.alx *,.alx *::before,.alx *::after{box-sizing:border-box}
.alx h2{:clamp(1.15rem,3vw,1.45rem);023054;font-weight:700;margin:2rem 0 .7rem;:1.3}
.alx h3{:clamp(.98rem,2.5vw,1.1rem);023054;font-weight:600;margin:1.4rem 0 .4rem}
.alx p{margin:0 0 1.1rem}
.alx a{023054;text-decoration:underline}
.alx ul{margin:0 0 1.1rem 1.2rem;padding:0}
.alx ul li{margin-bottom:.4rem;:.97rem}
.alx .updated{:.82rem;5a6b78;font-weight:600;text-transform:uppercase;letter-spacing:.05em;margin-bottom:1.1rem}
.alx .accent{background:#b0c4de;border-left:4px solid #023054;border-radius:0 6px 6px 0;padding:16px 18px;margin:1.8rem 0;:.95rem;023054;font-weight:600;:1.6}
.alx .case-meta{background:#f5f8fb;border-radius:8px;padding:18px 20px;margin:1.8rem 0;display:grid;grid-template-columns:repeat(auto-fit,minmax(160px,1fr));gap:14px}
.alx .meta-label{:.72rem;font-weight:700;023054;text-transform:uppercase;letter-spacing:.06em;margin-bottom:4px}
.alx .meta-val{:.9rem;36454f;font-weight:600}
.alx .answer-box{background:#edf4fb;border:2px solid #023054;border-radius:8px;padding:20px 22px;margin:1.8rem 0}
.alx .ans-label{:.75rem;font-weight:700;023054;text-transform:uppercase;letter-spacing:.08em;margin-bottom:8px}
.alx .ans-text{:clamp(.95rem,2.5vw,1.1rem);023054;font-weight:700;:1.5;margin-bottom:10px}
.alx .answer-box p{:.9rem;36454f;margin:0;:1.65}
.alx .tbl-wrap{overflow-x:auto;margin:1.4rem 0 2rem;-webkit-overflow-scrolling:touch}
.alx .std-table{width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;:.88rem;min-width:460px}
.alx .std-table th{background:#023054;fff;text-align:left;padding:10px 12px;font-weight:600}
.alx .std-table td{padding:10px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #d0dce6;vertical-align:top}
.alx .std-table tr:nth-child(even) td{background:#f5f8fb}
.alx .checklist{background:#edf4fb;border:1px solid #b0c4de;border-radius:10px;padding:20px 22px;margin:1.6rem 0 2rem}
.alx .checklist h3{margin:0 0 10px;:1rem}
.alx .checklist ul{margin:0 0 0 1.1rem}
.alx .checklist ul li{:.9rem;margin-bottom:.5rem}
.alx .faq{margin:1.5rem 0 2rem}
.alx .faq-item{border-bottom:1px solid #d0dce6;padding:14px 0}
.alx .faq-item:first-child{border-top:1px solid #d0dce6}
.alx .faq-q{:.95rem;font-weight:600;023054;margin:0}
.alx .faq-a{:.9rem;36454f;margin:8px 0 0;:1.65}
.alx .related{background:#f5f8fb;border-left:4px solid #b0c4de;border-radius:0 6px 6px 0;padding:18px 20px;margin:1.8rem 0}
.alx .related h3{margin:0 0 8px;:.95rem}
.alx .related ul{margin:0 0 0 1.1rem}
.alx .related ul li{:.9rem;margin-bottom:.35rem}
.alx .disclaimer{:.85rem;5a6b78}
@media (max-width:600px){.alx{:15px}.alx .case-meta{grid-template-columns:1fr 1fr}.alx .accent{padding:14px}.alx .answer-box{padding:16px}}
In late 2021 the BC government made COVID-19 vaccination a condition of employment in the public service, then went a step further than any private employer could. It passed a regulation declaring that every employee fired under the policy had been dismissed for just cause. That one sentence wiped out reasonable notice and severance for the whole group, regardless of how long anyone had worked there or how good their record was.
Published October 2026
On October 2, 2026, the Supreme Court of British Columbia refused to throw out a wrongful dismissal claim challenging that provision. The Charter claims mostly failed, and on that point the decision is unremarkable. The part that matters for employers is the court’s view that it is a real question whether the government had the power to declare cause for an entire class of employees at all.
This was a motion to strike, so nothing has been decided on the merits. The employees have 30 days to amend their pleading. For employers, the decision is a reminder that breaching a policy does not make cause on its own, which is exactly why the Province tried to legislate the outcome.
What happened
On November 1, 2021, the Minister of Finance issued Human Resources Policy 25, which required BC public service employees to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination by a set date. Employees who did not comply were placed on leave without pay. After three months on unpaid leave, anyone still not at least partially vaccinated could be terminated.
