Notice of Liability for Employers Demanding Covid-19 Vaccination

there must be vaccine choice
Windsor Stands Firm on Vaccine Choice. (September 18, 2021; Windsor Riverfront)

Here is the best version of the letter of liability that was shared at the ‘Windsor With the World’ protest on September 18th.

If your employer has threatened you with consequences of any kind for your private medical decision about the covid-19 vaccination, this letter will inform them of their responsibilities, and the consequences they may face for engaging in coercion.

PDF: Notice of Liability to Employer Regarding SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination as Condition for Continuation of Employment

This letter is appropriate for use across Ontario. You are welcome to use this document, print it and share it as many times and with as many people as you like. It is absolutely free.

This letter was written to have the strongest sourcing possible. While there is a lot of information available about the injection, employment law, and our rights as Canadians, a biased legal authority will use any slight weakness as an excuse to dismiss a whole letter. This letter was written to give no such excuses.

It is not a requirement to have an employer sign this letter, but rather it serves as a method to inform an employer about the ways their vaccination mandates are in opposition to many statutes, including the Healthcare Consent Act and the Employment Standards Act.

It is strongly recommended that you sign this under the supervision of a lawyer or a notary public, thereby qualifying it as an affidavit–“a written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court.” This will require a fee of between $30 and $50. Once this is completed, you may be provided copies with the notarized endorsement intact, and these should be sent through mail, e-mail, and delivered in person. The purpose of this process is to ensure their use in any legal proceedings.

The full text of the letter follows:

Notice of Liability to Employer Regarding SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination as Condition for Continuation of Employment

Employer: ____________________________
Attn: ____________________________

This is an official Notice of Liability regarding my workplace’s decision to require SARS-CoV-2 vaccination as a condition of employment.

  1. Under Ontario’s Regulated Health Professions Act, it is prohibited for any non-medical practitioner to perform a controlled act, which includes “Prescribing, dispensing, selling or compounding a drug as defined in the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act” [1]. As a vaccination is a ‘drug,’ the employer accepts the liability for being in contravention of this act via the requiring of a prescription medication as a condition for the continuation of employment, unless having done so under the supervision of a Health Professional as defined by this act.
  2. Under Ontario’s Healthcare Consent Act, it is prohibited to give treatment without consent, of which a condition is that it be informed, free of coercion. [2] As vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 constitutes treatment, the employer acknowledges that its mandate as a requirement for work on an otherwise unconsenting employee is not voluntarily and constitutes coercion [3]. Further, the employer acknowledges the following regarding consent and use of force under this act and other guiding legal and regulatory doctrine:
    a. It is a requirement, under the policy dictated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, that consent must be freely given, and if duress is suspected, a physician must ensure no coercion is present, and if absent, “ must not provide the treatment until assured that valid consent has been obtained.”[4]
    b. A necessary constituent of informed consent is to also appreciate and understand the “The likely consequences of not having the treatment,” free of duress. [2]
    c. Under the Criminal Code of Canada if, “without the consent of another person […] a person commits an assault when he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;” [5]
  3. As the terms of my employment contract did not require a vaccination for SARS-CoV-2, should I be placed on a non-temporary or indefinite leave of absence, this will have constituted a breach of that contract and constitute constructive dismissal under the Employment Standards Act and under common law, and thus termination and subject to all requirements therein, including giving an appropriate period of notice and/or termination pay. [6]
  4. Should regular testing be required for my continued employment in lieu of vaccination, this is to be paid for at the employer’s expense as a necessary condition of the continuation of work. As such testing is, however, legally considered to be medical treatment, unless it is demonstrable for such testing to be a bonafide work requirement due to the nature of work, the stipulations of Section 2. under this Notice apply.
  5. As all vaccines and treatments are, when mandated by an employer, ‘part of work’, the employer acknowledges that they are liable for any damages or illnesses that may arise from this condition in the form of monetary or other types of compensation, i.e. claims made through the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board. [7]
  6. As the employer, you acknowledge that all treatments and vaccinations for SARS-CoV-2 are under Interim Approval [8], subject to review and, possibly, their use may be rescinded on the basis of poor safety profile.
  7. As the employer, you acknowledge that the trials used to legitimize these authorizations were not designed to measure any differences in transmission or infectiousness of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but were solely to determine the likelihood of developing symptomatic disease, i.e. Covid-19 [9]. As the employer, you acknowledge that any claim that vaccination is a bonafide work requirement is subject to these parameters, and any claim that vaccination prevents transmission and necessary for employee and/or customer safety is not predicated on the basis for the authorization via this interim order.
  8. As an employer, you also acknowledge that refusal to accommodate is subject to the Ontario Human Rights Code, and specifically, the provisions around reasonable accommodation. Failure to accommodate , unless a defense of undue hardship on the basis of health and safety grounds is established, constitutes a violation of this code, and may subject the employer to penalties via a human rights claim through the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. [10]
  9. As the terms of my employment contract did not require a condition to vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2, this condition as a requirement for continued employment is in violation of that contract, and any termination constitutes dismissal without cause, entitling me to severance pay in accordance with the Employment Standards Act of Ontario. [11]


