The Federal Court has dismissed a claim by a worker against his employer — Skyservice Business Aviation — challenging its mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.
Associate Judge Kathleen Ring concluded that the court lacks jurisdiction over the claim and that the plaintiff failed to present a reasonable cause of action.
The case centred on J.P.’s opposition to SkyService’s vaccination policy implemented following a federal announcement mandating such policies for federally regulated air transportation sector employers. J.P., an employee of SkyService, argued that this policy violated his human rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other federal legislation.
Key arguments and court’s decision
SkyService sought to strike J.P.’s Statement of Claim on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action within the Federal Court’s jurisdiction.
J.P. opposed the motion, asserting the Federal Court’s jurisdiction and claiming a reasonable cause of action against SkyService. The court was asked to consider whether the claim should be struck due to lack of jurisdiction or failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action and whether J.P. should be allowed to amend his claim.
Associate Judge Ring found that the essential nature of the claim related to an alleged breach of his employment contract and related tort claims, stemming from SkyService’s implementation of the vaccination policy. The court assessed the claim under the “plain and obvious” test, which requires it to be clear that the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action for it to be struck at this preliminary stage.
Jurisdictional issues
The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over J.P.’s claim against SkyService. According to the ruling, SkyService was not an agent of the Crown, a necessary condition for the Federal Court to have jurisdiction under section 17(5)(b) of the Federal Courts Act.
The court found that the federal government’s announcement did not render SkyService an agent of the Crown simply by complying with federal regulations.
“The mere fact that SkyService is comprised of aviation corporations incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act does not, in itself, make it an ‘agent of the Crown’,” Associate Judge Ring stated.
Moreover, J.P.’s concession that there was insufficient proximity between SkyService and the federal Crown for SkyService to be deemed a government actor for the purposes of the Charter further undermined his argument for Federal Court jurisdiction.
Failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action
In addition to the jurisdictional issues, the court found that J.P.’s claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action. J.P. had alleged human rights and Charter violations due to SkyService’s mandatory vaccination policy, claiming it created a hostile work environment and resulted in his suspension and termination.
The court held that J.P.’s claims of discrimination and Charter violations were not viable, as human rights legislation violations do not create a private right of action against the alleged offender. Instead, such matters are to be handled by the Human Rights Commission and tribunals.
“The enforcement of rights protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act are matters left to the Human Rights Commission and to human rights tribunals appointed under that Act,” Associate Judge Ring noted, referencing established legal precedents.
Costs awarded
The court granted SkyService’s motion to strike the claim without leave to amend, effectively dismissing J.P.’s action against SkyService. Additionally, J.P. was ordered to pay SkyService’s costs of the motion, fixed at $1,200 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.
For more information, see Pascuet v. Canada, 2024 FC 930 (CanLII).