Eighteen days later, Cabinet passed the Public Service COVID-19 Vaccination Regulation under s. 25(1) of the Public Service Act. The regulation did two things. It made the policy a term and condition of employment, and it deemed anyone terminated under the policy to have been dismissed for just cause.
The 14 plaintiffs came from different ministries and roles. Their service ranged from about a year and a half to 36 years, most had more than ten years, and many held leadership positions. The pleading describes every one of them as having an unblemished record. They sued in March 2024 for breach of their Charter rights and for wrongful dismissal, and the Province moved to strike the whole claim without leave to amend.
Why the wrongful dismissal claim survived
The Province’s position was simple. The regulation says these dismissals were for just cause, so a wrongful dismissal claim cannot succeed. The employees answered that a regulation which exceeds the power granted by its parent statute cannot support a just cause defence.
The Province relied on Auer v Auer, 2024 SCC 36, where the Supreme Court of Canada held that reviewing a regulation’s validity is an exercise in statutory interpretation, not an assessment of whether the regulation was wise or necessary. Section 25(1) of the Public Service Act lets Cabinet make regulations on employee health and safety, on terms and conditions of employment, and on all matters respecting discipline, suspension and dismissal. In the Province’s view that plainly covered a deemed-cause provision.
Masuhara J. was not prepared to accept that at the pleadings stage. He described the abolition of common law rights as a significant matter, and found it arguable on two grounds that Cabinet had no authority to do it (paras 49 to 50):
- The Act does not expressly authorize Cabinet to extinguish common law notice and severance.
- The Act contemplates individual employment decisions, not a legislative declaration that a whole class of employees was dismissed for cause.
The employees’ pleading did not clearly raise this argument; it surfaced mainly in their response to the motion. The court granted leave to amend anyway, noting the case was at an early stage and that the Province would suffer no real prejudice.
What happened to the Charter claims
The s. 7 claim was struck without leave to amend. The court followed a consistent line of BC decisions, including Hoogerbrug v British Columbia, 2024 BCSC 794, and the Court of Appeal in Warner v British Columbia (Provincial Health Officer), 2025 BCCA 21. Those cases hold that a vaccination requirement does not force anyone to be vaccinated. It attaches consequences to the choice not to be, and losing a job, however serious, does not engage liberty or security of the person. Deeming the dismissals to be for cause did not change that analysis, because the lost notice and severance were still consequences of the choice.
The s. 2(a) freedom of conscience claim was also struck, but with leave to amend. The court held that conscience protects a broader moral or ethical belief system, not a sincere objection to one medical procedure or one policy. The pleading described the employees’ concerns about the vaccines but did not identify any wider framework of belief. The court did not rule out a conscience claim of this kind; it held only that this pleading did not make one out.
What this means for employers
A policy breach is not automatically just cause
Just cause in Canadian employment law is decided contextually. Since McKinley v BC Tel, 2001 SCC 38, courts ask whether the misconduct was serious enough to make the employment relationship unworkable, looking at the whole of the circumstances. Long service and a clean record weigh heavily against summary dismissal, and most of these plaintiffs had both.
That is the real reason the regulation existed. If refusing to comply with the vaccination policy had reliably amounted to cause under the ordinary test, there would have been no need to legislate it. Private employers have no regulation-making power, so the only tools available to them are the contract, the policy and the facts. A clause stating that any breach of policy is cause for dismissal does not settle the question; courts still look at whether the breach justified ending the relationship without notice. The Province had a far stronger hand than any private employer, and its deemed-cause provision is still being litigated.
Unpaid leave and termination are different decisions
The contrast with Parmar v Tribe Management Inc., 2022 BCSC 1675 is useful. There, a long-service employee who refused to comply with a private employer’s vaccination policy was placed on three months of unpaid leave, and she resigned and claimed constructive dismissal. The court dismissed her claim. It found the policy reasonable and the leave a reasonable response, pointing to the fixed period subject to review, the benefits Tribe kept in place, and the fact that the employer had not replaced her and intended her to return.
Defending a temporary, reviewed leave is a different exercise from defending a termination with no notice at all. An employer that moves from one to the other needs a separate basis for the second step.
Exposure grows with the size of the group
Fourteen employees, most with over ten years of service and many in leadership roles, can produce substantial reasonable notice claims. They are seeking aggravated and punitive damages as well. When one decision applies the same consequence to a whole group, a flaw in that decision is repeated in every file. Employers making group-wide termination decisions should test the legal footing before acting, not after the claims arrive.
Objections to a single requirement are not a belief system
The court’s treatment of conscience mirrors how employers should approach requests for exemption from a workplace requirement. A personal objection to one rule, however sincerely held, is not the same as a protected belief, and the person claiming protection has to show the broader framework that the objection belongs to. Human rights law draws a similar line on creed. Employers should still assess each request individually rather than dismissing the category.
Lessons for employment litigation
For employers considering a motion to strike
- The test is whether it is plain and obvious that the claim cannot succeed, assuming the pleaded facts are true. Courts apply it robustly, including to novel claims.
