During the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic, our First Responders continued working on the front line each day, facing probable exposure to what was a novel and dangerous virus. It wasn’t that long ago, yet some of us quickly forget how scary it was for those who did not have the option to work remotely from the safety of their homes. Our Front Line Heroes, who were responding to emergencies and keeping our communities safe.
Once the vaccines became available, the provincial government prioritized access for all front line workers. In the early days, employers “strongly encouraged” their employees to roll up their sleeves and get vaccinated, during a time when the long-term side effects were largely unknown. Before long, some workplaces even mandated the COVID-19 vaccine, and those who did not comply faced negative consequences, including termination.
The WSIB does have a policy to address the adverse effects of vaccinations that are required for work. The policy is called Immunization Against Infectious Disease, OPM Document Number 15-04-10. It allows for entitlement for any adverse reaction arising from compulsory immunization procedures that are a compulsory part of the employment. But what happens when a novel vaccine is “strongly encouraged” but not yet mandated?
After his first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, this police officer experienced a serious adverse reaction, and he was diagnosed with EGPA as a direct result of the VOID-19 mRNA vaccine. It is an incurable disease, which is controlled with steroids and other powerful immunosuppressant drugs. In a decision dated September 26, 2022, the adjudicator denied entitlement for the adverse reaction. Although there was no question of the causal relationship between the diagnosis and the vaccine, the claim was denied because the officer received his vaccination months before it was officially mandated.
Just over 1 year later, an Appeals Resolution Officer (ARO) allowed the appeal. As reported in the WSIB Decision dated November 3, 2023, the facts established that at the time he was vaccinated, this officer was in fact in the course of his employment. The ARO agreed with our argument that the strong encouragement, coupled with the employer’s vaccination roll-out plan and provision of a dedicated vaccination clinic was tantamount to being a mandated vaccination policy. You can read our client’s story here.