In the Alberta Court of Justice Citation: Van Hee v Glenmore Inn Holdings Ltd. 2023 ABCJ 244 Date: 20231117 Docket: P2190103046 Registry: Calgary Between: Constance Van Hee Plaintiff - and - Glenmore Inn Holdings Ltd. Defendant Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Justice L.L. Burt Background [ 1 ] Both parties were represented by counsel. The Plaintiff testified and called no other witnesses.

The Defendant called two witnesses to testify at trial: the general manager, Perry Wilford, and Chris Bates, also a manager. [ 2 ] The matter involved the Plaintiff who had refused to comply with the Defendant’s COVID vaccination policy (the Policy) and consequently, went on an unpaid leave of absence as an employee of the Defendant. [ 3 ] The Plaintiff alleged in her Civil Claim constructive dismissal by her employer, the Defendant, as of the date the unpaid leave of absence commenced.

She sought damages by way of pay in lieu of reasonable notice of the alleged constructive dismissal. [ 4 ] In essence, the issue at trial was whether the Policy was reasonable, justified and a lawful response to the COVID pandemic in 2020/21, a public health emergency of international magnitude (the Pandemic), and more specifically, did the unpaid leave of absence as a consequence of the Plaintiff’s choice constitute a constructive dismissal of her employment by the Defendant. [ 5 ] The Defendant denied it dismissed, constructively or otherwise, the Plaintiff in 2021 or at any time.

It alleged the Plaintiff resigned from her employment with the Defendant on November 15, 2021, approximately 6 weeks after she went on an unpaid leave of absence on October 4, 2021, because she was not vaccinated as required by the Policy. [ 6 ] Of note, the Plaintiff did not pursue her human rights or punitive or aggravated damages allegations in the Civil Claim at trial. [ 7 ] An Agreed Statement of Facts was presented to the Court by counsel for both parties at the beginning of trial. The 15- paragraph document (not repeated here for sake of brevity) formed part of the factual evidence before the Court.

Summary of Salient Facts [ 8 ] Constance Van Hee (the Plaintiff) was a 57-year-old individual who was employed as a server at the Glenmore Inn by the Defendant from August 2008 to October 2021. She had a grade 12 education and had been a server for most of her working life.

[ 9 ] The Plaintiff entered into a written Employee Agreement with the Defendant in 2008 (the Contract).

It stated, among other things, that the Plaintiff understood “that the hotel may add, change or delete policies as required.” She testified she did not understand that such policies could be “extreme” and she considered the Policy in issue in this case to be “extreme”. [ 10 ] The Plaintiff also signed a New Employee Orientation Acknowledgement Form in August 2008 after she was instructed by the Defendant on the relevant information in that regard, as well as an Employee Health and Safety Responsibilities Acknowledgement Form in May 2009.

These Acknowledgements formed part of the Contract. [ 11 ] The Plaintiff earned $15/hour as an employee of the Defendant and that amounted to a salary of approximately $27,891.50 per year. She worked on average 32 hours per week. She also participated as an employee in the Defendant’s benefits plan and was entitled to 4 – 5 weeks of paid vacation. [ 12 ] In 2019, the Plaintiff’s T4 slip indicated that she earned $21,891.50. She earned approximately $6,500.00 in tips yearly, she testified, and she claimed those tips on her annual tax returns.

The Plaintiff did not produce copies of her income tax returns. [ 13 ] The Plaintiff was temporarily laid off by the Defendant three times during the Pandemic due to the consequential slowdown in the business of the Glenmore Inn. She received written email notices from the Defendant of these temporary layoffs. The Plaintiff’s benefits were continued during the layoff periods.

She testified she did not understand that her employment was being terminated by the Defendant when she was temporarily laid off and she appeared to have accepted that the layoffs were reasonable considering the circumstances regarding the Pandemic. These layoffs were not in issue. [ 14 ] In September 2021, the Government of Alberta stated that the fourth wave of COVID had created a state of public health emergency.

However, the Defendant and other businesses were permitted to stay open pursuant to the Government’s “Restrictions Exemption Program”. [ 15 ] Thereafter, in mid-September 2021, the Defendant created the Policy, in writing, for its employees, contractors, guests, and customers. The Policy specifically required the Defendant’s employees to be vaccinated for COVID with a first dose by October 4, 2021, and a second dose by November 15, 2021. The Plaintiff testified she disagreed with the Policy and made this known to the Defendant in late September 2021.

