# 2022-136 Careers, COVID-19

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-04-02

Remedial measures were imposed on the grievor for failing to comply with the Directive on Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) COVID-19 Vaccination. The grievor was released from the CAF in accordance with item 3(b) in the table to article 15.01 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, that is, for a reason unrelated to the aforementioned remedial measures. The grievor challenged the denial of his request for accommodation, which he had filed in accordance with the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) and with his religious beliefs, and which had been supported by the chaplain. The grievor argued that, in addition to the rights protected under the CHRA, the rights protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) should also be taken into consideration.  

The Initial Authority (IA) did not rule on this case, since the grievance concerned a decision, act or omission of the Chief of the Defence Staff. 

The Committee began by considering the grievor's request for religious accommodation and concluded that the grievor did not demonstrate that his need for accommodation was connected to his religious belief, pursuant to Defence Administrative Order and Directive 5516-3, Religious or Spiritual Accommodation. The Committee concluded that the grievor's request for religious accommodation had been processed and reviewed in a reasonable manner.  

The Committee conducted an in-depth analysis to determine whether the Directive on CAF COVID-19 Vaccination infringed on the rights protected under section 7 of the Charter, particularly the right to liberty and security of the person. The Committee found that this policy infringed on the rights protected under section 7 of the Charter and that this infringement was not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The Committee considered that some aspects of the directive were arbitrary in nature and overly broad and that the implementation of the directive was disproportionate. The Committee then conducted a comprehensive analysis to determine whether this infringement on protected rights was justified under section 1 of the Charter. 

The Committee concluded that the CAF had not demonstrated that the public interest justified the overly broad and disproportionate implementation of the Directive on CAF COVID-19 Vaccination, in a context where the vaccination rate among members was high and where the CAF had not considered the occupation, tasks or place of duty of members. The Committee found that the CAF did not fulfil its obligation to ensure a minimal impairment of Charter rights in the implementation of this policy. The Committee therefore found that the infringement on protected rights was not justified under section 1 of the Charter. 

Moreover, the Committee concluded that the administrative measures, including the remedial measures, should not have been imposed on the grievor since he was exercising a Charter right. Lastly, the Committee concluded that these administrative actions were unreasonable due to serious breaches of procedural fairness. 

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority cancel the remedial measures.