A court application to stop unsafe school reopening, legislation prohibiting claims for COVID-19, and firing justified for not wearing safety equipmenet

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

Two fathers have filed a petition in the British Columbia Supreme Court to prevent schools from reopening without adequate COVID-19 safety protocols.

In order to permit schools to reopen, the latest provincial Public Health Act order that sets out safety requirements for virtually any public gathering simply exempts schools. 

The protocols that schools are excluded from include measures such as wearing masks, allowing sufficient space for social distancing, and not having gatherings of more than 50 people.

Having been exempted from the Public Health Act order, schools have “guidance” from the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control which states “There is limited evidence of confirmed transmission within school settings.” 

This is despite the reported COVID-19 outbreaks in schools, shortly after reopening, in Germany, Israel, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The children of both fathers, as well as their families, have pre-existing conditions. They point out that children, including theirs, have siblings so that school cohorts can be multiples of what’s intended because of contact at home. 

The application for an injunction is scheduled to be heard the week of September 14th.

Also discussed is the COVID-19 Related Measures Act. 

This act included provisions that prohibit civil claims arising from COVID-19 infection.

The regulations passed pursuant to the act prohibit any claims for damages that result from COVID-19 infections resulting from, amongst other things, educational endeavours. 

As a result, if a student, or family member, is infected or dies no compensation would be available.

Finally, a wrongful dismissal claim is discussed.

A long-term employee of a manufacturing company refused to wear a safety hat on the basis that she claimed it caused headaches. Despite repeated requests, the employee did not provide medical information to substantiate this claim and she was eventually fired. 

The judge concluded that failing to wear protective equipment provided cause to dismiss the employee. 

This result is important in the context of employers requiring employees to wear masks.

Follow this link for links to the cases and pleadings discussed as well as a transcript of the episode.