after receiving the employer’s report, juzda reiterated his refusal to work.
election canada’s employee workplace committee then investigated juzda’s work refusal as required by the canada labour code.
in october 2023, the committee concluded there was no imminent or serious threat to juzda that fell within the labour code’s definition of “danger.”
faced with two reports that concluded he faced no significant workplace danger, juzda still maintained his refusal to work.
his case was then handed to a senior compliance and enforcement official with employment and social development canada’s labour program. the official met virtually with juzda, reviewed the reports on his work refusal and consulted with experts in the department.
the official concluded juzda’s complaint was frivolous.
“his concerns of imminent danger to his health are not based on facts, they are speculative and hypothetical,” the official said. “the hazard expressed by the worker appears to be a summary analysis of the current situation in the sense that it considers only the elements determining the risk, and not the control measures in place.”
still unwilling to return to work, juzda sought judicial review of the official’s decision in federal court.