# 2022-270 Careers, COVID-19, Discrimination, Pregnancy

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-08-13

The grievor contested the denial of her accommodation requests pertaining to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) COVID-19 vaccination policy, as well as the remedial measures (RM) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to Recommend Release issued to her for non-compliance with this policy. She also argued she was not treated in accordance with policy regarding her pregnancy and there was a lack of Gender-based Analysis (GBA) Plus conducted on the vaccination requirement. The grievor further contested the denial of her opportunity to receive a medal at an in-person award ceremony, as well as not commencing occupational training due to her vaccination status.

The Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievances, determining that the grievor was treated in accordance with policy. With respect to the grievance pertaining to GBA Plus, there was no IA decision as 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 also addressed the grievor's accommodation request based on sex due to pregnancy under the Canadian Human Rights Act, finding that the grievor had not met the legal test for discrimination. 

The Committee also 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. 

The Committee subsequently found that the RM and the NOI to Recommend Release were unreasonable due to serious breaches of procedural fairness. The Committee further found that the grievor should not have been prevented from occupational training based on her vaccination status.

The Committee also found that the absence of any application of GBA Plus represented a gap and suggested that the Final Authority (FA) consider applying this lens on future vaccination policies. 

Finally, the Committee determined that the grievor was treated in accordance with policy with respect to the awarding of her medal.

The Committee recommended that the FA cancel the RM and remove all relevant documentation from the grievor's file. The Committee also recommended that the FA ensure the proper application of CDS Directive 003 on CAF COVID-19 vaccination in relation to the grievor's occupational training.