken judicial notice of the fact that “all responsible medical authorities, without exception, have urged people to become inoculated.” While misinformation abounds, myths and disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines have been debunked. The court has also noted that some of the spread of this misinformation is deliberate and malicious.
Not everyone can be vaccinated; e.g., for medical reasons or upon other protected grounds pursuant to the Human Rights Code. Others may be hesitant, while some may make a personal choice to remain unvaccinated based on their individual, sincerely-held beliefs and preferences. Depending on the reason, the individuals may or may not be entitled to accommodation.
Enforceability of Workplace Policies
(Testing, Restrictions, Vaccination, and Disclosure of Vaccination Status)
“I’m strongly recommending that local employers establish a workplace vaccination policy to protect workers, their families and our communities.”
– Dr. Eileen de Villa, Toronto Medical Officer of Health (August 20, 2021)
Courts recognize that health units and medical officers (like Dr. de Villa) should be afforded “significant deference.” In light of this recommendation, an employer might conclude that requiring all employees to be vaccinated is an “obvious and simple” step to prevent exposures, infections, or an outbreak in the workplace. However, such an argument places the interest of health and safety on a collision course with the human rights and other interests of employees, such as privacy and bodily integrity. Courts will need to decide how to draw the line between these competing interests.
At present, there is no case law from the civil courts. In the case of unionized workplaces, courts have held that unionized plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the enforceability of an employer’s vaccination policy in court. In sum, this dearth of judicial opinion means that there is still no clear and specific guidance from the civil courts for employers who seek to draft an enforceable workplace policy with respect to COVID-19.
However, labour arbitration decisions (“awards”) for unionized workplaces may provide some about how courts may eventually evaluate the merits and enforceability of employer vaccination policies.
In general, arbitral awards focus on the facts. Awards are the result of balancing the competing interests using a highly contextual approach, taking care to evaluate the particular circumstances of each case. Arbitrators look for specific details about dangers, hazards, and how certain problems may interfere with business. Other important factors could include the nature of the business, the type of workplace, the kinds of services offered, and the characteristics of the employees. At the same time, arbitrators remain alive to the issue that facts and circumstances are dynamic and subject to change—evolving along with the shifting conditions of the pandemic (e.g., the emergence of the Omicron variant).
Ultimately, arbitral caselaw has shown that policies will be enforced where they are reasonable in the circumstances. An enforceable policy will likely be prudent, strike the right balance between interests, appropriately mitigate actual risks, and reflect the practical realities of the day. In general, an enforceable policy will likely be custom-tailored to suit the parameters and realities of the workplace, and the work of the employees (i.e., it is not a policy which is “one size fits all”).
There are four types of policies which have been considered by labour arbitrators thus far: testing, restrictions, vaccination, and disclosure of vaccination status.
In Caressant Care Nursing & Retirement Homes v Christian Labour Association of Canada—prior to the availability of vaccines—the employer, a nursing home, required all employees to be tested every two weeks or else be subject to discipline; i.e., be “held out of service.” The testing would be conducted by the employer on-site. The union contended that testing seriously breached the employees’ right to privacy and dignity. The employer asserted that it was upon request from or upon recommendation by the Province of Ontario.
It was decided in Caressant that testing all employees under this timetable was reasonable. A nursing home is a contained environment and COVID-19 is often deadly for the elderly. The goal of clearly controlling COVID-19 infection in that environment outweighed the minimal intrusion of a test.
In Unilever Canada Inc v UFCW Local 175, the employer, a food manufacturing facility, required all employees to be tested every week. No specific penalty for noncompliance was specified. The union contended that the policy breached the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code. The employer disagreed and maintained that its testing policy was reasonable.
The arbitrator determined that testing all employees under this timetable was reasonable. Even where there was no evidence of transmission, the arbitrator decided that it was prudent to exercise caution given the nature of the workplace, which is governed by a variety of food safety regulations.
In Ellisdon Construction Ltd v LiUNA Local 183, the employer, a construction contractor, required all employees to be tested twice per week or else not be permitted to access the worksite. The testing would be performed on-site. The union claimed that employees had concerns that the testing was experimental, invasive, and unreliable. The employer contended that the safety of the workplace and of the general public was at risk.
It was decided in Ellisdon that testing all employees under this timetable was reasonable. Given the fact that the residential construction industry is an essential service, its workers put themselves at risk to an extraordinary threat. Further, the risk is increased by the nature of the industry; i.e., whereby workers routinely move between job sites and employers. The goal of preventing the spread of COVID-19 outweighed the intrusiveness of testing.
