Ontario Health-Care Workers Launch $170M Lawsuit Over Vaccine Mandates

A courthouse of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto on Jan. 29, 2020. The Canadian Press/Colin Perkel

Ontario health-care workers have launched a $170 million class-action lawsuit against the provincial government and its chief medical officer of health, alleging negligence and infringement of privacy rights due to the COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Spearheaded by the United Health Care Workers of Ontario (UHCWO), the civil action challenges the legality of Directive 6, a 2021 public health order issued by Ontario’s Medical Officer of Health Dr. Kieran Moore. The directive, which came into effect Sept. 7, 2021, required all hospitals to establish, implement, and ensure compliance with a COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The class-action lawsuit aims to represent any unionized health-care workers across the province who were impacted by the mandate, according to the UHCWO.

The group argues medical ethics and personal freedoms were eroded by the COVID-19 mandates.

“We were witness to vast numbers of dedicated healthcare workers having their livelihoods and careers abruptly taken away, simply for making a personal medical choice,” UHCWO said in a statement. “Other health-care workers were coerced into a medical treatment with the threat of being terminated, which stripped away the element of informed consent. Others were denied both medial and religious exemptions to this medical treatment.”

The proceedings will take place in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice where the first step is certification, the UHCWO said. If that occurs, the class action will be open to all unionized Ontario health-care workers who were subjected to Directive 6.

“The broadness of this class has the potential to include thousands or tens of thousands of health care workers across Ontario,” the group said. “It includes unionized healthcare workers that were fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated or unvaccinated. It includes unionized workers that remained employed, were placed on leave, terminated, resigned, or took early retirement due to the issuance of Directive 6.”

The group has retained Sheikh Law to represent the plaintiff and potential class action members. Headquartered in Victoria, B.C., it also has offices in Ontario. The law firm already represents several different employment sectors sharing similar concerns, UHCWO said.

If the endeavour is successful, it has the potential to create a precedent for resolving workplace policy complaints implemented during the pandemic, the group said.

UHCWO has also filed a direct action civil claim against the Victorian Order of Nurses and Moore for a non-union member.

The Epoch Times contacted the Ontario health ministry and the Office of the Chief Medical Officer of Health for comment but did not receive a response prior to publication.

Class Action

The primary plaintiff in the lawsuit, nurse Lisa Wolfs, initiated the class action on behalf of all unionized health-care workers in the province. The lawsuit has yet to be certified—a key step in Ontario because the named plaintiffs can be held financially responsible for court costs if uncertified.

The UHCWO said it plans to secure sufficient funding before initiating the certification process to protect Wolfs, the named plaintiff.

Wolfs was previously employed as a clinical nurse educator at London Health Sciences Centre, according to the court documents. She is contending that the vaccine directive resulted in unauthorized modifications to her employment contract, compelled her to reveal personal medical information, and inflicted considerable economic and emotional distress.

Directive 6 ordered hospitals, community care service providers, and ambulance services to establish a compulsory COVID-19 vaccination policy for employees, staff, contractors, students, and volunteers. The directive stipulated that all health-care workers were required to provide proof of vaccination, obtain a medical exemption, or participate in an educational program to ensure their continued employment, the documents say.

The lawsuit says these policies resulted in Wolfs’s dismissal after nearly 16 years of service, even though she had an exemplary employment record. Wolfs claims her termination violated her contract, which did not stipulate vaccination as an employment condition.

The suit accuses both the province and Moore of negligence, contending the vaccination policies were enacted without the necessary proof to support their efficacy in preventing the spread of COVID-19.

The suit also accuses Moore of misfeasance, saying he failed to adequately perform his duty.

“Known and unknown potential risk of adverse events associated with the COVID-19 vaccination were either recklessly or willfully ignored,” the lawsuit says. “There was no long-term safety data available to the Chief Medical Officer of Health when enacting and enforcing the Order on mandatory vaccinations and as such the Order created a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm to the Plaintiff and Class Members.”

The lawsuit also claims “tortious inducement to breach” workers’ contracts, saying the vaccine mandate contradicted the employment agreements between the health-care workers and their respective employers.

“As their Employers have unlawfully purported to suspend or terminate the Plaintiff and Class Members’ contractual agreements and have refused to pay the sums owing to the Plaintiff and Class Members, the Employers are in breach of their contractual employment agreements,” the lawsuit says.

The mandate additionally violated the privacy rights of employees by asking them to disclose their vaccination status or reason for medical exemption, the document says.

The lawsuit is seeking a declaration that the defendants were “negligent in the distribution, marketing, public recommendation and mandate of the COVID-19 vaccine,” and a total of $170 million in damages. The damages are broken down into four parts: $50 million for pain and suffering, $50 million for misfeasance in public office, $20 million for tortious inducement to breach contract, and $50 million in punitive damages. It also seeks compensation for lost income and legal costs.