Gregory Hill – Pilot
The recent Federal Court of Canada decision in Hill v. His Majesty the King highlights the ongoing legal battles surrounding mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies. While the specifics are complex, the case boils down to a fundamental question: when does a government’s authority to protect public health outweigh individual rights and employment?
Three former aviation employees are leading a class-action lawsuit against the Canadian government, arguing that mandatory vaccination policies imposed by the government and subsequently adopted by airlines unjustly cost them their jobs. They contend that these policies were implemented without sufficient justification, weren’t truly necessary to prevent COVID-19 transmission, and that the government’s actions constituted misconduct. The government, on the other hand, maintains that the policies were lawful, implemented to safeguard public health, and that those who lost their jobs as a result should not be compensated.
The court’s decision was not a full-blown victory for either side. While the judge dismissed several parts of the lawsuit, significant aspects remain. The core issue of whether the government acted lawfully and with proper purpose in mandating vaccines for this sector will now be fully litigated. This will involve a closer examination of the evidence on whether the vaccination policy was truly necessary, proportionate, and implemented fairly.
This case raises vital questions about the balance between collective well-being and individual liberties during a public health crisis. The debate is not simply about vaccines, but about the scope of governmental power, the rights of employees, and the accountability of authorities during emergencies.
It is important to remember this decision is only one step in the process. Further proceedings will determine the merits of the plaintiffs’ remaining claims. It is a case that will shape discussions on the future balance of individual rights and public health measures during similar situations. Ultimately, this legal battle is a testament to the enduring importance of judicial review and the need for responsible and transparent decision-making by governments during times of crisis. The outcome will not only impact the plaintiffs and other aviation workers who lost their jobs, but may also affect how other jurisdictions handle similar situations in the future.
Legal Synopsis of the Decision
his is a Federal Court of Canada decision (2025 FC 242) regarding a motion to strike an amended statement of claim in a proposed class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs, Gregory Hill, Brent Warren, and Tanya Lewis, are current and former employees in the federally regulated aviation industry. They allege that mandatory COVID-19 vaccination orders led to disciplinary measures contrary to their collective agreements.
The Defendants’ Motion: The defendants (His Majesty the King in Right of the Government of Canada and the Minister of Transportation) moved to strike the amended statement of claim, arguing various grounds:
- Lack of Legal Authority: The defendants argued that the Impugned Order (Interim Order 43), the basis of the plaintiffs’ claims, was issued with valid legal authority and for a proper purpose, rendering them immune from tort liability.
- Incorrect Forum: The defendants contended that the claims related to collective agreements should be addressed through the grievance process, not the court.
- Insufficient Material Facts: The defendants asserted the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient material facts to support claims of induced breach of contract and misfeasance in public office, or a finding of government conduct that violates the Charter.
- Charter Claim Deficiencies: The defendants argued the Charter claims failed to meet the necessary requirements and relitigated previously decided issues.
The Court’s Decision:
- Timing of the Motion: The Court found it appropriate to hear the motion to strike before the certification motion, considering the substantial narrowing of issues and potential for efficiency.
- Standard on Motion to Strike: The court applied the appropriate standard for a motion to strike, which involves determining whether there is a reasonable prospect of success for the claim.
- Plaintiffs’ Concession and Amendments: The plaintiffs conceded to striking most of their claims, and the court allowed them to amend their statement of claim to address the remaining issues of inducement of breach of contract, misfeasance in public office, and violation of section 2(d) of the Charter. The court determined that the amended statement of claim presented more than a scintilla of a cause of action.
- Costs: Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
- United Steelworkers Decision: The Court distinguished the present case from the United Steelworkers case, emphasizing the different factual and legal issues. The Court rejected the defendant’s argument that United Steelworkers was dispositive.
- Abuse of Process Argument: The Court rejected the argument that this proceeding was an abuse of process. The Court noted that the dispute arose from the Impugned Order, not the collective agreement.
The Court dismissed most of the Government’s motion to strike but allowed the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to address remaining allegations. The case will proceed, focused on the remaining issues of inducement of breach of contract, misfeasance in public office, and violation of section 2(d) of the Charter, as amended by the Plaintiffs.
