A federal judge has dismissed a case that argued the absence of mask mandates in the workplace since the COVID-19 pandemic pose a risk to employees.
The Jan. 13 judgment by Federal Court Justice Benoit Duchesne addresses allegations made by Elections Canada manager Nicolas Juzda.
Juzda, an Elections Canada employee since 2018, said he felt unsafe after the office mask mandate was lifted in 2023 and employees were ordered back to work.
“It is unreasonable,” Duchesne wrote in his ruling, as first covered by Blacklock’s Reporter.
He went on to call Juzda’s complaint “frivolous,” adding that it did not require further investigation.
The judge said Juzda, chief of field programs at Elections Canada’s Gatineau, Que., headquarters, was fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and did not have any major health concerns.
Related Stories
Juzda’s grievance arose after Elections Canada mandated that employees return to the office for one day each week in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. The employees, who worked from home during the pandemic, returned to the workplace in March 2023. Elections Canada said employees could wear a mask if they chose to but it was not compulsory.
That decision led Juzda to file a refusal to work report. He cited Section 128.1 of the Canada Labour Code, which says federal employees can refuse work that presents a safety risk.
Juzda’s report alleged the lack of a mask mandate presented a danger to him and other employees.
Upon receiving Juzda’s report, Elections Canada conducted an investigation of its own, the court documents said. The Elections Canada report said no danger had been found to support Juzda’s refusal to work.
“EC’s investigation considered that EC’s layered approach to COVID-19 safety met or exceeded the then current safety recommendations,” the report said.
Juzda refused to return to the office, despite the findings, saying he’d only return if conditions were safe.
His continued refusal to return was handed over to Election Canada’s Employee Workplace Committee for investigation. After another similar interaction with Juzda, Elections Canada dismissed his claim.
The Elections Canada representative in charge of the agency’s final report on the matter described Juzda’s claim as “frivolous in the sense that it had either no legal basis, no reasonable chance of success, was not serious, was without reasonable object, or was not based in fact.”
Juzda asked the court for a judicial review of the decision, saying it lacked “transparency, intelligibility, and justification.”
But the judge sided with Elections Canada, saying its decision was both “coherent and rational.”
“It is reasonable,” the judge said to describe the decision.
“The Applicant has not met his burden of establishing that the Decision was tainted by any reasonable apprehension of bias or breach of procedural fairness that requires this Court to quash it.”
The judge dismissed the case with costs. Juzda will now be responsible for paying Election Canada’s $2,000 in court costs.
