# 2022-217 Careers, COVID-19, Gender-Based Analysis Plus

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-02-21

The grievor contested the denial of her request for a religious accommodation under the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) COVID-19 vaccination policy. 

The Initial Authority declined to review the grievance, given that the decision being grieved concerned a decision, act or omission of the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS). 

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 CAF's denial of the grievor's religious accommodation request was justified. 

The Committee then conducted an analysis of whether the CAF vaccination policy infringed on the grievor's 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 limitation of these rights 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 limitations were not justified under section 1 of the Charter. 

The CDS rendered decisions in previous grievances on this subject, finding that the mandatory vaccination requirement did not engage the grievors' section 7 Charter rights. If those rights were engaged, then the CDS concluded that the restrictions would be in accordance with the principle of fundamental justice pursuant to the proportionality analysis under section 1 of the Charter. Consequently, the Committee conducted additional review and considering the state of law, its position remained that the limitation imposed on their Charter rights was not justified under section 1 of the Charter. 

Although the grievor did not specifically grieve the administrative actions issued to her for non-compliance with the policy, namely the remedial measures (RMs) and Recommendation for Release under item 5(f), Service Completed – Unsuitable for further service, of the Table to article 15.01 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, the Committee found the grievor was aggrieved by these administrative actions due to serious breaches of procedural fairness. 

Finally, the Committee found that the absence of any application of Gender-based Analysis Plus represents a gap in the policy and suggested that the Final Authority (FA) consider applying this lens on future vaccination policies.

The Committee recommended that the FA cancel the RMs and the Recommendation to Release the grievor under item 5(f) and remove the associated documents from the grievor's file.