A Saskatchewan court has dismissed wrongful dismissal claims brought by two former employees of Amalgamated Charities Inc. (ACI), ruling the employer acted in good faith when it terminated them for refusing to comply with its COVID-19 vaccination and testing policy.
The court found that ACI’s actions were consistent with provincial regulations enacted in 2021 and that the company was protected from legal liability under s. 9-10.1 of The Saskatchewan Employment Act (SEA), which shields employers from claims when acting in good faith under emergency health regulations.
Refusal to comply with COVID-19 policy
J.G. and E.C., who worked at a Regina bingo hall managed by ACI, were dismissed in November 2021 after refusing to either get vaccinated against COVID-19 or provide weekly negative test results. ACI had introduced a policy requiring employees to comply with one of those two options under newly enacted COVID-19 emergency regulations.
J.G., the hall manager, and E.C., the concession booth manager, argued the policy infringed on their constitutional and privacy rights. They claimed damages under multiple headings, including wrongful dismissal, trespass, and what they termed “informed refusal,” each seeking $30,000 in damages.
ACI conceded it terminated both employees without notice for refusing to comply with the policy, which it said was adopted in accordance with the SEA and related COVID-19 regulations. The employer argued the claims were statute-barred and without merit due to protections afforded by the legislation.
Court says constitutional and privacy arguments do not apply
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that their Charter or privacy rights had been violated, noting that constitutional protections under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply to government action, not to private disputes between individuals or corporations.
“There is no such common law that I am aware of,” the court wrote, in reference to the plaintiffs’ claim that ACI’s failure to respond to settlement letters amounted to “tacit acceptance” and bad faith. It also found there was no basis in law for a tort of “informed refusal” and that privacy protections had not been breached because no private health information was actually collected.
The court added that ACI was legally entitled to request proof of vaccination or testing under the COVID Regulations. “The mere fact that this was requested does not make it a trespass, howsoever the plaintiffs might attempt to frame that cause of action,” the ruling stated.
COVID policy upheld as lawful contract amendment
The court held that while employers generally cannot unilaterally change employment contracts, the introduction of the COVID policy was authorized by law and thus formed a lawful amendment.
“The then existing common law was amended slightly to accommodate this type of change in a private employment contract,” the court wrote. It found no evidence that ACI acted in bad faith, dishonestly, or with gross negligence in implementing or enforcing the policy.
The plaintiffs’ roles—both requiring in-person presence and interaction with the public—could not have been performed remotely, further undermining any claim that ACI failed to accommodate them.
Damages hypothetical only
While the claims were dismissed in their entirety, the court provisionally assessed damages in the event it had found in the plaintiffs’ favour. It said J.G. would have been entitled to $43,971.88 in damages, and E.C. to $16,597.91, after mitigation and interest were factored in.
However, it found no basis to award aggravated or punitive damages, stating there was no evidence of “malicious, oppressive and high-handed” conduct by ACI. “There is no evidentiary foundation upon which this Court could conclude that either of the plaintiffs are entitled to moral damages,” the court wrote.
Costs awarded to employer
The court awarded ACI $3,050 in costs against each plaintiff, citing its success at trial and the plaintiffs’ refusal to accept $1,000 settlement offers made in March 2024. It also noted the procedural difficulties caused by the plaintiffs’ unconventional pleadings and representation by a non-lawyer agent.
“A Certificate of Judgment in relation to each of these actions will issue in the near term,” the court concluded.
For more information, see Genoway v Amalgamated Charities Inc., 2025 SKPC 15 (CanLII).