    Name: ____________________________

    Signature: ____________________________

    Date: ____________________________

  1. Regulated Health Professions Act of Ontario
  2. Healthcare Consent Act of Ontario
  3. Consent: A guide for Canadian physicians
  4. College of Physicians and Surgeons – Consent to treatment
  5. Canadian Criminal Code – Offences against the Person
  6. Termination of employment
  7. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board – FAQs about claims and COVID-19
  8. Government of Canada – Drug and vaccine authorizations for COVID-19
  9. Press Release – Pfizer and BioNTech Conclude Phase 3 Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate
  10. Ontario Human Rights Commission – Duty to accommodate
  11. Guide to the Employment Standards Act – Severance pay

(You can get the t-shirt from the post’s thumbnail here.)

17 comments on “Notice of Liability for Employers Demanding Covid-19 Vaccination”

  1. I bet you won't even reply to this Reply

    I think you should be willing to have a live debate at one of your rallies with someone with an opposing view. An actual debate where you cite sources, peer reviewed studies and case law supporting your point of view. Are you willing?

    • Currie Reply

      We’ve been hoping for a chance to do this for a while. Unfortunately, we’re having a hard time finding any opposing doctors or nurses who are willing to engage with the evidence in front of an audience.

      • Debate Reply

        I didn’t mean you debate a doctor why on earth would you think you stand on equal footing as a doctor that you could debate them? I was speaking about you debating someone from “the other side” so to speak

        • Currie Reply

          I too am talking about hosting a debate with someone from “the other side,” particularly a doctor from the other side. Whether debaters stand on equal footing depends on the evidence and argumentation they present, not on their credentials. Do you care about “sources, peer reviewed studies and case law” or not?

          I have bested several doctors in arguments. In my experience, obstetricians are particularly dishonest arguers. I’ve dealt with three of them, and none were honest. The last time I beat one in argument, I was nearing the end of labour, and the man got so angry he assaulted me for resisting his wishes.

          • Smh

            Wow never mind. If you think that you have the knowledge and experience to have a meaningful debate with say a virologist or epidemiologist about their scientific method and the science behind what they do that’s just wow no wonder you can’t find one

          • Currie

            See, you don’t actually care about sources, or peer review, or case law. Your priority is authoritarian credentialism. The reason I can’t find a medical professional to attend a debate at the Flag is because the ones who support medical tyranny aren’t interested in sources, or peer review, or case law either. They seek power and control, and they know they would lose a fair and open debate on the subject.

            Your reasoning that ‘you are confident so no wonder you can’t find an opponent,’ doesn’t make any sense. Regardless, how about you? Would you like to engage in formal debate with me at the Flag?

          • Cait

            I mean I would but seeing as how you seem to apparently know more about medical science and the law than actual doctors or lawyers do what chance would I have of winning? Side note: do you consider anyone that knows more about a subject than you do to be authoritarian and trying to suppress you?

          • Currie

            It’s not necessarily that I know more (though I’m sure I know more about some things than some doctors and some lawyers; skills and knowledge vary) — it’s also that I’m not a liar or delusional, and some doctors and lawyers are liars and/or delusional.

            “Side note: do you consider anyone that knows more about a subject than you do to be authoritarian and trying to suppress you?”

            It’s honestly just sad that you think this is an appropriate question to ask. I’ll make my viewpoint really clear for you:

            I consider anyone that tries to impose their will upon me in violation of my human rights to be authoritarian and trying to suppress me.

            I expect anyone who claims to know more than me on a given subject to be able to prove it.

            My rights do not vary relative to the knowledge that another person has, claims to have, or is alleged by a third party (or source of accreditation) to have.

            My knowledge does not vary relative to these things either.

            I hope this answers your question.

  2. Dawn Reply

    This may not be binding if there is no witness, there should be a spot for a Notiary Public or a witness to also sign. That way there is someone that can varify the letter was not only accepted but agree upon. This precaution would eliminate the employer’s ability to toss the letter out and say they never got it. Also there should be 2 copies, one for the employer and one for the employee’s records. Just my opinion

  3. Pingback: Sept 18th: Windsor stood with first responders for medical privacy, then rallied with the world for freedom! - Stand Up Windsor

  4. Pingback: Responding to Injection Coercion - Stand Up Windsor

  5. What now? Reply

    I showed this to my lawyer and he said it isn’t legally binding unless my employer has his lawyers draw it up in my contract.

