In a landmark ruling, the Alberta Court of Justice found that WestJet wrongfully terminated Duong Yee, an 11-year employee, for refusing the Covid-19 vaccine due to religious beliefs, despite working remotely.

Yee, a devout Christian, requested a religious exemption from WestJet’s mandatory vaccination policy in late 2021, citing her faith in “Jesus as [her] healer” and providing a pastor’s letter.

WestJet rejected her request, arguing that her concerns were not truly religious because she had also expressed vaccine safety worries. Yee was placed on unpaid leave in November of 2021 and fired a month later, despite her strong performance.

The court, led by Justice A.P. Argento, rejected WestJet’s reasoning, stating they had failed to explain why Yee could not hold both religious and safety concerns. The dismissal of her sincerely held beliefs violated her right to religious accommodation, a protected characteristic under our Charter rights.

The court emphasized that Yee’s remote work eliminated any risk to colleagues or the public, making her termination disproportionate. Federal vaccine mandates (for airline workers) applied only to employees accessing “aerodrome property,” not remote workers. WestJet’s failure to consider alternatives, such as continued remote work, was deemed unreasonable, breaching the duty to accommodate her religious beliefs to the point of undue hardship.

The court awarded her $65,587.72 (11 months’ pay), recognizing the wrongful dismissal but denying moral damages due to insufficient evidence of emotional harm.

This ruling underscores the responsibilities of the employer, specifically that they cannot arbitrarily dismiss religious objections or impose blanket policies without accommodating protected rights.

Most of the Covid policies enforced lacked robust exemption processes, pressuring individuals to comply or face job loss, with little or no recourse or support from their unions.

This decision sets a new precedent for protecting employees’ rights against inflexible workplace policies. It reinforces that employers must genuinely engage with exemption requests and explore reasonable accommodations.

The government’s Covid policies also conflicted with emerging evidence about efficacy and safety, raising concerns about justifications in limiting our fundamental rights. The Oakes test, used to assess Charter infringements, requires that limitations be proportionate and minimally impairing. Cases like this have increasingly found that blanket mandates failed, finding restrictions to be overly broad in their application.

Public trust was eroded even further as evidence of vaccine injuries emerged, yet government policies remained rigid. This lack of transparent data on vaccine efficacy and safety, coupled with dismissive treatment of exemptions, fueled frustrations over government overreach.

The government of Canada shoulders a broad range of responsibilities to its citizens. These include protecting our human rights, providing essential services, and ensuring the well-being of society.

To read the Alberta Court of Justice decision, click here