# 2023-156 Careers, COVID-19

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-09-03

The grievor challenged the denial of his religious accommodation request under the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) policy on COVID-19 vaccination. He said that the denial forced him to request a voluntary release after remedial measures were taken against him because he did not comply with the policy (2024-003). He also challenged the denial of his request to be transferred to the Supplementary Reserve (Supp Res) because he was not vaccinated (2023-156). As redress, the grievor asked to be reinstated to the CAF, to receive a religious accommodation under the vaccination policy and to be compensated for lost wages until the end of his period of Class “B” Reserve Service.

The Initial Authority (IA) rejected the grievance related to the grievor's accommodation request because the decision to deny the request was reasonable and justified, and complied with the policies in place. The IA also found that when he made his accommodation request, the grievor no longer met the requirements of his military occupation or the conditions for a transfer to the Supp Res.

The Committee analyzed the grievor's accommodation request. It found that the grievor did not discharge his burden under the applicable two-part legal test: he did not establish the link between the need for accommodation and his religious belief and practice, nor did he show how the COVID-19 vaccine interfered with his ability to act in accordance with that belief and practice.

The Committee conducted an in-depth analysis of the application of the CAF Covid-19 vaccination policy. The Committee viewed the policy, in some respects, to be arbitrary and overly broad, and found that it 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. This led to a full analysis to examine if such limitations were justified in a free and democratic society 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 policy infringed on fundamental rights protected by the Charter and that such limitations were not justified under section 1 of the Charter since this was not a minimal impairment of those rights.

The Committee also found that the remedial measures against the grievor should not have occurred as the grievor was exercising a protected Charter right. In addition, the imposition of these remedial measures, which are described in the Chief of the Defence Staff's directives on vaccination, was unreasonable because of serious breaches of procedural fairness. The Committee also found that, even though the grievor had requested a voluntary release, he had done so to avoid the policy's unfair, negative consequences.

Lastly, the Committee found that the reason given for denying the grievor's transfer to the Supp Res was vague. That said, the Committee noted that, because of the grievor's health issues at the time, the CAF had considered a medical release earlier. Note should be taken that a transfer to Supp Res can be granted only if the member meets all the eligibility criteria. 

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority rescind the remedial measures imposed on the grievor, and remove the related documents (as well as those about other administrative measures stemming from the policy) from the grievor's file. It also recommended that the CAF re-enrol the grievor in the Supp Res, if he met the eligibility criteria, and offer him financial compensation.