Seite - 260 - in VULNERABLE - The Law, Policy and Ethics of COVID-19

VULNERABLE260 with measures already successfully taken in other jurisdictions.” As explained, in carrying out the minimal impairment analysis, the courts will often look at what has been tried in other jurisdictions; this is tantamount to testing for consistency with measures successfully undertaken elsewhere. There are, of course, limitations to this method of analysis: it may be the case, particularly with a rapidly spreading infectious disease that all countries are grasping in the dark or attempt- ing multiple policy responses simultaneously, making it difficult to identify which measures are having an impact. One expects (and hopes) the courts will be especially deferential in these initial scenarios and ratchet up scrutiny of government actions as evidence emerges. Another important limitation is that measures employed elsewhere may be less feasible in the Canadian context, due to our federal system, the design features of our health and long-term care system, and so on. An example of the “play” in minimal impairment testing can perhaps be found in current employment standards for health care workers (HCWs).32 Seasonal influenza poses a threat to HCWs as well as, more notably, the health of vulnerable patients for whom they care. As influenza can be transmitted in the asymptomatic stage, pre- cluding HCWs with symptoms from working will not in and of itself be fully successful in preventing hospital-acquired infections (noso- comial transmission). As such, several jurisdictions have attempted to bring in policies that require influenza vaccination of HCWs to wear a mask at work—despite the lack of complete certainty that this reduces patient morbidity and mortality. This approach is arguably consistent with both the Oakes minimal impairment test as well as the precaution- ary principle. Complete evidence of benefit is not necessary to intro- duce a measure that can protect against an important risk. Reasonable minds can disagree, of course, and it bears noting that some labour tribunals have overturned hospital vaccine or mask policies, deeming them an unreasonable exercise of management rights and finding no evidence of benefit from a policy of mandatory masking.33 As explained, the final stage of the Oakes test inquires whether the costs and benefits of the government action are, on the whole, propor- tionate to the infringement of individual rights. Some legal theorists 32. R Rodal, NM Ries & K Wilson, “Influenza Vaccination for Health Care Workers: Towards a Workable and Effective Standard” (2009) 17 Health LJ 297. 33. Sault Area Hospital and Ontario Hospital Association v Ontario Nurses’ Association, [2015] OLAA No 339; 124 CLAS 244.