In Ontario Power Generation (OPG) v The Power Workers Union, the employer, a public business enterprise, required all unvaccinated employees to be tested twice per week or be subject to unpaid leave or termination. The testing would be self-administered by employees, at the expense of the employer. The union contended that a termination penalty without a formal disciplinary process was unreasonable. The company asserted that it was a reasonable measure to mitigate risk.
It was decided in OPG that testing unvaccinated employees under this timetable was reasonable. This arbitral award was a “decision driven entirely by context.” In the backdrop of a global pandemic which has cost tens of thousands of lives so far in Canada, it was decided that a minimally intrusive test as a condition for returning to work was both “sensible and necessary.”
In OPG, supra, it was also decided that limiting access to gyms and other fitness facilities only to vaccinated employees was reasonable. For some employees, physical fitness and evaluation were mandated by virtue of the physically demanding nature of their position. However, gyms are high-risk areas for transmission by their nature. Therefore, requiring employees to be vaccinated to access private fitness facilities is sensible for the same reason that the Province of Ontario requires public gym patrons to be vaccinated in order to enter.
Mandating vaccination may not be possible at all for certain individuals who are unable to be vaccinated. Some people cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. Others may be entitled to vaccination exemptions pursuant to protected grounds under the Human Rights Code, such as religion or disability. Under the Code, employers have a duty to accommodate these employees up to the point of undue hardship for the employer, having regard to cost and health and safety issues. Such accommodations could include testing or other alternatives. However, an employer has no duty to accommodate an employee who chooses to remain unvaccinated based on their personal choice. According to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC):
Receiving a COVID-19 vaccine is voluntary. At the same time, the OHRC’s position is that a person who chooses not to be vaccinated based on personal preference does not have the right to accommodation under the Code.
Even if a person could show they were denied a service or employment because of a creed-based belief against vaccinations, the duty to accommodate does not necessarily require they be exempted from vaccine mandates, certification or COVID testing requirements. The duty to accommodate can be limited if it would significantly compromise health and safety amounting to undue hardship – such as during a pandemic.
With respect to a workplace vaccination policy, mandating vaccination may be reasonable where risks are high and vulnerable populations require protection. It may also be reasonable where necessary to comply with an existing contractual relationship; e.g., an employment agreement, collective agreement, or lease. In contrast, it may be unreasonable where practical alternatives exist; e.g., working remotely, physical distancing, masking, screening, or testing.
In Electrical Safety Authority (ESA) v Power Workers’ Union, the employer required all employees to be fully vaccinated or be subject to discipline, up to and including termination—with allowances for bona fide exceptions. Unvaccinated employees were to be subjected to regular testing. The union contended that the policy violated its members’ bodily integrity. The company argued that it was a reasonable safety precaution.
It was decided in ESA that mandatory vaccination was unreasonable. The “vast majority” of employee work was conducted effectively remotely. Consequentially, it was decided that it would be unjust to discipline or terminate employees for being unvaccinated where reasonable alternatives exist. A testing option for the unvaccinated was reasonable.
The ESA decision also affirmed that under different circumstances, mandatory vaccination policies may indeed be reasonable. For example, in contexts where the risks are high and vulnerable populations require protection. The arbitrator specifically articulated that this particular decision was not “vindication” for those who choose to remain unvaccinated; i.e., “those who continue to refuse to be vaccinated are not just endangering their health but may also placing their employment in jeopardy.”
In Power Workers Union v Elexicon Energy Inc, the employer, a hydro service provider, required all employees to be vaccinated or else they must complete “vaccine awareness training” and be placed on unpaid leave or be terminated. The union supported voluntary vaccination and mandatory testing but drew the line at mandatory vaccination. It asserted that in light of the highly transmissible Omicron variant, vaccination does not prevent an infected person from transmitting COVID-19 to others.
It was decided in Elexicon that mandatory vaccination was reasonable only for employees who (a) do not work from home, or (b) do not work entirely outside. The employer is a provider of essential services and it must be assured that its workforce is capable of providing electricity to the community. The fact that Omicron may be more transmissible notwithstanding vaccination does not affect the employer’s duty to be cautious nonetheless—even against unknown harms. However, for employees who exclusively work from home, mandatory vaccination was unreasonable. Likewise, it would be unreasonable for employees who work entirely outside or who can be reasonably accommodated to work entirely outside.
