A Federal Court judge has dismissed an appeal by a "deeply religious" British Columbia health executive who said he was wrongfully denied employment insurance after being fired three years ago for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
Darold Sturgeon was fired as executive director of medical affairs for Interior Health in November 2021 after refusing to get the vaccine based on his Christian beliefs.
He applied for employment insurance benefits but was denied due to being fired for "misconduct," with appeals to two levels of the Social Security Tribunal also failing, leading him to seek a judicial review in Federal Court in August 2023.
The ruling says Sturgeon believed the tribunal should have examined his assertion under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the term "misconduct" did not apply to his case "because he was exercising his freedom of religion."
Justice William Pentney says "recent, abundant and unanimous case law" defined a specific and narrow role for the tribunal's appeal divisions, focusing on an employee's conduct, and not justification for and employer’s policies or compliance with the Charter.
The ruling says Sturgeon's appeal fell "outside the mandate" of the tribunal and he could have challenged Interior Health's mandatory vaccine police "through other avenues."
It said these included advancing a Charter claim, lodging a wrongful dismissal suit or labour grievance, or complaining to the British Columbia Human Rights Commission. The office of the British Columbia Human Rights Commissioner separately clarified that such a complaint would have to be lodged with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
"The point is, there were other avenues available to pursue the Charter question; this decision does not cut off the only avenue of relief," the court's ruling says.
It added of Sturgeon, who represented himself, that "no one has doubted that he acted based on his understanding of his religious obligations," and that he had "ably advanced his arguments."
"However, despite his sincere and thoughtful arguments, the binding jurisprudence requires that I find against him," the ruling says.
