# 2022-230 Careers, COVID-19

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-04-12

The grievor's request for accommodation under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) was denied based on the prohibited ground of national or ethnic origin. The grievor argued that vaccination should be a personal choice and that the pressure exerted by the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to comply with the vaccination policy flouted ethical standards. The grievor argued that, in addition to the rights guaranteed by the CHRA, the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) should be taken into consideration. After his request for accommodation was denied, the grievor complied with the vaccination policy. As redress, the grievor was asking for a formal apology.  

The initial authority did not rule on this case, since the grievance concerned a decision, act or omission by the Chief of the Defence Staff. 

The Committee first considered the grievor's request for accommodation and found that the grievor's request was not based on a religious reason or medical contra-indication. The grievor did not demonstrate how his national or ethnic origin prevented him from being vaccinated. The Committee found that the grievor's request for accommodation had been processed and evaluated in a reasonable manner. 

The Committee then conducted an in-depth analysis of whether the CAF COVID-19 vaccination policy infringed on protected rights under section 7 of the Charter, namely the right to liberty and security of the person. The Committee concluded that this 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 found that, since no administrative action had been taken against the grievor, no redress was necessary. Moreover, the request for a formal apology cannot be met since demanding an apology would contravene the freedom of expression protected by the Charter.