- Distinguish defects of substance from defects of pleading. The s. 7 claim failed on substance and could not be fixed. The conscience claim failed on pleading and the court allowed an amendment.
- Inviting the other side to amend before the hearing helps, but it is not decisive. The Province did this and the plaintiffs did not respond; the court still granted leave (paras 57 and 60).
- A motion brought early, before any other significant step, makes it harder to show prejudice from an amendment.
- A claim that rests on a regulation or policy can be met with a challenge to the validity of that instrument. Defending the policy means defending its legal footing as well as its wording.
For employees dismissed under a vaccine policy
If you were terminated for non-compliance with a vaccination policy in 2021 or 2022, timing is the first issue. In British Columbia the basic limitation period for a wrongful dismissal claim is two years from when the claim was discovered, which for most of these dismissals has passed. A lawyer can tell you whether any exception applies. Where a claim is still available, this decision does not establish that cause was lacking, but it confirms that a cause label applied to everyone at once is open to challenge.
Frequently asked questions
What did the court decide in Anderson v British Columbia?
On a motion to strike, the Supreme Court of British Columbia struck the plaintiffs’ s. 7 Charter claim without leave to amend and their s. 2(a) freedom of conscience claim with leave to amend. It allowed the wrongful dismissal claim to proceed, with leave to amend the pleading to challenge whether the regulation deeming the dismissals to be for just cause was within Cabinet’s power.
Did the court find the BC public service vaccine mandate unlawful?
No. The court held only that it is not plain and obvious that the challenge to the deemed just cause provision will fail. Whether the regulation is valid, and whether the employees were wrongfully dismissed, will be decided later on a full record.
Can an employer treat any breach of a workplace policy as just cause?
Not automatically. Courts decide just cause contextually, asking whether the misconduct was serious enough to make the employment relationship unworkable, with length of service and the employee’s record weighing in the analysis. A contract or policy stating that a breach is cause does not end that inquiry.
Was placing an unvaccinated employee on unpaid leave a constructive dismissal in BC?
Not in Parmar v Tribe Management Inc., 2022 BCSC 1675. The court found that a reasonable vaccination policy and a three-month unpaid leave subject to review, with benefits maintained, did not amount to constructive dismissal. Each case turns on its own facts, and a termination for cause raises a different question from a temporary leave.
Does freedom of conscience protect an objection to vaccination?
The court did not rule that out, but held that a conscience claim must be grounded in a broader moral or ethical belief system, not a sincere objection to one medical procedure or one policy. Because the pleading did not describe such a system, the claim was struck with leave to amend.
How Achkar Law helps employers
Achkar Law advises employers in British Columbia and Ontario on discipline and termination decisions before they are made, including whether a policy breach can support cause and how to structure a leave or a group termination so it holds up. When claims follow, we defend them through employment litigation, including early motions to narrow or strike claims that cannot succeed. Employers in the Lower Mainland can also see our Vancouver employment lawyers.
This article is general information about a decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia and is not legal advice. The decision was made on a motion to strike and the matter is ongoing; it may be appealed or affected by later rulings. Current as of October 2026. An employment lawyer can advise on your specific situation.
{“@context”:”https://schema.org”,”@type”:”FAQPage”,”mainEntity”:[{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”What did the court decide in Anderson v British Columbia?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”On a motion to strike, the Supreme Court of British Columbia struck the plaintiffs’ section 7 Charter claim without leave to amend and their section 2(a) freedom of conscience claim with leave to amend. It allowed the wrongful dismissal claim to proceed, with leave to amend the pleading to challenge whether the regulation deeming the dismissals to be for just cause was within Cabinet’s power.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Did the court find the BC public service vaccine mandate unlawful?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”No. The court held only that it is not plain and obvious that the challenge to the deemed just cause provision will fail. Whether the regulation is valid, and whether the employees were wrongfully dismissed, will be decided later on a full record.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Can an employer treat any breach of a workplace policy as just cause?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Not automatically. Courts decide just cause contextually, asking whether the misconduct was serious enough to make the employment relationship unworkable, with length of service and the employee’s record weighing in the analysis. A contract or policy stating that a breach is cause does not end that inquiry.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Was placing an unvaccinated employee on unpaid leave a constructive dismissal in BC?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Not in Parmar v Tribe Management Inc., 2022 BCSC 1675. The court found that a reasonable vaccination policy and a three-month unpaid leave subject to review, with benefits maintained, did not amount to constructive dismissal. Each case turns on its own facts, and a termination for cause raises a different question from a temporary leave.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Does freedom of conscience protect an objection to vaccination?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”The court did not rule that out, but held that a conscience claim must be grounded in a broader moral or ethical belief system, not a sincere objection to one medical procedure or one policy. Because the pleading did not describe such a system, the claim was struck with leave to amend.”}}]}
The post Anderson v British Columbia: Can a Regulation Deem Just Cause? appeared first on Achkar Law.