She testified that she was concerned about the safety of the COVID vaccines. [ 16 ] The Plaintiff learned about the Policy directly from the Defendant in writing on or about September 16, 2021. There was an exemption in the Policy for employees of the Defendant if they had written proof by a physician of a valid medical reason for not being vaccinated. The Plaintiff testified she had requested such proof from a physician and it had been denied. [ 17 ] There was also an “accommodations”

section in the Policy for employees with a valid medical reason for not being vaccinated.

The Plaintiff did not seek an accommodation from the Defendant apparently. [ 18 ] The Policy indicated that non-compliance by an employee of the Defendant could result in, among other things, “an unpaid leave of absence until compliance with the vaccine requirement...”. [ 19 ] Finally, the Policy stated that it would be reviewed by the Defendant as the status of the Pandemic, the related legislation, and public health advice changed. [ 20 ] The Defendant’s management met with all employees individually to discuss the Policy. [ 21 ] On September 23, 2021, the Plaintiff met with a manager of the Defendant to discuss the Policy.

The meeting was documented. At that meeting, the Plaintiff confirmed she had read the Policy and did not agree with it. She advised that she was not vaccinated and was not going to be vaccinated in the future. The Plaintiff was then reminded by the Defendant’s manager of the consequences of not getting vaccinated. Specifically, she was reminded that if she was not vaccinated with a first dose by October 4, 2021, she would go on an unpaid leave of absence. The Plaintiff testified she advised the Defendant’s manager that she understood the Policy and the consequences of non-compliance.

The meeting was not disciplinary in nature but rather, for information purposes only. [ 22 ] A second meeting took place on October 1, 2021, with the Plaintiff and two managers of the Defendant. The substance of that meeting was essentially the same as summarized above and again, the meeting was documented in writing. The Plaintiff stated at the second meeting that she might have a “valid medical exemption” by October 4, 2021. That exemption never materialized. Again, the second meeting was not disciplinary in nature.

The Plaintiff understood all that was discussed, she testified, and her position with respect to not getting vaccinated did not change. [ 23 ] On October 4, 2021, the Plaintiff was advised by the Defendant in a letter that she was on an unpaid leave of absence, effective immediately, because of her decision not to be vaccinated. The Plaintiff testified that as of that date, she believed that her employment had been terminated by the Defendant.

In her Civil Claim she alleged that her employment was “constructively terminated” at that time. [ 24 ] The Plaintiff was given the option in the aforementioned letter to continue receiving her company benefits by continuing to pay the employee portion of the monthly premium. She did not do so.

Furthermore, “soon after” receiving that letter, the Plaintiff testified that she started applying for alternative employment. [ 25 ] On November 15, 2021, approximately 6 weeks after the Plaintiff’s unpaid leave of absence began, the Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to the Defendant attaching a draft Civil Claim that alleged constructive dismissal from her employment by the Defendant on October 4, 2021.

The Plaintiff testified that she felt her employment had been brought to “an end”. [ 26 ] By letter dated January 21, 2022, after the Plaintiff’s Civil Claim had been filed, the Defendant offered the Plaintiff employment as a server on the same terms as her previous employment as a server provided that she had evidence for the Defendant by January 28, 2022, that she was fully vaccinated or that she agreed to provide negative rapid tests on an ongoing basis and within 72 hours

of scheduled shift start times. [ 27 ] The Defendant’s General Manager testified the January 21, 2022, letter was not a recall from her unpaid leave of absence because she had resigned on November 15, 2021. Rather, he said it was a letter offering the Plaintiff new or “re-employment”. He testified he believed it was unlikely she would accept that offer but that if she did, the Defendant had a server position for her on the same terms as those of her previous employment. [ 28 ] The Plaintiff never responded to the Defendant regarding the re-employment offer because, in fact, she did not receive it.

The letter was sent by email to an incorrect address for the Plaintiff’s counsel. The Plaintiff only learned of the letter in the Dispute Note filed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff did not contact the Defendant when she learned of the re-employment offer as she assumed that it had expired because the start dates in the letter were January 31 or February 1, 2022. Those dates had passed. [ 29 ] The Plaintiff testified she had not found comparable employment when the Civil Claim was filed on December 17, 2021, nor as of the date of trial.

She had looked for alternative employment in retail sales and as a receptionist. She did not want another server job in the restaurant industry, she testified. She was unsuccessful, she stated, because most potential employers to whom she had applied required proof of vaccination and she has never been vaccinated. She applied for jobs in writing and online. There was some evidence in this regard in the form of a brief written list prepared by the Plaintiff. As examples, her list referred to “grocery clerk Co-op”, as well as websites such as “Zip Recruiter”.

The list was not specific, lengthy, or detailed. [ 30 ] The Plaintiff testified that she had received a job offer in January 2022 for a receptionist position in an oil & gas company. She did not accept the offer for reasons she did not explain to the Court and she did not testify with respect to the remuneration offered for the position. She provided no details whatsoever on this offer that she had declined. Key Case Summaries [ 31 ] The Court reviewed the many cases submitted by the parties at trial.

In the interest of being brief, however, the following summarizes the three cases most on point and of relevance to the Court’s decision. Potter v New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 2015 SCC 10 [ 32 ] In this case, the court introduced the test for constructive dismissal. There are two branches to the test. The first applies when there has been a single act by the employer that may breach an essential term of the employment contract.

The second is where the employer has taken a series of steps that, considered together, demonstrate that the employer no longer intends to be bound by the terms of the employment contract. The focus was on the first branch of the test. [ 33 ] The first branch of the test has two steps. In the first step, the court must identify an express or implied contract term that has been unilaterally changed. This involves an objective analysis.

Once it has been objectively established that a breach has occurred, the court turns to the second step and asks whether, when the breach occurred, a reasonable person in the same situation as the employee would have felt that the essential terms of the employment contract were substantially changed. [ 34 ] The primary burden is on the employee to establish constructive dismissal. However, where an administrative suspension is at issue, the burden will shift to the employer.

The employer must then show that the suspension is justified. [ 35 ] It is not necessary to articulate a rigid framework for determining whether a particular administrative suspension is wrongful. The approach to be taken and the factors to be considered will depend on the nature and circumstances of the suspension. The overriding question will be whether the suspension was reasonable and justified. That said, certain factors will always be relevant.

These factors include the duration of the suspension, whether the suspension is with pay, and good faith on the employer’s part, including the demonstration of legitimate business reasons. [ 36 ] In Potter , the Executive Director of the Legal Aid Services Commission had been appointed for a seven-year term. During his term, the relationship between the Executive Director and the Commission deteriorated, and negotiations began to buy out the remainder of his term. He became ill before negotiations were finalized.

While the Executive Director was absent from work on medical leave, he was suspended in an attempt to jump-start negotiations which had reached an impasse. The Executive Director claimed he had been constructively dismissed. [ 37 ] The Supreme Court of Canada reversed the lower court decisions and allowed the constructive dismissal claim. The court held that the suspension was unauthorized and a substantial change to the contract which amounted to constructive dismissal under the first branch of the test.

Parmar v Tribe Management Inc, 2022 BCSC 1675 (MacNaughton, J.) [ 38 ] This case involved the first time the issue of mandatory vaccination policies was determined by a court in Canada rather than a tribunal. It is routinely cited by courts and tribunals dealing with the matter, including in Alberta. The facts are very similar to those before the Court in the case at bar. [ 39 ] The plaintiff worked for the defendant from 2003-2021 as a Controller and was generally responsible for accounts payable and receivables.

On October 5, 2021, the defendant introduced a Mandatory Vaccination Policy (MVC), and its employees were to be vaccinated by November 24, 2021. The plaintiff did not get vaccinated, stating concerns with the efficacy and potential risks of the vaccine. [ 40 ] On October 12, 2021, the plaintiff told the defendant she did not intend to get vaccinated. She proposed alternatives such as working from home or undergoing rapid testing each day which were rejected. On November 25, 2021, the plaintiff was placed on unpaid leave for 3 months which could be extended.

After discussions between the parties and their counsel, the plaintiff advised the

defendant on January 26, 2022, that she was resigning and considered herself to have been constructively dismissed by the defendant. Her civil claim was filed that day. The plaintiff obtained alternative employment three months later. [ 41 ] MacNaughton J. held that an unpaid leave of absence breached the employment contract unless there was an express or implied term of the contract permitting it.

The assessment of the reasonableness of the defendant’s MVP was considered based on the state of knowledge about COVID at the time it was implemented and in light of the defendant’s obligation to protect the health and safety of its employees, clients, and the general public. [ 42 ] MacNaughton J. further held that the defendant’s policy was a reasonable and lawful response to the uncertainty created by the COVID pandemic based on the information that was then available to it.

