# 2023-046 Careers, COVID-19, Reserve Employment Opportunity (REO)

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-09-11

The grievor contested the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) COVID-19 vaccination policy. Specifically, the grievor disputed the denial of his religious accommodation request and the issuance of remedial measures (RM) for non-compliance with the policy, and argued that the testing methods and the vaccination itself subjected him to real or potential medical side effects. The grievor further argued that his privacy rights had been violated by the unauthorized disclosure of his vaccination status during a CAF employment opportunity.  

The Initial Authority (IA) did not adjudicate the vaccination policy grievance because it concerned a decision, act or omission of the Chief of the Defence Staff. The IA also rejected the medical side effect and privacy breach grievances based on the time limit established under article 7.06 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces. 

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 denial of the grievor's religious accommodation request was reasonable.

The Committee then conducted an in-depth analysis of whether the CAF vaccination policy infringed on the 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 also responded, in part, to recent Final Authority decisions on other COVID-19 vaccination policy related grievances. The Committee concluded that the CAF vaccination policy infringed on these rights and that their limitation 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.

Additionally, the Committee found that RM should not have been issued to the grievor because the grievor was exercising a protected Charter right. The Committee also found that the RM was unreasonable due to serious breaches of procedural fairness. 

Regarding the grievor's argument of medical side effects in relation to the COVID-19 testing and the vaccination itself, the Committee investigated and found that the CAF treated the grievor in accordance with the applicable policies. 

Finally, with respect to the grievor's claim that his privacy had been violated, the Committee conducted an independent investigation and concluded that the grievor was not aggrieved by the requirement to disclose his vaccination status in the CAF employment opportunity process.  

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority quash the RM and remove all associated documentation from the grievor's personnel file.