# 2022-162 Careers, COVID-19

Case summary

F&R Date: 2023-03-31

The grievor disputed the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) COVID-19 vaccination policy pursuant to the Chief of the Defence Staff's (CDS) Directives, which were released in October and November 2021. The grievor contended that despite their concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine and the harm it would cause, the policy forced them into accepting the vaccine out of fear of administrative and financial consequences. As redress, the grievor sought a compensation package to address the stress brought on by the Directives and to cover possible future medical expenses. 

There was no Initial Authority decision because the grievance was related to a decision, act or omission of the CDS.

The Committee conducted an in-depth analysis of whether the CAF vaccination policy infringed on the protected rights under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter), namely the right to liberty and security of the person. The Committee concluded that the policy infringed on the rights protected under section 7 of the Charter and that the limitations of these rights were not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The Committee viewed aspects of the policy as arbitrary and overly broad, and considered its implementation disproportionate. This led to a full analysis of whether such limitations are justified under section 1 of the Charter. 

The Committee found that the CAF had not shown that consideration of the public interest justified the overly broad and disproportionate implementation of the vaccination policy. The Committee concluded that the CAF had not met its obligation to ensure minimal impairment in the implementation of its vaccination policy. The Committee therefore concluded that the limitations were not justified under section 1 of the Charter.  

The Committee found that the disputed provisions of the CAF vaccination policy were contrary to the Charter and, as such, unreasonable. Therefore, the Committee concluded that the grievor was aggrieved by the CAF vaccination policy. The Committee noted that the grievor's requested redress was not substantiated by evidence of harm or injury. The Committee also observed that should future medical issues arise due to the vaccine, the grievor could apply to the Vaccine Injury Support Program put in place by the Government of Canada. The Committee did not recommend further redress considering the disputed policy had been amended pursuant to CDS Directive 003, released in 2022, which superseded the previous unreasonable versions from 2021.