It struck an appropriate balance between the defendant’s business interests, the rights of its employees to a safe work environment, its clients’ interests, and the interests of the residents in the properties it serviced. It also satisfied its responsibility as a corporate citizen.

At the same time, it ensured that individuals like the plaintiff could maintain a principled stance against vaccination without employment termination using a leave of absence. [ 43 ] The plaintiff’s refusal to comply with the MVP was held to be a repudiation of the contract of employment and her constructive dismissal claim was dismissed. Benke v Loblaw Companies Limited, 2022 ABQB 461 (Feasby, J.) [ 44 ] The plaintiff was employed full-time by the defendant starting in 2003.

In 2020, his responsibilities included overseeing the produce and floral departments of Loblaw’s 61 Superstores in Alberta and British Columbia. His role was partly remote work and partly in-store work. [ 45 ] The defendant adopted an MVP in August 2020 which applied to employees and customers. Despite having health issues starting in 2019, the plaintiff adduced no evidence of a medical condition or disability that prevented him from wearing a mask. The plaintiff was placed on unpaid leave in December 2020 for failing to comply with the MVP.

The plaintiff claimed that he was constructively dismissed because the defendant failed to accommodate his medical condition. [ 46 ] Feasby J. held that complainants asserting discrimination based on a disability must establish on a prima facie basis that they have a disability. The plaintiff was unable to do so and thus, the defendant had no duty to accommodate. [ 47 ] In considering constructive dismissal, Feasby J. applied the Potter test. It held that the defendant’s imposition of the MVP was a substantial change but did not breach the employment agreement.

It was reasonable for the defendant to not pay the plaintiff while he was not working. Feasby J. concluded that there was no constructive dismissal but rather, the plaintiff had resigned. Government of Alberta Publication and Legislation COVID-19 information: requirements for the Restrictions Exemption Program (Sep 24, 2021) The Restrictions Exemption Program (REP) permits businesses/entities/organizers, referred to as operators in this document, to operate without public health restrictions in CMOH Order 42-2021.

The REP is an optional program, and operators who choose not to participate may continue to operate but must fully implement all of the public health restrictions outlined in CMOH Order 42-2021. The REP is not intended or required for employees or contractors attending workplaces. Operators are strongly encouraged to promote COVID-19 vaccination to staff, volunteers, attendees and other eligible persons as part of their public health strategy, and any consideration of vaccine requirements for staff is an employer decision.

Screening Process Operators must screen all attendees for one of the following at the point of entry: o Proof of vaccination ; or o Proof of a negative privately paid test result from a sample that is taken within the prior 72 hours (Results from Alberta Health Services are not eligible for consideration for this program), or o An original (non-copied) medical exemption letter Workers, contractors, staff etc.

Employees, contractors, repair workers, delivery workers, volunteers, inspectors or others who are entering the business/entity/event for work purposes and not as patrons are not required to be screened Occupational Health and Safety Act , SA 2020, c 0-2.2 (OHSA) Obligations of employers 3(1) Every employer shall ensure, as far as it is reasonably practicable for the employer to do so, (

a) the health, safety and welfare of (

i) workers engaged in the work of that employer,

(ii) those workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work is being carried out, and (iii) other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site whose health and safety may be materially affected by identifiable and controllable hazards originating from the work site … B rief

Summary of the Plaintiff’s Position at Trial [ 48 ] The Plaintiff submitted that the Defendant was not subject to a government or health authority mandate with respect to vaccinations. The Plaintiff was placed on an unpaid leave of absence on October 4, 2021, effective that same day, because she did not confirm that she had received the COVID-19 vaccine. [ 49 ] The Plaintiff further submitted the Defendant placed her on an unpaid leave of absence without contractual authority to do so and made significant unilateral changes to the terms of her employment.

Accordingly, the Defendant had altered the employment relationship in a manner that was substantial and fundamental, resulting in the Plaintiff’s constructive dismissal. [ 50 ] Finally, the Plaintiff submitted that she was entitled to pay in lieu of reasonable notice of 13 months from the Defendant for the constructive dismissal starting October 4, 2021. Brief

Summary of the Defendant’s Position at Trial [ 51 ] The Defendant submitted that it was an express or implied term of the Contract that the Plaintiff would comply with the policies and workplace rules and regulations of the Defendant, that included the Policy, as well as statutory obligations under the OHSA. [ 52 ] The Defendant further submitted that the Plaintiff never requested any accommodation under the Policy and never provided confirmation of vaccination or a medical exemption. [ 53 ] The Defendant further submitted that the Plaintiff resigned or abandoned her employment and was not entitled to reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice as she had not been constructively dismissed. [ 54 ] Finally, the Defendant submitted, in the alternative, that the Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages by not conducting a proper job search for similar server positions in the restaurant industry and by not accepting the receptionist position with the oil & gas company that was offered to her in January 2022.

