AGAINST DR. BONNIE HENRY & BC NDP GOVERNMENT — Judge requests 10 more days of Hearings, expected to be scheduled later this year
Former Lillooet Hospital Worker, Monica Krenbrink:
“I would like to highly encourage people who were affected by the PHO Vaccine Mandate to join the UHCWBC Society. Whether you were terminated, retired early, quit or you’re still an employee (or had an adverse reaction to any of the shots or feel you had no choice). Please support this class action lawsuit. Or if you are a BC Public Service Worker join the BCPSEF Society. Do your research and learn about these 2 Class Action Lawsuits, get information and connect with like-minded people.”
The following are excerpts from the summary of 5-day Certification Hearing April 28th to May 2, 2025
Recently in court, legal counsel introduced two actions on behalf of unionized B.C. public servants and healthcare workers, highlighting their transition from being hailed as “heroes” early in the COVID-19 pandemic to being treated as “public enemies” due to vaccine mandate non-compliance. The fear generated during the pandemic was noted as a conditioning factor, necessitating a careful, evidence-based examination of the mandates’ legality and impacts.
Plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Bonnie Henry and the B.C. government acted in bad faith, with reckless indifference or willful blindness, by issuing mandates unsupported by scientific data on vaccine efficacy in preventing transmission. Madame Justice Burke sought a thorough presentation of the facts and legal basis; 10 more days of hearings are expected.
The Plaintiffs claimed the mandates’ true objective was political compliance, not public health, causing s. 2(d) Charter violations, financial loss, and emotional trauma.
Core Allegations:
- The PHO’s orders, issued under the Public Health Act (PHA), mandated vaccination despite evidence that vaccines did not prevent infection or transmission, constituting misfeasance in public office (Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69).
- For healthcare workers, the PHO’s actions induced breaches of employment contracts by compelling employers to exclude unvaccinated staff (Canada Steamship Lines Inc. v Elliott, 2006 FC 609).
- Counsel cited recent Federal Court decisions (Hill v Canada, 2025 FC 242; Payne v Canada, 2025 FC 5) that allowed similar claims to proceed at the certification stage.
Defendants argued that the claims should be resolved through labour arbitration but Plaintiffs countered that the B.C. Supreme Court retains jurisdiction because the mandates were unilateral state actions that altered employment contracts, violating s. 2(d) Charter rights.
Next Steps:
Despite five days of hearings, the Plaintiffs’ submissions remain incomplete. Madame Justice Emily Burke has sought a thorough presentation of the facts and legal basis, and our counsel (@uasind) has adeptly navigated the complex interplay of constitutional, tort, labour law, and civil procedure.
An additional 10 days of hearings are expected to be scheduled later in 2025 to conclude the Plaintiffs’ submissions and hear the Defendants’ response.
the Lillooet Gazette 