# 2022-143 Careers, COVID-19

Case summary

F&R Date: 2023-12-15

The grievor disagreed with the denial of her religious accommodation request. The grievor sought an exemption from the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) COVID-19 vaccination requirement due to her religious beliefs.

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 conducted an in-depth analysis of whether the CAF vaccination policy infringed on the protected rights under Section 7 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 the rights protected under Section 7 of the Charter and that the limitations of these rights was not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. This was because the Committee viewed the policy, in some aspects, 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.

The Committee then 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.

Although the Committee found that the grievor was aggrieved by the CAF COVID-19 vaccination policy, no redress recommendation was made as the policy containing the mandatory vaccination requirement has already been removed.