# 2023-153 Careers, COVID-19

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-08-26

The grievor argued that Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) Directive 003 on the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) COVID-19 vaccination policy lacked a clear legal basis. The grievor had concerns about the exposure of sensitive vaccination information in Monitor Military Administrative Support System (Monitor MASS). As redress, the grievor sought the rescission of the directive, deletion of vaccination data, removal of all COVID-related administrative measures from her personnel records, and a return to pre-COVID-19 policies regarding medical records.

Pursuant to subparagraph 7.13(c) of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, the grievance was not submitted to an Initial Authority because the decision in question was made by the CDS.

For the body of CAF COVID-19 vaccination policy related grievances, the Committee conducted an in-depth analysis of whether this 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 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 limitations were not justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The Committee also found that the administrative actions, namely the remedial measures (RM) and the two Notice of Intent (NOI) to Recommend Release of the grievor, were unreasonable due to serious breaches of procedural fairness and the grievor was exercising a protected Charter right.

The Committee found that CDS Directive 003 was issued within the CDS' authority under the National Defence Act (NDA). The Committee further determined that the grievor did not provide evidence or allegations of a concrete nature, as she only expressed concerns about possible future adverse impacts. As such, the grievor had not demonstrated how she was personally aggrieved by CDS Directive 003 within the meaning of subsection 29(1) of the NDA.

The Committee found that the requirement to disclose vaccination status was reasonable during the pandemic. However, the Committee recommended reassessing the requirement to attest to COVID-19 vaccination status in Monitor MASS going forward, given that the Canadian Forces Health Services Instruction 6636-81, COVID-19 Vaccination, recognized that the COVID-19 vaccine was now considered a routine recommended vaccine and that vaccination information is stored in the Canadian Forces Health Information System.

The Committee recommended the Final Authority grant partial redress by quashing the RM and the two NOIs and reviewing the ongoing need to disclose COVID-19 vaccination status in Monitor MASS.