In Bunge Hamilton Canada v UFCW Local 175, the employer, an agricultural supplier, required all employees to be fully vaccinated or else they may be placed on unpaid leave pending a review of their employment status—with allowances for bona fide exceptions. The union contended that it was unreasonable to discipline employees for being unvaccinated. The company asserted that the policy was necessary to prevent a variety of factors from materially interfering with its business, including complying with the terms of its lease.
It was decided in Bunge that mandatory vaccination was reasonable. In brief, the policy was reasonable because mandatory vaccination was already the policy of the federally-regulated organization from which the business leased property for its operations (i.e., a port authority). If the employer permitted unvaccinated employees to come on-site, it would be in breach of its obligations under its lease. Testing was not a suitable alternative within this context.
Finally, in UFCW Local 333 v Paragon Protection Ltd, the employer, a security company, required all employees to be fully vaccinated or be terminated—with allowances for bona fide exceptions. The union contended that many of it members held genuine reservations due to concerns about the side effects of vaccinations. Some members objected to the choice between vaccination or termination. The company contended that this policy was supported by an existing collective agreement, and necessary as it was a “client customer-facing business” and the majority of its clients already required its employees to be fully vaccinated.
It was decided in Paragon that mandatory vaccination was reasonable. Conveniently, an article in the collective agreement mandated employees agrees to vaccinations. This provision was remarkably prescient; it was agreed to in 2015 and did not contemplate a pandemic. However, the arbitrator also concluded that the vaccination policy balanced the rights of employees, other staff, clients, and members of the public. The arbitrator noted that “personal subjective perceptions of employees to be exempted from vaccinations cannot override and displace available scientific considerations.”
Disclosing vaccination status
In ESA, supra, it was decided that a policy requiring an employee to disclose medical information (such as vaccination status) “must be reasonably necessary and involve a proportionate response to a real and demonstrated risk or business need.”
For example, in Bunge, supra, a requirement for an employee to disclose their vaccine status to the employer was held to be reasonable. Specifically, such disclosure would be a minimal intrusion into the employee’s right to privacy and was considerably outweighed by “enormous public health and safety interests.”
In Teamsters Local Union 847 v Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment (MLSE), an employee was placed on unpaid leave for failing to disclose his vaccination status. The employer, a professional sports team operator, required its employees to be fully vaccinated or be placed on unpaid leave or be terminated. The employee worked at the Scotiabank Arena in close proximity with others. The employer’s policy was enacted the day after the Province of Ontario required patrons who attended events in the area to be fully vaccinated. The union did not dispute the vaccination mandate but contended that an employee’s vaccination status is private and should not be subject to disclosure. The employer asserted that being vaccinated for COVID-19 was a necessary employee qualification.
The arbitrator determined that opposing disclosure of vaccination status is akin to opposing the vaccine mandate. The arbitrator stated, “I do not see how the Employer can enforce a vaccine mandate without requiring disclosure of an employee’s vaccine status.” The arbitrator decided that the policy was reasonable and the unpaid leave was an appropriate outcome.
When personal health information, such as vaccination status, is disclosed, privacy concerns must be addressed. Employers must keep the information confidential, safe, and secure. In MLSE, the arbitrator concluded that the employer had taken the appropriate steps to protect employee confidentiality.
Purpose of Workplace Policies and the Shifting Conditions of the Pandemic (e.g., Omicron)
The stated purpose of a policy may affect its reasonableness and enforceability. An employer may enact a policy with respect to COVID-19 for a variety of purposes. Such purposes may include but are not limited to: improve health and safety, promote vaccine safety education, improve workplace attendance, protect business interests or stop the spread of COVID-19.
In November 2021, the Omicron variant of COVID-19 was identified. It is far more transmissible than the original virus and it is expected that it can spread to vaccinated individuals. This heightened risk of transmission has caused the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Kieran Moore, to reassess even having a public vaccine passport system at all. As of March 1, 2022, the vaccine passport system in Ontario will end (although businesses will be permitted to continue to use the province’s proof of vaccination system, should they wish to do so) If the purpose of an employer’s mandatory vaccination policy is to reduce the spread of COVID-19, then it could be argued that the policy lacks a rational connection to the goal in light of Omicron.
Stopping the spread of COVID has indeed been the stated purpose of many of the employer vaccination mandate policies considered in labour arbitrations to date. In Bunge, the purpose was to “prevent the spread of COVID-19.” In ESA, the purpose was aimed at “limiting the risk of contracting and spreading the virus.” However, other policies have considered transmission and harms, or have been more general in nature. For example, in OPG, the policy was aimed at “mitigating the risk of harm from, or transmission of, COVID-19 in the workplace.” In contrast, in Paragon, the policy was to “minimize potential incidents of COVID-19 in the workplace.”