Decision Constructive Dismissal and Resignation [ 55 ] On the issue of constructive dismissal, this Court must follow the test set out in Potter and determine under the first branch of the test (1) whether the Defendant imposed a unilateral change that breached the Contract, and (2) if a reasonable person in the Plaintiff’s position would have felt that the breach substantially altered an essential term of the Contract. [ 56 ] Since an administrative suspension is at issue here, the key question is whether the Defendant met its burden to show that the suspension was reasonable and justified. [ 57 ] There are several factors to consider when determining whether an unpaid leave of absence was reasonable and justified, including the duration of the suspension, whether the suspension was with pay, and whether there was good faith on the employer’s part, including the demonstration of legitimate business reasons. [ 58 ] As for duration, the unpaid leave of absence was to continue until either the Plaintiff met the vaccination requirements or the public health guidelines changed.

Thus, though there was no end date set, the circumstances that would end the suspension were clear to the Plaintiff. In the context created by the Pandemic at the time, the Court finds the duration of the Policy to be reasonable. [ 59 ] Next, while the suspension was without pay, the Plaintiff was entitled to continue receiving her benefits if she so wished. The Court also notes that in Benke , Feasby J. held that it was reasonable for the leave of absence to be unpaid. The Plaintiff made a voluntary choice not to comply with the Policy.

As in Benke , the Court finds that it was reasonable for the leave of absence to be unpaid. [ 60 ] Finally, the Court must consider whether the unpaid leave was imposed in good faith for legitimate business reasons. [ 61 ] The Defendant was not subject to an explicit government or health authority mandate with respect to vaccinations. The Restrictions Exemption Program that required restaurants to screen for proof of vaccination did not apply to employees.

However, as in Parmar , the statutory obligations under the OHSA required the Defendant to take reasonable steps to protect the health and safety of its employees and the public. [ 62 ] In Parmar , the Court held that the defendant’s policy was a reasonable and lawful response to the uncertainty created by the COVID pandemic based on the information that was then available to it. It struck an appropriate balance between the defendant’s business interests, the rights of its employees to a safe work environment, and the interests of its clients.

At the same time, it ensured that individuals like the plaintiff could maintain a principled stance against vaccination without losing their employment by, instead, being

put on a leave of absence. [63] Each of those considerations are applicable to the circumstances of this case. The Defendant’s business was dependent onproviding face-to-face services. The Defendant imposed the Policy to ensure it could continue operating its business during thePandemic. The Policy applied uniformly to guests and employees so that everyone would feel as safe as possible while at theDefendant’s premises.

To apply the Policy in any other manner would have risked an outbreak and a temporary closing of the business.At the same time, the unpaid leave of absence was not intended to be a disciplinary measure for those that did not comply with thePolicy.

The Plaintiff would have been welcomed back to work when she got vaccinated or the public health guidelines changed. [64] As such, a review of the relevant factors leads to the Court’s conclusion that the Policy, including the consequence of anunpaid leave of absence, was reasonable and justified in the circumstances. [65] The Court’s conclusion that the Policy was reasonable and justified means that the unilateral act by the Defendant was not abeach of the Contract.

The Plaintiff’s claim for constructive dismissal therefore fails under the first part of the first branch of the Pottertest. [66] For completeness, this Court echoes the findings made in Benke and Parmar that, had the Plaintiff’s claim proceeded to thesecond part of the test, if would have failed there as well.

A reasonable employee in the Plaintiff’s shoes would not have felt that anunpaid leave as a consequence of failing to comply with the Policy was a substantial change to the Contract. [67] Briefly, the Plaintiff also suggested that the Policy could amount to constructive dismissal under the second branch of thePotter test. The Court rejects this suggestion. The Defendant’s evidence was that the Plaintiff would be welcomed back if she compliedwith the Policy or if the public health guidelines changed.

