An Elections Canada worker engaged in a frivolous work refusal related to COVID-19, the Federal Court has ruled — upholding an earlier decision by Employment and Social Development Canada’s (ESDC) Labour Program.
The review centred on the worker’s refusal to return to his workplace in Gatineau, Que., citing risks associated with COVID-19, under subsection 128(1) of the Canada Labour Code. N.J., who had been working on-site since March 2021 despite broader telework arrangements, raised concerns after the implementation of the federal return-to-office policy in March 2023.
The policy required employees to work on-site at least one day per week under a hybrid model.
In March 2023, N.J. formally refused to work, arguing that the increased office occupancy and “lack of mandatory COVID-19 precautions” posed a serious danger to his health and that of his team. He alleged that the employer’s measures — voluntary rapid testing, mask availability, and reminders about hygiene practices — were inadequate.
Elections Canada conducted an initial investigation, followed by a workplace committee review, both concluding that no imminent danger existed under the definition outlined in the CLC. The ESDC’s Head of Compliance and Enforcement affirmed this finding in November 2023, labelling N.J.’s refusal as frivolous and unsupported by facts or law.
The head noted that the employee’s concerns were speculative and did not consider existing workplace safety measures.
N.J. challenged the decision in federal court, alleging that the determination lacked transparency and failed to address his detailed submissions. He also claimed procedural unfairness and bias by the investigator involved. The court dismissed the claims, ruling that the decision met the standard of reasonableness and procedural fairness.
The judgment emphasized that administrative decisions are not required to address every argument in detail but must meaningfully grapple with central issues. The court found that the head had adequately considered the workplace’s compliance with public health guidelines and the absence of medical vulnerabilities that might increase N.J.’s risk.
The court also rejected N.J.’s claims of bias, finding no evidence to suggest that the investigator’s recommendations were influenced by anything other than the record and consultations with occupational health experts.
In dismissing the application, the court ordered N.J. to pay $2,000 in costs to the Attorney General of Canada.
For more information, see Juzda v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 63 (CanLII).
