An Ontario court has tossed out an amended statement of claim filed by nearly 500 plaintiffs against 54 health care entities alongside the Government of Ontario and several of its officials — including Premier Doug Ford — that challenged workplace vaccination measures introduced in response to Covid-19.
It also awarded nearly $200,000 in legal costs against the plaintiffs with the judge taking into account the “claim’s inflammatory, unfounded, and outlandish allegations of conspiracy and misrepresentation.”
The ruling also serves as a reminder that unionized employees are generally bound by arbitration procedures, while separate statutory regimes govern specific hospital-privilege disputes. It also confirms that requiring vaccination policies in health-care settings does not, on its face, violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“This is a motion to strike out the Amended Statement of Claim … in this action,” the decision states. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that numerous aspects of the claim were “frivolous and vexatious,” that several plaintiffs fell under exclusive arbitration jurisdiction, and that core allegations, including conspiracy, intimidation, and breaches of Charter rights, were inadequately pleaded. Ultimately, the judge granted leave to amend for a narrower claim that avoids sweeping allegations and properly sets out material facts.
Unionized employees lack jurisdiction in court
A primary issue was whether 387 plaintiffs who belonged to unions could pursue a legal challenge in the courts over their employers’ Covid-19 vaccination policies. According to the ruling, “Courts have interpreted [labour legislation] broadly to preclude court actions relating to claims that arise under a collective agreement … [and] restrict the remedies available in such cases to those that the collective agreement contains.”
The Court stressed that while the plaintiffs framed their claims in tort and constitutional language, the “essential character” was rooted in alleged wrongful suspensions or terminations under their collective agreements. Because those employment disputes “arise either explicitly or implicitly, from the interpretation, application, administration or violation of the collective agreement,” an arbitrator has exclusive jurisdiction.
The judge referenced an Ontario Court of Appeal decision which held that unvaccinated workers who are placed on unpaid leave or terminated “face harm which an arbitrator has the tools to remedy.”
Hospital-privilege disputes subject to statutory regime
Eight plaintiffs, consisting of seven physicians and one midwife, claimed that their hospital privileges had been revoked due to Covid-19 policies. The Court found it lacked jurisdiction because the Public Hospitals Act provides a “comprehensive code for granting and revoking hospital privileges,” including appeal routes to the Health Professionals Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), which can then be subject to judicial review.
As the decision noted, “Courts are less well-equipped to deal with those issues than are hospital Boards and the HPARB.”
The judge distinguished these circumstances from a Supreme Court of Canada ruling (TeleZone), which allowed a civil damages claim to proceed in federal matters. Here, the plaintiffs aimed to “nullify a decision” by a hospital—something that must be pursued through specialized administrative channels before, or instead of, seeking remedies in court.
Claim deemed overly broad, with frivolous and vexatious pleadings
The Court highlighted the massive scope of the action, in which 473 plaintiffs joined 59 defendants, including various health-care facilities and government entities. The judge found no unifying legal or factual basis tying each individual’s wrongful dismissal-type claim into a single proceeding.
Rather than promoting efficiency, this approach was labelled “entirely impractical,” especially given that “geography is a further factor militating against consolidation,” with parties located from Thunder Bay to Windsor.
Beyond the procedural hurdles, the Court criticized the “outlandish” allegations of global conspiracies, “false pandemic” claims, and criminal misconduct, including accusations of “crimes against humanity.”
The statement of claim, which totalled 58 pages, lacked material facts about how each employer allegedly breached employees’ rights. Instead, it contained broad statements about “coercive measures” and “PCR testing,” with no specific details on the actual terminations or the steps each employer took.
Dismissal of key tort claims
Several intentional torts — conspiracy, intimidation, and intentional infliction of mental anguish — were struck out for failing to disclose any reasonable cause of action.
The Court found no credible foundation to suggest that “the Premier of Ontario … and 54 Non-Governmental Defendants somehow conspired to concoct a plan to declare a ‘false pandemic’” with the “predominant purpose of harming” the plaintiffs.
On intimidation, the judge observed that the plaintiffs did not comply with any demand to become vaccinated, thereby undermining an essential element of that tort (coerced compliance). Intent to injure was also nowhere pleaded with sufficient particularity. Claims of intentional infliction of mental suffering failed for similar reasons, as they rested on the notion that vaccination mandates were intrinsically “illegal or unconstitutional,” which courts across Canada have repeatedly rejected.
Charter arguments against private employers fail
Charter-based causes of action against the 54 private health-care organizations were struck out because “requiring health authorities to implement a Covid-19 vaccine policy … [does] not mean every private employer’s Occupational Health & Safety policy is now subject to Charter scrutiny.”
The government directive at issue, the Court explained, did not mandate termination for non-compliance; rather, it allowed local decision-makers to tailor their approaches. Because private entities were not themselves “government” and were exercising their own “discretion in daily operations,” the Charter claim was unsustainable against them.
Claims against provincial government also struck out
The judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ assertion that Ontario’s Covid-19 measures—including “vaccine passports” and “PCR testing”—were unconstitutional, lacked jurisdictional basis, or fell outside the province’s legislative powers. “Courts across the country,” the ruling states, “have provided guidance on the constitutionality of government public health measures … in each case finding that public health restrictions either did not breach Charter rights or were justified under s. 1 of the Charter.” The Court cited decisions upholding various Covid-19 orders in sectors ranging from transportation to public schools.
Crucially, the lawsuit demanded reinstatement to certain hospital privileges, avoided the administrative review processes, and claimed an “emergency” was never warranted. Given the “broad judicial consensus on the severity of Covid-19” and an array of precedents dismissing near-identical arguments, the Court concluded that the measures in place had a “pressing and substantial objective” in public health.
Entire statement of claim struck with limited leave to amend
Ultimately, the Court struck the entire amended statement of claim as “bad beyond argument,” granting only limited leave to amend. One plaintiff, B.A.D., had already prepared a more traditional statement of claim that the judge accepted. Unlike the broader lawsuit, B.A.D.’s proposed claim centres on individual employment disputes and omits allegations of broad conspiracies.
In awarding costs, the Court rejected the argument that this litigation was a bona fide “public interest” case. Given the complexity and the “inflammatory” allegations, the Non-Governmental Defendants were granted substantial fees.
The Court awarded $175,000 in substantive costs to the Non-Governmental Defendants. Additionally, the Court awarded $15,000 in costs to the Government of Ontario. These amounts were reduced from the Non-Governmental Defendants’ requested costs of $235,589.24 (including disbursements) to account for potential duplication of work by their legal teams.
The judge ruled that any revised claims must focus narrowly on actual workplace issues—rather than global theories—and properly plead relevant facts against the correct defendant.
For more information, see Dorceus v. Ontario et al., 2024 ONSC 7087 (CanLII).
