ARTICLE
27 September 2021

Ontario Human Rights Commission Provides Guidance For Businesses Navigating COVID-19 Vaccination Policies

MT
Miller Thomson LLP

Contributor

Miller Thomson LLP (“Miller Thomson”) is a national business law firm with approximately 525 lawyers working from 10 offices across Canada. The firm offers a complete range of business law and advocacy services. Miller Thomson works regularly with in-house legal departments and external counsel worldwide to facilitate cross-border and multinational transactions and business needs. Miller Thomson offices are located in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon, London, Waterloo Region, Toronto, Vaughan and Montréal.
On September 22, 2021, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the "OHRC") released a policy statement on COVID-19 vaccine mandates and proof of vaccine certificates.
Canada Government, Public Sector
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

On September 22, 2021, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the "OHRC") released a policy statement on COVID-19 vaccine mandates and proof of vaccine certificates. The OHRC's statement provides welcome guidance for businesses looking to implement proof of vaccination requirements for workers and customers.

Vaccine Requirements are "Generally Permissible"

In its statement, the OHRC takes the view that proof of vaccination requirements are "generally permissible" under the Human Rights Code  (the "Code") in order to protect people at work or when receiving services, as long as people who are unable to be vaccinated for Code-related reasons are reasonably accommodated. The OHRC does acknowledge that such policies may only be justifiable during a pandemic and that they should only be used "for the shortest possible length of time."

The statement also clarifies the type of accommodation obligations an employer may have pursuant to a vaccination policy. For example, if an organization requires employees who are medically unable to get vaccinated to undergo regular rapid antigen testing, it is the organization, not the individual, who should cover the cost of such testing as part of the employer's duty to accommodate.

Creed and Personal Preference

Many employers have inquired as to whether an individual who chooses not to be vaccinated on the basis of personal preference is entitled to accommodation under the Code on the basis of creed. Although the Code prohibits discrimination based on creed, the OHRC takes the position that a person who chooses not to be vaccinated on the basis of personal preference does not have the right to accommodation under the Code because personal preferences or singular beliefs do not amount to a creed for the purposes of the Code.

Conclusion

The policy statement also addresses related issues which arise from vaccination mandates, including the need to ensure appropriate privacy protections, the existence of barriers to accessing vaccination and testing, and considerations regarding the enforcement of vaccination policies.

While the OHRC's policy statements are not binding on tribunals or courts, decision-makers will often give them significant weight.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More