Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant alleged unjust dismissal after refusing to comply with a COVID-19 workplace safety measure.

• Central legal question involved the balance between an employee’s right to refuse medical treatment and an employer’s duty to protect workplace health.

• The Canada Industrial Relations Board had previously ruled the dismissal was administrative and the safety measure reasonable.

• Applicant argued the requirement to take his temperature infringed on personal freedoms and spiritual beliefs.

• The Federal Court of Appeal applied the reasonableness standard from Vavilov and upheld the Board’s decision.

• Costs of $1,000 were awarded to FedEx, and no damages were granted to the applicant.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and factual context

Philippe D’Arcangeli was employed by FedEx Ground Package System Ltd. as a package handler from December 2018 until his dismissal on May 27, 2020. The dismissal followed his refusal to comply with a workplace policy introduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, FedEx had implemented a requirement in May 2020 for all employees to undergo temperature checks upon arrival at work. D’Arcangeli refused to submit to this measure, citing philosophical and spiritual objections, and did not return to work after being informed of the new protocol.

He claimed the temperature screening violated his right to refuse medical treatment under Article 11 of the Civil Code of Québec and constituted a breach of his conscience and personal integrity. Following his termination, he filed a complaint of unjust dismissal under section 240(1) of the Canada Labour Code, which was reviewed by the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB). In its decision dated November 22, 2023 (2023 CCRI LD 5203), the Board dismissed the complaint, finding FedEx’s measure reasonable and the termination lawful.

Judicial review and legal findings

D’Arcangeli applied to the Federal Court of Appeal for judicial review of the Board’s decision, arguing that the Board failed to strike a fair balance between his rights and the employer’s management prerogative. He sought a broader constitutional interpretation that would elevate individual autonomy over public health mandates, and he framed the issue as implicating not only consent to medical treatment but also the right to life and fundamental justice.

The Court, however, emphasized that its role in judicial review is limited. Under the reasonableness standard set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, the Court must not reassess evidence or introduce new arguments. It must only determine whether the administrative decision falls within a range of acceptable outcomes supported by rational reasoning.

Outcome and award of costs

The Court held that the CIRB had reasonably concluded that the dismissal was administrative and that the temperature check policy was justified in the context of an essential business during a public health emergency. The Board had applied the correct legal test and considered the relevant facts, including the employer’s legitimate interest in employee safety, the proportionality of the measure, and existing labor law jurisprudence that supported more invasive measures such as mandatory vaccination.

The Court rejected D’Arcangeli’s argument that his personal or religious beliefs had been unfairly disregarded, noting that he never formally raised religious accommodation with FedEx at the time. In conclusion, the application for judicial review was dismissed, and the Court ordered D’Arcangeli to pay $1,000 in costs to FedEx. No damages were awarded.