# 2023-121 Careers, COVID-19

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-11-21

The grievor stated that Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) Directive 003 caused significant psychological stress and, combined with uncertainty about his employment, led him to feel he had no choice but to voluntarily release from the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). He argued that the vaccination directives did not consider his natural immunity or religious objections and claimed they had negatively affected his psychological, physical, and financial well-being. He also objected to the use of the Monitor Military Administrative Support System (Monitor MASS) to record vaccination status and raised concerns about the timeliness of the grievance process and the role of the Final Authority (FA). He requested removal of his vaccination status from Monitor MASS, career opportunities of his choosing, financial compensation, and assurances of medical autonomy. Alternatively, he sought a change of release item to 3(b) with associated benefits and a full payout for the remainder of his service. 

The Initial Authority did not rule on this case, since the grievance concerned a decision, act or omission of the CDS.

The Committee noted that the grievor had submitted a request for religious accommodation but did not examine this issue because the grievance did not specifically challenge the refusal and because the CAF vaccination policy was found unconstitutional. The Committee found, consistent with previous files, that the CDS directives mandating COVID-19 vaccination were contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) and therefore unlawful. The Committee agreed that the directives engaged members' Section 7 rights to liberty by compelling medical treatment under threat of significant career consequences. The Committee concluded that the measures were overly broad, grossly disproportionate, and not justified under Section 1 of the Charter, as the CAF did not demonstrate that less-impairing alternatives were adequately considered. The Committee determined that the grievor was not personally aggrieved by CDS Directive 003, as he was not required to be vaccinated or subjected to career action under that directive and provided no evidence of a current adverse impact. Therefore, the Committee did not further assess his challenge to Directive 003. Regarding privacy concerns, the Committee noted that previous reviews, including by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, found that collecting and storing vaccination status, including through Monitor MASS, was necessary, effective, and proportionate during the pandemic. The Committee found the disclosure requirement reasonable but recommended that the CAF reassess the continued relevance of storing COVID-19 vaccination attestations in Monitor MASS now that the pandemic had ended. The Committee concluded that the vaccination directive was unconstitutional and that the grievor was aggrieved by the requirement. However, since no remedial measures had been issued and the grievor voluntarily released after the requirement ended, the Committee recommended that the FA not grant redress, aside from reviewing the ongoing need for vaccination attestation in Monitor MASS.