A 小蓝视频 government worker who left his job over opposition to a workplace COVID-19 vaccination policy has been denied access to employment benefits.
On Oct. 5, 2021, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted the 小蓝视频 Public Service Agency to introduce a proof-of-vaccination policy requiring all employees to show evidence they were vaccinated by Nov. 22 of that year. Any employee not complying with the rule faced three months of unpaid leave followed by termination.
Dmytro Ponomarov, who worked as a financial officer for 小蓝视频’s Ministry of Children and Family Development at the time, refused to comply with the vaccine policy on grounds it was not in the collective agreement, wrote Federal Justice Russel Zinn in a recent decision pitting the government worker against the Attorney General of Canada.
When he returned to work, Ponomarov did not provide proof of vaccination or seek medical or religious accommodation. On Sept. 22, 2021, he was terminated.
Since then, the former government worker has repeatedly tried to access federal benefits. But in February 2023, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission found Ponomarov had been terminated for misconduct. A reconsideration that spring upheld the decision. And another appeal in October 2023 found Ponomarov had “voluntarily left his employment without just cause.”
In the latest judicial review, the former employee sought to overturn a finding from the Social Security Tribunal Appeal Division that found his case had no reasonable chance of success. Ponomarov raised several concerns over previous decision-making processes. He alleged authorities failed to properly analyze evidence in his case and breached procedural fairness.
Many of the allegations, however, were directed at previous decisions not being considered by the court, and therefore formed no part of the judicial review. Ponomarov’s arguments also misinterpreted established legal precedent, wrote Zinn.
Canada’s Parliament has made it clear, added the judge, that it intended to exclude individuals from employment benefits who voluntarily leave employment or lose it due to their own actions.
“After carefully reviewing the record and considering both the written and oral submissions of the parties, I conclude that this application must be dismissed,” ruled Zinn.