While vaccinations may be less effective in preventing the spread of the Omicron variant, it is expected that vaccines will remain effective in preventing severe illness, hospitalizations, and death from COVID-19. Consequentially, employers should ensure that a mandatory vaccination policy has a purpose which is rationally connected to its means. As an example, a policy which is focused on reducing the harms caused by COVID-19 may be more reasonable than a policy focused on preventing the spread of COVID-19—in light of Omicron.
However, even in light of the uncertainty of Omicron, employers should be cautious and guard against the unknown anyway. As stated in Lexicon:
The Union’s argument that there is no evidence vaccinations will be more effective in preventing the spread of Omicron, even in conjunction with testing, masking, and distancing, than those measures alone without vaccination, is inconsistent on these facts with the precautionary principle which justifies that action be taken to protect employees where health and safety are threatened “even if it cannot be established with scientific certainty that there is a cause and effect relationship between the activity and the harm. The entire point is to take precautions against the as yet unknown.”
Nonetheless, employers should remain cognizant that there are multiple forms of harm which employees may suffer during a pandemic; e.g., mental health harms. Some employees may have mental health conditions that result in elevated anxiety towards receiving vaccination—such anxiety may amount to a disability. In the pre-pandemic era, debilitating mental health issues would have been a recognized legal disability. In the pandemic era, medical licensing bodies have restricted doctors from granting medical exemptions for vaccination on these grounds. The purpose of a vaccination policy should provide for reasonable protections and reasonable accommodations for people who may be at risk of various types of harm, including mental health harms.
As the conditions of the pandemic continue to be dynamic and continue to evolve, it would be prudent to stay up to date with public health guidance to ensure that any employer policies are continuously tailored and re-adjusted to the factual realities of the day. For example, the definition of “fully vaccinated” may evolve if more booster vaccinations become the norm, perhaps as a response to Omicron and other future variants.
Policies are neither “one size fits all,” nor are they “set it and forget it.”
Consequences for Employees who Defy COVID-19 Policies
Labour arbitrators have also considered the appropriate consequences for employees who fail to comply with COVID-19 policies, or who engage in otherwise untenable conduct in the context of the pandemic. For the most egregious violations, termination may be reasonable.
In Garda Security Screening Inc v IAM, District 140, in the very early days of the pandemic, an employee was terminated for failing to self-isolate after being tested for COVID-19, as per the policy of the employer. It was concluded that the employee clearly violated the employer’s policy and public health guidance and that her actions put “countless others at risk of illness or death.” The employee tested positive—after working alongside her coworkers in proximity. This termination was held to be reasonable.
In LiUNA OPDC v Aecon Industrial, an employee was terminated for providing false information in response to a COVID-19 screening. The employee was experiencing symptoms and was advised that he could not attend work. However, the employee returned to work and falsely answered screening questions in the negative. Consequentially, the employee was terminated. The decision concluded that the employee’s “deliberate and cavalier attitude toward the COVID safety risks he represented both to his co-workers and in turn to the Company’s obligations to protect the workplace was unconscionable, unreasonable and totally unacceptable.” This termination was held to be reasonable.
In Ryam Inc Forest Products Group Chapleau Sawmill v USW Local 1-2010, an employee was suspended without pay for three (3) months for removing his face mask in the workplace and threatened to give his supervisor COVID by pretending to spit in his direction. The arbitral decision reduced the suspension to two (2) months. Although the circumstances were very serious, the employee was afforded some leeway by virtue of his four decades of service and lack of disciplinary history.
Where an employee does not comply with a mandatory vaccination policy
Whether termination for being unvaccinated or failing to comply with an employer’s policy is reasonable depends on the facts. Nonetheless, Employment and Social Development Canada has issued guidance to employers with respect to completing Records of Employment (ROE). How an ROE is completed will affect the employee’s eligibility for Employment Insurance (EI). The guidance is specifically as follows:
When the employee doesn’t report to work because they refuse to comply with your mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, use code E (quit) or code N (leave of absence).
When you suspend or terminate an employee for not complying with your mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, use code M (dismissal or suspension).
If you use these codes, we may contact you to determine:
if you had adopted and clearly communicated to all employees a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy
if the employees were informed that failure to comply with the policy would result in loss of employment
if the application of the policy to the employee was reasonable within the workplace context
if there were any exemptions for refusing to comply with the policy
Employers may impose policies with respect to COVID-19 as part of their statutory obligation to safeguard the health and safety of their employees. In following COVID-19 public health guidance in good faith, employers may impose policies with respect to physical distancing, masking, screening, and vaccination. However, mandating vaccination also engages the interests of employees. A balancing exercise is necessary to ensure that any intrusions upon the employee’s rights are reasonable.
