BC Paramedics United — Legal Fund
The PHO Order said our colleagues could not work. It did not itself require BCEHS to fire them for cause.
In 2021, BC paramedics and other ambulance-service workers were told they could no longer work unless they complied with the Provincial Health Officer's COVID-19 vaccination Order.
Some had served British Columbians for decades, worked through the pandemic, responded to emergencies, and built careers caring for the sick and injured.
When the Order took effect, BCEHS and PHSA initially placed affected employees on unpaid leave. PHSA later terminated them for cause.
Our claims do not allege that the PHO was irrelevant. Both allege that the PHO unlawfully caused or induced BCEHS to breach the collective agreement through measures including disclosure requirements, unpaid leave, and termination.
The PHO Order imposed the restriction on working. BCEHS and PHSA implemented the permanent, for-cause employment consequence. Our claims allege that the PHO unlawfully induced the resulting breaches of our collective agreement.
What Every BCEHS Member Should Know
The operative language of the October 14, 2021 Order said that an employer must not permit a non-compliant unvaccinated staff member “to work.”
The Order did not itself instruct BCEHS or PHSA to:
- permanently terminate the employment relationship;
- characterise the dismissal as for cause;
- deny severance;
- make the termination irreversible if the employee later complied; or
- require an experienced employee to return only as a new hire.
Those additional employment consequences were implemented by BCEHS and PHSA. They were not directions stated in the PHO Order.
PHSA's own termination FAQ expressly told affected employees:
“You are being terminated for cause.”
It also said no severance would be provided. Vaccination after termination would not rescind the dismissal, and a former employee seeking to return could apply only as a new hire.
Whatever label one prefers, those consequences were severe and punitive in effect. Employees did not merely lose the ability to work while the Order remained in force; they lost the existing employment relationship itself.
Two Related Decisions
It is easy to compress everything into the phrase “the vaccine mandate.” Two related but distinct decisions should not be blurred together.
The first was a public-health decision: non-compliant employees could not work.
The second was an employment-relations decision: how would BCEHS and PHSA treat the employment relationship while implementing the Order?
Affected employees were first placed on unpaid leave and later terminated. The sequence shows that exclusion from work and termination were distinct employment steps.
The question is not whether BCEHS had to obey the PHO. Of course it did.
The questions are why implementation took the form of permanent, for-cause dismissal without severance, when the Order itself did not prescribe that result, and whether the PHO unlawfully caused or induced the resulting breaches of the collective agreement.
Our legal actions seek answers through evidence and law.
What the Union Knew — and What Happened Next
APBC/CUPE Local 873 did not issue the PHO Order or sign the termination letters. The union was nevertheless aware, before the terminations occurred, that the employer intended to move from unpaid leave to termination.
APBC told a member that employees would first be placed on unpaid leave and, if they remained non-compliant, the employer would move to termination. APBC described termination as “the recommendation of the employer bargaining agent” and said the approach was being taken across the health sector.
APBC also said the employer's position had been communicated repeatedly during all-health meetings involving health unions, the Ministry and the employer bargaining agent.
The union later advanced a policy grievance toward arbitration. APBC subsequently reported that a consent order was signed rather than the issue being decided through a contested arbitral award.
This history does not mean APBC personally fired anyone or prove that union representatives believed affected members deserved punishment. It does mean termination was an employment-relations consequence, not language stated in the PHO Order.
Whatever the reasons for the resolution, affected members did not receive a contested arbitral ruling on whether the employer had just cause to impose these terminations.
Members are entitled to consider whether that was an acceptable outcome.
Why This Matters Even If You Supported Vaccination
You do not have to oppose COVID vaccination to support this legal challenge. You do not even have to believe the PHO was wrong to prevent unvaccinated health-care workers from working.
The narrower principle is enough:
Being legally unable to work under a public-health restriction does not, by itself, answer whether permanent dismissal for cause was justified or whether the PHO unlawfully induced a breach of collectively bargained employment rights.
There is an enormous difference between:
“You cannot work while this Order applies,”
and:
“Your existing employment is over, you are terminated for cause, you receive no severance, and if circumstances later change you may apply again as a new employee.”
This distinction should matter to every unionised employee.
The issue is bigger than anyone's opinion about one vaccine. It concerns government authority, employer power, collective bargaining and union representation.
Two Legal Actions — 47 Named Plaintiffs
BC Paramedics United supports two related actions filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
Baskin et al., Victoria Registry No. 23-0799, filed February 24, 2023, names 38 plaintiffs.
Peric et al., Court File No. VIC-S-S-233278, filed October 13, 2023, names nine plaintiffs.
Together, the actions involve 47 named BCEHS workers, including paramedics, dispatchers, drivers, unit chiefs and other ambulance-service employees. Some had served for nearly four decades.
Both plead that BCEHS breached the plaintiffs' collectively negotiated employment rights through compelled disclosure, unpaid leave and termination, and that the PHO unlawfully caused or induced those breaches.
The actions overlap but are not identical. Baskin includes claims for tortious interference and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Peric includes claims for misfeasance in public office and infringement of freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Province and the Provincial Health Officer are the defendants. These are allegations that have not yet been adjudicated, and the defendants are entitled to dispute them.
We are not asking donors to prejudge the cases. We are asking for the means to have serious legal questions determined through evidence and law.
Why We Need Your Help
Government and large public institutions have substantial resources to defend litigation. Individual paramedics do not.
Legal preparation, evidence, court proceedings and litigation disbursements cost money. Without support, ordinary workers can have serious legal questions and still never obtain a meaningful determination.
Net campaign proceeds are held in Sheikh Law's trust account for legal fees and litigation disbursements connected with the legal challenge.
Our counsel is Umar A. Sheikh.
Please Help Us Keep This Question Alive
If you supported the vaccination program, we are not asking you to change your mind. If you opposed it, we are not asking you to fund a political campaign.
We are asking you to support something narrower and more enduring:
Public institutions should be accountable for the consequences they implement, and serious allegations of unlawful inducement should be examined in court.
Please donate what you reasonably can. If you cannot donate, please share this page—especially with health-care workers and other union members.
Read the documents and ask the questions for yourself:
Did the PHO Order require BCEHS to prevent non-compliant employees from working? Yes.
Did the Order itself require BCEHS and PHSA to terminate them for cause, deny severance, refuse to restore their employment if circumstances changed, and require them to return as new hires? No.
Do our legal claims absolve the PHO of responsibility for what followed? No. Both allege that the PHO unlawfully caused or induced the resulting breaches of the collective agreement.
The distinction is not between PHO responsibility and employer responsibility. It is between what the Order expressly required and the additional employment consequences implemented under it.
APBC knew that termination was “the recommendation of the employer bargaining agent.” Its subsequent policy grievance ended without a contested arbitral ruling on whether those cause-based terminations were justified.
The Order did not itself require BCEHS to fire our colleagues for cause. BCEHS and PHSA implemented that consequence. Our claims allege that the PHO unlawfully induced the resulting breaches.
Help us pursue an answer.
