David Share

This appeal concerned the application of the doctrine of frustration to an employment contract terminated due to the employee's COVID-19 vaccination status.

The appellant, a technician for VuPoint Systems Ltd., was terminated after refusing to comply with a mandatory vaccination policy implemented by Bell Canada, VuPoint's dominant client, which rendered him ineligible to perform his duties.

The motion judge found the contract frustrated.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Bell Policy was a supervening event that radically altered the employment contract, was unforeseen at the time of contracting, and was outside VuPoint's control.

The Court clarified that the employee's voluntary refusal to vaccinate did not negate frustration, as the supervening event was the policy itself, not the employee's conduct.

The plaintiff, a systems technician, brought a motion for summary judgment against his former employer for wrongful dismissal, aggravated, punitive, and/or moral damages.

The plaintiff was terminated after refusing to comply with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy implemented by the employer's primary client, Bell, which accounted for over 99% of the employer's business.

The employer argued that the employment contract was frustrated due to the plaintiff's inability to perform essential duties.

The court found that Bell's vaccination policy was an unforeseen supervening event beyond the parties' control, leading to a radical change in the employment contract.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the action was dismissed, as the employment contract was deemed frustrated, negating any entitlement to common law reasonable notice.

The plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action was dismissed on consent after it was determined that, as a unionized employee, his claims were governed by a collective agreement and could not be adjudicated in court.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $46,544.75.

The court found the requested costs excessive given the straightforward nature of the jurisdictional issue and the plaintiff's likely impecuniosity.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 all-inclusive.

An employee who became disabled from employment as a police constable applied for long-term disability benefits under a group insurance policy issued by the respondent insurer.

When the insurer terminated the benefits, the employee sued the insurer for payment.

The motion judge struck the claim on the basis that the collective agreement governing the employee's employment granted exclusive jurisdiction over the matter to labour arbitration.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the collective agreement did more than merely oblige the employer to pay insurance premiums; it covered the terms, amount, and definition of disability benefits and made specific reference to the insurance policy.

Therefore, the employee's entitlement to benefits arose from the collective agreement, making the dispute arbitrable.