Evan Campbell

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, a US citizen, worked for Legend USA in California under contracts containing arbitration clauses.

He later relocated to Ontario to work for Legend Canada without signing a new contract.

After being terminated, he sued both companies for wrongful dismissal and unpaid overtime under the Employment Standards Act.

The defendants moved to stay the action based on the California arbitration agreements.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no arbitration agreement existed with Legend Canada, and the agreement with Legend USA did not cover the Ontario employment.

Furthermore, the court noted the arbitration clause would be invalid as an impermissible contracting out of the Employment Standards Act.