# 2022-146 Careers, COVID-19

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-04-30

Remedial measures were imposed on the grievor for failing to comply with the Directive on Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) COVID-19 Vaccination. The grievor challenged the vaccination directive, claiming that his rights and freedoms were violated by the directive. The grievor referred to section 126 of the National Defence Act, which was not taken into consideration. He also challenged the denial of his request for religious accommodation. He believed that he had demonstrated the sincerity and legitimacy of his belief. Lastly, he disputed the administrative measures taken against him for contravening the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) Directive on Vaccination. As a combined redress for his three grievances, the grievor requested cancellation of the CDS directives, cancellation of the remedial measures and the administrative measures imposed on him, approval of his request for religious accommodation and a letter of apology for the harm suffered. 

There is no Initial Authority decision, as the policy is a direct result of the CDS and as paragraph  7.13(c) of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces applies. The three grievances were therefore referred directly to the Final Authority (FA). 

The Committee began by examining the grievor's request for religious accommodation. The Committee determined that the grievor had demonstrated the elements required for his request to be approved but that, for good reasons, the CAF could not accommodate him. The Committee concluded that the grievor's request for accommodation had been duly considered and that the grievor was not aggrieved by the denial of the request.  

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 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter), particularly the right to liberty and security of the person. The Committee concluded that this directive 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 this directive were arbitrary 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 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 had not fulfilled its obligation to ensure a minimal impairment of Charter rights in the implementation of this policy. The Committee therefore concluded that this infringement on protected rights was not justified under section 1 of the Charter.

Furthermore, the Committee found that the administrative measures should not have been imposed on the grievor since he was exercising a Charter right. Lastly, the Committee found that these administrative measures were unreasonable because of serious breaches of procedural fairness. 

The Committee recommended that the FA cancel the remedial measures and remove them from his file.