# 2022-052 Careers, COVID-19

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-01-08

The grievor contested the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) COVID-19 vaccination policy. The grievor also disputed the denial of a request for accommodation, as well as remedial measures (RM), administrative review (AR) and release from the CAF for non-compliance with the CAF COVID-19 vaccination policy.

There was no Initial Authority decision as it was determined that the decision being grieved concerned a decision, act or omission of the Chief of the Defence Staff.

The Committee found that the grievor's accommodation request, which argued specifically on discrimination, failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. 

The Committee then conducted an in-depth analysis of whether the CAF COVID-19 vaccination policy infringed on 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 also responded, in part, to recent Final Authority (FA) decisions on other COVID-19 vaccination policy related grievances. The Committee concluded that the CAF COVID-19 vaccination policy infringed on these rights and that their limitations was not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. This was because the Committee viewed the policy, in some respects, to be arbitrary and overly broad, and because its implementation was disproportionate. This led to a full analysis and conclusion that such limitation was not justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The Committee then found that the RM issued to the grievor pursuant to the policy were unjustified, as the grievor was exercising a protected Charter right, and that their AR and release was an unfair, predetermined outcome. The Committee also found that ceasing the grievor's Land Duty Allowance was unjust, given that they had not refused to perform a duty or exercise the skill for which the allowance is issued and instead was prevent from doing so by the COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The Committee recommended that the FA afford redress by quashing the RM and removing all relevant documentation from the grievor's personnel record, facilitate re-enrolment if desired and consider appropriate financial compensation.