# 2022-229 Careers, COVID-19

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-06-25

The grievor contested remedial measures (RM) and the recommendation that he be for released from the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) for non-compliance to the CAF COVID-19 vaccination policies. The grievor also disagreed with the denial of their religious accommodation request, stating that their sincerely held religious belief should be protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter).

The Commander Canadian Forces Joint Operational Support Group, acting as the Initial Authority, rejected the grievance on the grounds that it was submitted outside the statutory time limit pursuant to article 7.06 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces.

The Committee first conducted an in-depth analysis of whether the CAF vaccination policy infringed on the protected rights under section 7 of 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 the limitations on 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 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, and jurisprudence. The Committee found that the grievor's religious accommodation request was treated and considered according to policy.

Additionally, the Committee found that the administrative actions against the grievor, namely the RM and recommendation to release, should not have occurred as the grievor was exercising a protected Charter right. The Committee also found serious breaches of procedural fairness in the administration of these administrative actions.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority cancel the RM and remove all documentation associated with the RM and the release recommendation from the grievor's file.