# 2022-179 Careers, COVID-19

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-02-28

The grievor received remedial measures (RM), and an administrative review (AR) was initiated as a result of non-compliance with the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) COVID-19 vaccination policy, which ultimately led to the grievor's release from the CAF. The grievor disagreed with the denial of their accommodation request, stating that their sincerely held religious belief should be protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Initial Authority (IA) rendered a decision regarding the grievor's request for religious accommodation, determining that the grievance was submitted beyond the established time limit under article 7.06 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces. The IA rejected the grievance on the grounds that it would not be in the interests of justice to consider it.

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 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 and conclusion that such limitation was not justified under section 1 of the Charter.

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

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) cancel the RM and the AR and remove all associated documentation from the grievor's file. The Committee also recommended that the FA facilitate the grievor's optional re-enrolment if they remained eligible. Finally, the Committee recommended that the FA consider awarding the grievor financial compensation though an ex gratia payment or through reference to the Director of Civil Claims and Litigation.