More than 400 healthcare workers filed civil suit against province, government officials, and healthcare employers
A coalition of more than 400 current and former Ontario healthcare workers who lost work after declining COVID-19 vaccination has lost its bid to revive a sweeping civil suit against the province, four government officials, and 54 healthcare employers.
In a decision released May 6, 2026, chief justice Michael Tulloch of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal in Dorceus v. Ontario, upholding a lower court ruling that struck the claim as an abuse of process disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
The case involved Directive 6, issued by Ontario's chief medical officer of health on Aug. 17, 2021, which required certain healthcare organizations to put vaccination policies in place. The 473 plaintiffs alleged Charter breaches, conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, intimidation, and intentional infliction of mental anguish, among other claims, after being suspended or terminated.
Directive 6 on vaccination
Directive 6 required certain healthcare organizations to establish and ensure employee and staff compliance with a vaccination policy. Workers had to provide proof of vaccination, written proof of a medical reason paired with regular COVID-19 testing, or completion of an educational session about the benefits of vaccination together with regular testing.
The court emphasized that the directive stopped short of dictating employment outcomes: "The directive did not mandate dismissal or discipline; those decisions remained within the discretion of individual employers."
Directive 6 was revoked on March 14, 2022. Of the 473 plaintiffs, most were unionized, and eight held hospital privileges governed by the Public Hospitals Act.
Workplace consequences
The court ruled the Charter did not apply to 47 of the healthcare respondents because they are private entities rather than public bodies. It also found that workplace consequences flowing from vaccine policies did not engage section 7 rights, noting, "The heart of their complaint is that they faced employment consequences for choosing not to vaccinate or test. Those consequences do not engage s. 7 because it does not protect the right to pursue a particular occupation".
The equality claim also failed, with the court holding that vaccination status is neither an enumerated nor an analogous ground under section 15.
Allegations that the pandemic was fabricated, that vaccines and PCR testing constituted crimes against humanity, and that lockdown measures amounted to "martial law" were struck as unsupported by material facts.
Unionized workers pointed to arbitration
The court confirmed unionized plaintiffs must take their disputes to labour arbitrators, not civil court, because the essential character of the dispute fell under their collective agreements. The eight hospital staff with privileges were directed to the Public Hospitals Act process before any court action.
Non-unionized employees without privileges were granted leave to amend and bring focused individual claims against their employers.
"They cannot evade the dispute's essential character through legal labels such as Charter breaches or intentional torts. Those claims must be arbitrated where, as here, the essential character of the dispute nonetheless arises from the collective agreement".