Placing the Plaintiff on an unpaid leave of absence, as opposed to terminatingthe Plaintiff’s employment, indicated that the Defendant still intended to be bound by the Contract. The Plaintiff’s claim for constructivedismissal also fails under the second branch of the test. [68] In sum, imposing the Policy, including an unpaid leave of absence as a consequence of the Plaintiff choosing not to bevaccinated, did not amount to constructive dismissal nor a breach of the Contract on the part of the Defendant.

The evidence as a wholehas established the Defendant acted reasonably, lawfully and with justification in enacting the Policy that allowed the Plaintiff to make achoice as to whether she would be vaccinated. [69] With respect to resignation, the Court having concluded the Plaintiff was not constructively dismissed by the Defendant, it isfurther concluded that she resigned on November 15, 2021. [70] In Potter, it was stated that an allegation by an employee that she has been constructively dismissed is not necessarily adeemed resignation by the employee. [71] Resignation has two components: a subjective intention by the plaintiff to quit and conduct that would lead a reasonableposition in the employer’s position to believe that the employee had carried out that intention. [72] As for the first component, the Plaintiff testified that she felt her employment had come to an end when her counsel sent theunfiled Civil Claim on November 15, 2021.

She further testified that she began looking for other work shortly after she was placed onunpaid leave. The Plaintiff did not intend on returning to her employment with the Defendant, it is concluded. [73] As for the second component, the Defendant’s evidence was that it had not heard from the Plaintiff inquiring about a return towork. The only communication received was the unfiled Civil Claim alleging, among other things, constructive dismissal anddiscrimination.

A reasonable employer in the Defendant’s position would have inferred, in all of the circumstances, that the letter fromthe Plaintiff’s lawyer enclosing the draft Civil Claim constituted a resignation by the employee. [74] In Benke, an analogous situation arose in which there was no explicit communication from either party clarifying whether theemployee had resigned. The employee was still in the employer’s records as being on unpaid leave at the time of trial. Nonetheless, thecourt found that explicit communication was not required for resignation.

The employee in that case did not seek reinstatement and hadobtained employment with a different employer. Feasby J. stated that,“there can be no doubt that he [the plaintiff] has resigned even if hedid not explicitly communicate that to Loblaw”. [75] The Court concludes that the Plaintiff resigned from her employment with the Defendant on November 15, 2021, while onunpaid leave, when the draft Civil Claim was sent to the Defendant.

That conduct was inconsistent with the continuation of anemployment relationship between the parties. [76] Accordingly, the Plaintiff, having resigned and not having been constructively dismissed, is not entitled to pay in lieu ofnotice of dismissal from the Defendant.

Notice Period and Mitigation [77] Considering the Court’s decision with respect to the issues of constructive dismissal and resignation, the issues of reasonablenotice period and mitigation need not be decided. [78] Nonetheless, and very briefly stated, applying the “Bardal factors” to the case at bar (Bardal v Globe & Mail Ltd (ONSC)), the Court would have concluded if liability had been decided in the Plaintiff’s favour, that the Plaintiff was entitled to 10months of pay in lieu of reasonable notice and then reduced that to 3.5 months for failing to mitigate her damages by not accepting thereceptionist position that was offered in January 2022.

Conclusion

[ 79 ] The law, applied to the facts of this case, supports the conclusion that the Policy was a reasonable, justified and lawful response by the Defendant to the extraordinary circumstances of the Pandemic in 2021.

Placing the Plaintiff on unpaid leave balanced the Defendant’s business interests, statutory and contractual obligations, the rights of its employees to a safe work environment, and the safety concerns of its customers, while ensuring that individuals like the Plaintiff could refuse to get vaccinated without termination of employment and instead, choose an unpaid leave of absence. [ 80 ] The Court dismisses the Plaintiff’s Civil Claim.

Costs [ 81 ] The Court is inclined to award costs to the Defendant pursuant to the Tariff of Recoverable Costs , Practice Note 3, for the filing of pleadings and document disclosure, pre-trial conference, trial preparation, and the one-day trial, plus the filing fee and other reasonable disbursements. [ 82 ] If the parties cannot reach an agreement on costs, they may make brief (three pages or less) written submissions to the Court within thirty days of these Reasons for Decision and costs will be decided by the Court. Heard on the 7 th day of November 2023.

Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 17 th day of November 2023. L.L. Burt A Justice of the Alberta Court of Justice Appearances: Counsel, L. Cerda for the Plaintiff Counsel, F. Molnar KC for the Defendant