# 2022-134 Careers, COVID-19

Case summary

F&R Date: 2023-10-20

The grievor received remedial measures (RM) and was subject to an Administrative Review (AR) process which was initiated as a result of non-compliance with the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) COVID-19 vaccination policies. The grievor disagreed with the denial of his accommodation request, stating that his sincerely held religious belief, which prohibited him from taking the COVID-19 vaccine, conflicted with the requirements of the vaccination policies. In addition, the grievor grieved that he was ordered to work from home and use annual leave during this time. He also requested reimbursement of his mess dues.

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

The Committee first addressed the grievor's religious accommodation request, finding that the grievor had not established a religious nexus to the request as required by Defence Administrative Order and Directive 5516-3, Religious or Spiritual Accommodation. The Committee found that the grievor's religious accommodation request was treated and considered reasonably.

The Committee then 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 CAF 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 of whether such limitation is 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, despite the high vaccination rate within the CAF and without regard for the members' occupation, duties and place of work. 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.

Additionally, the Committee found that the administrative actions against the grievor, namely the RM and the initiation of the AR process, should not have occurred as the grievor was exercising a protected Charter right. The Committee also found that these administrative actions were unreasonable due to serious breaches of procedural fairness.

With regard to the annual leave and mess dues, the Committee found that the use of annual leave was applied to all members at the grievor's unit and was not connected to the CAF vaccination policy. There were also no provisions authorizing the reimbursement of mess dues. The Committee concluded that the grievor was not aggrieved by these issues.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority cancel the RM and remove documents pertaining to the RM and the AR initiated from the grievor's records.