  6. Pingback: Patronage not welcome; The "business" of segregation in Ontario, Canada - Stand Up Windsor

  7. Clarity Reply

    First and foremost, this is not binding or enforceable. Sections 1 and 2 don’t apply to an employer unless the employer is the person administering the vaccine – in which case there are far greater issues.
    Second, employers have insurance. Insurance covers liability. A person who is injured at the workplace in the course of their work could be entitled to benefits from WSIB.
    Third, what is the remedy? How will they be held liable? Liable under what? Liable to do what?

    For the sake of clarity let’s look at the notice one paragraph at a time:
    1. The employer is not prescribing, dispensing, selling or compounding any drug. The employer is not administering the vaccination, they are requiring proof of vaccination, which would be obtained upon receipt of same from a Health Professional as defined in the act.
    2. The Health Care Consent Act applies to health practitioners who are proposing or administering treatment. It does not apply to an employer. The vaccination would be administered by a health professional as defined in the Act, presumably with the consent of the recipient. If the recipient does not consent – or the conditions for consent as outlined in section 11(1) of the Act are not met prior to administering the vaccination – then the health professional is technically in violation of the Act. Not the employer. The Act is silent with respect to coercion.
    a. You refer to a “Consent: A guide for Canadian physicians.” This is not a policy. Also, the onus is on the physician to ensure that treatment is voluntary – not the patient’s employer. If the physician is of the opinion that the patient is consenting to treatment as a result of duress or coercion, then they should take steps to ensure that the patient is consenting to treatment voluntarily.
    b. Mostly the same as above. The Physician (or health practitioner) – not the employer – is responsible for ensuring that consent to treatment is consensual.
    c. Sure, a patient could report a physician and have them charged with assault if they administer the vaccine without the patient’s consent. However, if the patient expressly consents to receiving the vaccine, then there is no assault. Again, this is the physician or health practitioner administering the vaccine, not the employer.
    3. You could have an argument here, but I think you came about it the wrong way. It is important to note that there are certain groups of employed persons not covered by the ESA (ie: federal employees). Most people don’t read their employment contract completely, or review it with a lawyer. Often times the employment contract will have some clause that allows for changes to be made at the employer’s discretion, so it might not constitute a breach of contract. As far as termination goes, as long as the employer gives proper notice or severance, they’re covered (it would not constitute a constructive dismissal unless the employee quits). In any event, this does not belong in a notice of liability. It is something that could be addressed if / when the vaccine mandate comes into effect or employment is terminated.
    4. This is not sound. Yes the employer would be required to pay for testing – the testing would likely take place at the place of employment. The Health Care Consent Act applies to medical practitioners, not employers. So section 2 of the notice does not apply to this or any other thing. It would not be difficult to demonstrate that vaccination against a deadly virus is a bonafide occupational requirement during a pandemic.
    5. No. A person who experiences an adverse reaction (which must be proven to the satisfaction of the Workplace Safety Insurance Board) after receiving a vaccine as a compulsory part of their employment may be eligible for benefits from WSIB.
    6. Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines are fully approved by Health Canada and Authorized under the Food and Drug Regulations.;
    7. This is pure nonsense. The employer is not required to acknowledge any of this.
    8. Sure, but before the employer is required to demonstrate reasonable accommodation to the point of undue hardship, the complainant is required to demonstrate that a violation of the Code occurred. That is, that the employer discriminated based on a protected ground. In short, unless there is a legitimate medical reason for refusal to get vaccinated, the claim will not succeed.
    9. Again, contracts usually have sections / clauses to cover for unforeseen changes to the employment contract at the discretion of the employer. So it might not constitute a breach of contract.

  8. Shenika Svinth Reply

    SInce speaking with my sister who was very pro jab who has recently suffered peridarditis, I would STRONGLY suggest having a d dimer examination. The way I see it now, the people that got vaccinated were fooled. If like many you now have JAB REMORSE I would definately check out we’ve witnessed excellent results so far!

  9. Joseph Rosato Reply

    SInce discussing with my sister who was all for the jab who recently suffered peridarditis, I would STRONGLY suggest getting a d dimer examination. As far as I am concerned, the people that got vaccinated were hoodwinked. If like many you now have JAB REMORSE I would definately take a look into I witnessed amazing results so far.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *