Arbitrator erred in demanding scientific certainty from employer during pandemic
Employers don't need to get the science right when implementing workplace health policies during a pandemic — they just need to act reasonably based on available public health guidance.
That's the key message from the BC Court of Appeal's Jan. 9, 2026 decision to overturn a labour arbitrator who found Purolator's COVID-19 vaccination mandate unreasonable after June 2022.
In reasons written by Justice Harris, the court ruled the arbitrator wrongly held Purolator to a standard of scientific correctness rather than asking whether the employer acted reasonably given conflicting expert opinions and evolving public health advice.
Purolator implemented its COVID-19 Safer Workplace Policy in September 2021, requiring all employees to attest to being fully vaccinated by Jan. 10, 2022. The policy remained in place until May 2023 but didn't require booster shots after the initial two doses.
The arbitrator found the policy reasonable when first implemented but concluded it became unreasonable by late June 2022. His reasoning: scientific studies showed two-dose vaccination after 25 weeks provided only 9% average effectiveness against Omicron infection, which he characterized as “statistically insignificant” and “effectively useless.”
The Court of Appeal disagreed with this approach. Justice Harris wrote: "In that context, the relevant question is what steps are...
Two Ohio-based asphalt companies accused of submitting previous asphalt tests to the Ohio Dept. of Transportation for roadwork in the state will pay a combined $30 million to resolve the allegatio...