# 2022-275 Careers, COVID-19

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-06-28

For file 2022-275, the grievor disagreed with the denial of their religious accommodation request regarding the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) COVID-19 vaccination policy, 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). For file 2022-276, the grievor disagreed with the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) order to release CAF members who did not vaccinate and alleged that they were coerced into a voluntary release which was later accelerated.

The Commander 33 Canadian Brigade Group, acting as the Initial Authority (IA), denied redress in 2022-275. The IA stated that as the grievor's religious accommodation request was not entirely based on a religious objection, the denial was justified and in accordance with policy. The IA partially granted redress in 2022-276, stating that CDS Directives clearly outlined the expectations regarding COVID-19 vaccination. The IA noted the timeframe for the grievor's release date was both customary and reasonable. However, the IA opted to grant the grievor an extension. The grievor was also granted a transfer to the Supplementary Reserve if they so wish.

The Committee first addressed the grievor's religious accommodation request in 2022-275, 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 considered and denied in accordance with policy.

The Committee then conducted an in-depth analysis of whether the CAF vaccination policy infringed on the protected rights under section 7 the Charter, namely the right to liberty and security of the person. In 2022-276, the Committee concluded that the CAF COVID-19 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 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.

Additionally, while the Committee found that the grievor was not personally aggrieved in the administration of their release, since they were released under item 5(a) – Service Completed – Retirement age of the Table to article 15.01 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Armed Forces, the systematic release of unvaccinated members was unreasonable.

The Committee did not recommend that the Final Authority afford the grievor redress.