Refusing COVID-19 Vaccination – Not Just Cause for Dismissal

The Court criticized WestJet for failing to reasonably consider the full scope of religious beliefs in determining accommodation and for not seeking further clarification or supporting information before denying a request to accommodate.

In a recent decision with significant implications for federally regulated employers, the Alberta Court of Justice ruled in Yee v. WestJet, 2025 ABCJ 87, that WestJet was not justified in dismissing an employee for cause, who refused to comply with its COVID-19 vaccination policy on religious grounds, particularly as that employee worked remotely.

This decision serves as a reminder that even during public health emergencies, employers must carefully assess accommodation requests, the reasonableness of their policy, and cannot assume non-compliance with a policy automatically amounts to just cause for dismissal.

Case Background

The plaintiff, Mrs. Duong Yee, was a long-serving employee of WestJet, working in accounting roles over 11 years. In 2021, WestJet implemented a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy following federal government direction.

Mrs. Yee had been performing her job duties effectively from home.

Mrs. Yee submitted a formal request for religious accommodation, stating that the vaccination conflicted with her Christian faith and supported her request with a letter from her pastor.

WestJet denied the exemption, arguing her reasons were philosophical rather than religious. She was placed on unpaid leave and subsequently terminated for cause, despite having worked remotely since May 2021 without any performance concerns.

Key Legal Issues

The Court had to determine:

Whether WestJet had just cause to terminate the employee for non-compliance.
Whether the religious exemption was reasonably considered.
Whether the termination clause in the contract limited her entitlement to severance.
Whether the employee failed to mitigate her damages post-termination.

Court Findings

1. No Just Cause for Dismissal

While the Court found WestJet’s vaccination policy to be reasonable and enforceable, it emphasized that termination must be proportionate to the alleged misconduct. In this case, Mrs. Yee’s non-compliance did not affect her ability to perform her job duties, as she had been successfully working from home.

There was no evidence her refusal endangered colleagues or the public, nor was there any indication that she was insubordinate or unprofessional. As the Court noted, cause must be assessed contextually, and dismissal was not a proportionate response to her circumstances.

2. Improper Handling of Religious Accommodation

Although WestJet accepted that Mrs. Yee held sincere religious beliefs, it dismissed her exemption request largely due to her expression of safety concerns, which the company interpreted as philosophical. The Court criticized this narrow interpretation, finding that WestJet failed to reasonably consider the full scope of her beliefs and did not seek further clarification or supporting information before denying her request.

3. Termination Clause Not Enforceable

WestJet attempted to limit its liability for wrongful dismissal damages by relying on a termination clause which limited Mrs. Yee’s notice to only her Canada Labour Code notice in the event she was terminated in accordance with that provision. However, because Mrs. Yee was not terminated “in accordance with” that clause (i.e., without cause and with notice), the Court ruled it could not be relied on to restrict damages, as the precondition (being Mrs. Yee’s employment being terminated in accordance with the clause) was not triggered.

This echoes principles from cases like Plotnikoff v. Associated Engineering Alberta Ltd. (2023 ABCJ 200), where courts emphasized that termination clauses must be clear and unambiguous to limit common law rights.

4. No Failure to Mitigate

WestJet also argued that the employee failed to mitigate her damages. The Court disagreed, citing Plotnikoff, reiterating that the onus is on the employer to prove that reasonable alternate employment was available and that the employee failed to pursue it. No such evidence was provided by the employer.

The Outcome

The Court awarded the plaintiff an 11-month notice period, totalling $65,587.72 in damages.

This ruling reinforces that employers must:

Rigorously assess accommodation requests, especially those involving protected grounds such as religion.
Avoid using “cause” as a blanket justification for policy non-compliance without weighing context.
Ensure termination clauses in contracts are enforceable under common law.
Be prepared to prove mitigation if asserting a failure to mitigate damages.

Employer Takeaways

For employers navigating COVID-19 policy enforcement or other workplace mandates, including terminating employees for cause for failure to comply with a policy, this case highlights the importance of procedural fairness and proportionally disciplining an employee for a breach of a policy.

Before acting on a breach of policy, especially when human rights protections are engaged, employers should consult with legal counsel to ensure their decision is proportionate and defensible.

Need Help Responding to Accommodation Request or Updating Policies?

If your organization is updating vaccination policies or dealing with accommodation requests, or disciplinary steps, contact Minken Employment Lawyers (Est. 1990) today at 905-477-7011 or contact@minken.com for guidance on how to remain compliant and minimize legal risk.

Sign up for our Newsletter to learn about new Employment Law legislation and Court decisions impacting your workplace.

Please note that this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice nor should it be relied on as legal advice or opinion.