Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Clark appealed a decision dismissing his wrongful dismissal claim arising from an unpaid leave imposed for non-compliance with his employer's mandatory vaccination policy.
   
• Determining whether the chambers judge applied the correct legal test for implied contractual terms formed the central legal question on appeal.
   
• Both parties disputed whether the applicable standard of review should be correctness or palpable and overriding error.
   
• Establishing whether an implied term needed to specifically authorize a mandatory vaccination policy, rather than workplace health and safety policies generally, was contested.
   
• Assessing whether the City's administrative suspension of Clark was reasonable and justified required consideration of good faith and legitimate business reasons.
   
• Reframing the issue, the Court of Appeal considered whether the chambers judge erred in her application of the implied-term analysis from Village Gate Resorts Ltd. v. Moore.
   

Facts of the case

Rob Wayne Clark was employed by the City of Prince George. In 2021, the City implemented a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy (the "MVP") for its employees. Clark chose not to be vaccinated, and the City placed him on an unpaid leave of absence effective January 17, 2022, for failure to comply with the MVP. Clark sued the City for wrongful dismissal, arguing that the City constructively dismissed him because his employment contract did not include a vaccination requirement and the City lacked authority to place him on unpaid leave for non-vaccination. His claim was dismissed following a summary trial before the Supreme Court of British Columbia (2025 BCSC 812). Clark appealed to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, asking the court to find that he was wrongfully dismissed and to assess damages.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The City relied on its obligations under the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.B.C. 2019, c. 1, s. 21, and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, B.C. Reg. 296/97, which require employers to provide a safe and healthy workplace and to mitigate workplace health and safety risks. The chambers judge accepted the City's argument that these obligations supported an implied term in Clark's employment contract permitting the City to implement workplace health and safety policies, including the MVP, without requiring individual employees to expressly agree to such policies. Clark argued this implied term was insufficient and that a more specific implied term authorizing a mandatory vaccination policy was necessary before the City could rely on it without breaching his contract.

Reasoning and analysis

The chambers judge applied the test for constructive dismissal from Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 2015 SCC 10, under which a unilateral act must breach the employment contract and be such that a reasonable employee would view it as a substantial change to essential contract terms. Because Clark's unpaid leave was administrative rather than disciplinary, the burden fell on the City to show the suspension was reasonable and justified. The judge considered Parmar v. Tribe Management Inc., 2022 BCSC 1675, in which Justice MacNaughton (then of the BC Supreme Court) declined to find constructive dismissal for an employee placed on unpaid leave under a mandatory vaccination policy, and applied Village Gate Resorts Ltd. v. Moore (1997), 47 B.C.L.R. (3d) 153, 1997 CanLII 4052 (C.A.), on implied contractual terms. The judge concluded there was an implied term permitting the City to implement workplace health and safety policies generally, including the MVP, and found the resulting suspension reasonable and justified given the City's good faith and legitimate business reasons.

On appeal, Justice Francis reframed the issue as whether the judge erred by not specifically considering an implied term authorizing an MVP, rather than workplace health and safety policies more broadly. The Court of Appeal held that once an implied term permitting workplace health and safety policies was established, the City's right to implement specific policies was subject only to the qualification that the policy be reasonable and justified. Requiring a separate implied term specific to vaccination policies would lead to unreasonable results, and this approach was consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's guidance in Potter regarding administrative suspensions. The Court found the appellant's challenge to the judge's factual findings, including good faith and legitimate business reasons, did not disclose any palpable and overriding error.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed Clark's appeal, with Justice Francis writing reasons and Justices Abrioux and MacNaughton concurring. The court held that the chambers judge applied the correct analytical framework and did not err in finding it unnecessary to identify an implied term specifically permitting a mandatory vaccination policy, once an implied term permitting workplace health and safety policies generally had been established. The City of Prince George, as respondent, was successful in upholding the dismissal of Clark's wrongful dismissal claim. The decision does not reference any monetary award, damages, or costs order; the record is silent as to costs and damages.