# 2023-071 Careers, COVID-19, Personnel Evaluation Report, Remedial Measures

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-07-21

The grievor contested the denial of his religious accommodation request under the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) COVID-19 vaccination policy, stating that accepting a COVID-19 vaccine that used aborted fetal cells would mean his participation in abortion, which was a direct contravention of his religious beliefs. The grievor also argued that he was ranked unfairly low on his Performance Evaluation Report (PER) due to his religious beliefs and consequent decision not to vaccinate. He argued that his choice to remain unvaccinated did not constitute an ethical “deficiency”. He asserted that referencing his remedial measures (RM) for refusal to vaccinate in the PER constituted a violation of his personal and medical privacy. As redress, he requested that his religious accommodation request be accepted and the PER corrected. 

The Commander Canadian Army, acting as the Initial Authority (IA), granted partial redress. With respect to the religious accommodation request, the IA found that while the grievor's beliefs were sincerely held, he did not establish a reasonable connection between the request for accommodation and his religion, both of which must be satisfied to grant an accommodation. With regard to the PER, the IA found that the grievor's refusal to comply with COVID-19 vaccination policy was a failure to follow direct orders. This constituted an ethical deficiency and his PER rating reflected as much. The IA conceded that the grievor had, however, displayed ethical behaviour during the reporting year and agreed to raise the score.  

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 grievor's religious accommodation request was treated and considered reasonably.

The Committee then conducted an in-depth analysis of whether the CAF vaccination policy infringed on the protected rights under section 7 of 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 some policy aspects as 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 Chief of Defence Staff (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. 

Given their findings on the unconstitutionality of the CAF vaccination policy, the Committee found that resulting RM should not have occurred as the grievor was exercising a protected Charter right. The Committee also found that these RM were unreasonable due to serious breaches of procedural fairness. 

As such, the Committee recommended that the Final Authority quash the grievor's RM and his PER be rewritten outside the influence of said RM.