Courts have not (yet) provided any guidance to employers with respect to what kind of policies will be enforceable. However, labour arbitration decisions may yield insight as to what kinds of policies will be enforced by the courts; i.e., policies which are reasonable in light of all of the circumstances. These decisions are driven by context and were highly sensitive to the particular facts of each case.
What may be reasonable in one set of circumstances may be unreasonable for another—and circumstances may change. Important factors could include the nature of the business, the type of workplace, the kinds of services offered, and the characteristics of the employees.
Some key generalizations emerge from the arbitral decisions. Testing or restricting the unvaccinated is likely reasonable. Mandating vaccinations may be reasonable under the circumstances; e.g., where risks are high and a vulnerable population requires protection. Lastly, requiring an employee to disclose their vaccination status is also likely to be reasonable. Reasonableness is highly contextual and requires specificity with respect to particular hazards and forms of interference with the business. It is critical to ensure that any COVID-19 policy is adaptable and custom-tailored to the realities of the employees, the workplace, and of the pandemic itself. Where employees violate these policies, penalties may result.
Omicron is an example of how the ever-shifting realities of the pandemic will require constant vigilance from employers to ensure that policies reflect the realities of the day. Keeping employees safe requires a continuous contextual analysis. Ultimately, the key fact in any contextual analysis may be that in Canada, tens of thousands of lives have been lost to COVID-19—and the pandemic is not over.
“This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique, and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situations and needs.”
 Ibid at s 1(2).
 R v Kongolo, 2021 ONSC 6619 at para 41 [Kongolo] citing R v Frampton, 2020 ONSC 5733 at para 6.
 Kongolo, supra note 11 at para 40.
 Ontario, Ministry of Health, Medical Exemptions to COVID-19 Vaccination, version 3.0 (Toronto: 12 January 2022); RSO 1990, c H.19 [HRC]. Note: where an employee requires accommodation under the Code, an employer is required to provide such accommodation up to the point of undue hardship.
 “Toronto Medical Officer of Health strongly recommending Toronto employers institute COVID-19 vaccination policy and support workplace vaccination” (20 August 2021), online: City of Toronto <toronto.ca>.
 Electrical Safety Authority v Power Workers’ Union (7 November 2021) arbitrator: John Stout at para 33 [ESA].
 Blake v University Health Network, 2021 ONSC 7139 (CanLII) at para 15; Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 v Toronto Transit Commission and National Organized Workers Union v Sinai Health System, 2021 ONSC 7658 (CanLII) at para 3.
 E.g., the Supreme Court endorsed a line of arbitral decisions which outlined the circumstances under which testing for drugs and alcohol might be permitted; see: Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30 v Irving Pulp & Paper, Ltd, 2013 SCC 34.
 ESA, supra note 17 at para 26.
 Unilever Canada Inc v United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 175 (24 April 2021) arbitrator: Jules B Bloch [Unilever].
 Ellisdon Construction Ltd v Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183, 2021 CanLII 50159 (ON LA) [Ellisdon].
 Ontario Power Generation v The Power Workers Union (8 November 2021) arbitrator: John C Murray [OPG].
 ESA, supra note 17.
 Bunge Hamilton Canada, Hamilton, Ontario v United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, Local 175 (13 December 2021) arbitrator: Robert J Herman [Bunge].
 United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Canada Local 333 v Paragon Protection Ltd (9 November 2021) arbitrator: F R von Veh [Paragon].
 ESA, supra, note 17 at paras 37-38.
 Bunge, supra note 32 at paras 23, 25.
 Teamsters Local Union 847 v Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment (12 January 2022) arbitrator: Norm Jesin [MLSE].
 Ibid at para 20.
 “Update with consideration of Omicron – Interim COVID-19 infection prevention and control in the health care setting when COVID-19 is suspected or confirmed– December 23, 2021” (24 December 2021), online: Government of Canada <canada.ca> [Omicron, Canada].
 Bunge, supra note 32.
 ESA, supra note 17.
 OPG, supra note 24.
 Paragon, supra note 33.
 CDC, supra note 39.
 Garda Security Screening Inc v IAM, District 140 (Shoker Grievance),  OLAA No 162 [Garda].
 Ibid at para 15.
 Labourers’ International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council and Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183 v Aecon Industrial (Aegon Construction Group Inc), 2020 CanLII 91950 (ON LA) [Aecon].