The Federal Court of Appeal has upheld a decision denying employment insurance (EI) benefits to a former senior B.C. health executive who was fired for refusing a COVID-19 vaccination on religious grounds, nearly five years after he lost his job.
Donald Sturgeon, formerly executive director of medical affairs at Interior Health, was dismissed in November 2021 for failing to comply with the health authority’s vaccine mandate. He later applied for EI benefits, but his claim was denied on the basis that he had been terminated for misconduct.
That denial has since moved through multiple levels of review, including the Social Security Tribunal, the Federal Court and now the Federal Court of Appeal, which dismissed his latest appeal in Vancouver on Tuesday.
Sturgeon argued that his case was not a direct challenge to Interior Health’s vaccination policy but rather to what he described as the tribunal’s failure to properly weigh employee “misconduct” against religious freedom protections under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Appeal Court found that Sturgeon had not properly raised his Charter arguments before the Social Security Tribunal and, as a result, could not advance them at this late stage. On that basis, it dismissed his appeal.
The Federal Court had previously rejected his challenge in 2024, concluding that his arguments fell outside the tribunal’s mandate, which is limited to applying EI legislation rather than ruling on the constitutionality of employer policies.
Religious freedom and access to justice concerns
Sturgeon has maintained that his decision not to be vaccinated was based on his Roman Catholic beliefs and his “moral conscience,” and that he wanted to give a “voice” to other workers who lost their jobs after refusing COVID-19 vaccines.
“I was in a leadership position at Interior Health and I was aware of staff like a single mom who has children in a mobile home who lost her job because of this decision and she received no severance, just like me, and she received no employment insurance,” he told The Canadian Press following the 2024 Federal Court ruling.
His lawyer, Lee Turner, said after the latest decision that he does not believe either the tribunal or the courts have properly grappled with the religious freedom issues raised under the Charter. He said they are considering a possible appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Turner also highlighted access to justice concerns, noting that Sturgeon was initially self‑represented and had not completed his appeal materials correctly at the tribunal level. He said it is very difficult for laypersons to navigate complex appeal processes without legal help and called it a “real concern [for] what people are expected to go through to have these rights adjudicated.”
Implications for EI and vaccine‑related dismissals
The ruling reinforces several trends emerging from COVID‑19 mandate litigation and EI disputes.
Tribunals and courts have generally treated refusal to comply with clear, communicated vaccine requirements as potential misconduct for EI purposes, depending on the facts. Charter‑based arguments often face procedural hurdles where they are not properly raised at the earliest stages, particularly before specialist tribunals with limited jurisdiction.
The decision also underscores how access to legal representation can materially affect how far individual claimants are able to advance complex constitutional arguments.
Unless the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case and reaches a different conclusion, the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision leaves in place the finding that Sturgeon is ineligible for EI on the basis that his termination stemmed from misconduct, notwithstanding his stated religious objections to vaccination.
