Fired Langley nurse loses court case over COVID shot

Healthcare workers who lost their jobs after refusing to be vaccinated against COVID-19, including a Langley nurse, saw their court challenge against provincial health orders largely fail in court this month.

With one exception, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Simon Coval found in favour of the provincial government and health authorities.

Coval suggested that Chief Medical Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry review the blanket vaccine regulation, if only for those staff who work remotely.

The case involved 15 healthcare workers who petitioned the court, opposing the rule on various grounds, including alleging that their constitutional rights had been violated by the health orders. The most recent version of the ban was issued in October last year.

The Langley nurse, Hilary Vandergugten, was the clinical coordinator at Langley Memorial Hospital. According to the ruling, she and two doctors refused vaccination based on “their personal convictions and risk-benefit analyses.”

Another group of 11 petitioners lost their jobs despite in many cases working remotely, with a variety of reasons given for refusing the shot. Most did so because of religious beliefs, while a few believed their own immune systems or healthy lifestyles were protection enough against the virus.

A final petition was launched individually by a Fraser Health nurse practitioner whose church opposes all vaccinations as leading to idolatry.

The petitions challenged the health orders that went back to 2021, requiring that all healthcare workers in b.C. be vaccinated with at least two doses of vaccine against COVID-19. The October, 2023 order mandated the updated XBB.1.5 vaccine for unvaccinated workers seeking new jobs – that vaccine was tailored against the Omicron variations that were common from 2022 onward.

Coval said the main standard in the case was reasonableness – were the Public Health Officer’s (PHO) actions reasonable given what they knew at the time of the October order?

The petitioners argued that COVID-19 no longer presented an immediate threat by the fall of 2023.

“They argued that, by continuing the vaccine mandate in October 2023, the PHA’s emergency powers were being used as a quasi-permanent precautionary measure for a virus which, by that time, the PHO herself described as no more serious than the common cold or flu,” Coval wrote.

Other emergency measures, such as public masking and capacity limits, had all been rescinded by this time as well.

But lawyers for Henry and the province argued that there was a significant difference between the conditions outside of a healthcare environment, and inside of one. The consequences of infection in a healthcare setting were more serious because the medically vulnerable, those at most risk from COVID, were in those facilities’ care.

COVID cases were trending upwards at the time, and the fall flu season was expected shortly.

Ultimately, Coval said Henry’s orders were made to prevent illness spreading among patients, and to reduce absenteeism in the healthcare system.

“It is difficult to imagine more important and pressing public health concerns and objectives than reducing serious illness and loss of life, and safeguarding the functioning of the healthcare system,” he wrote.

With one exception, Coval dismissed all the petitions, saying all of them were proportionate balancing of health objectives with rights protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That exception was that he sent back to Henry for consideration whether to consider requests for vaccination exemptions from healthcare system workers who are able to perform their roles remotely, or without contacting patients, residents, or other frontline healthcare staff.

READ MORE: B.C. should review vaccination order for remote healthcare workers: judge