# 2024-130 Careers, COVID-19

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-08-26

The grievor complained about the way he was pressured to ask for a voluntary release following his refusal to vaccinate by threatening the impact on his pension (2024-045). He also disputed his chain of command's (CoC) refusal to answer his questions about the COVID-19 vaccine, which subsequently led to him being placed on recorded warning immediately after his refusal, which he argues constitutes harassment and coercion intended to pressure him into complying with a medical procedure without adequate information. The grievor alleged that this pressure prevented him from properly submitting a request for accommodation and from giving informed consent to the COVID 19 vaccine (2024-130). Finally, he complained about the way he was treated by his CoC in relation to the Chief of the Defence Staff's Directive 003, stating that he was not promptly informed that he could return to work (2024-131).

The Initial Authority (IA) determined that the grievor submitted his grievances after the prescribed deadline and that the reasons given for the delay in filing were not justified. The IA dismissed the grievances.

The Committee found that the Canadian Armed Forces' (CAF) implementation of the COVID-19 vaccination mandate infringed on the grievor's rights protected under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and was not justified under section 1, concluding that the mandate was unconstitutional. The Committee also found that the associated Remedial Measures (RMs) were procedurally unfair, lacked proper discretion and failed to account for individual circumstances. 

Concerning the allegation of harassment, the Committee found that there was no indication on the file that the grievor submitted a harassment complaint under the process provided for in the Defence Administrative Orders and Directives 5012-0, Harassment Prevention and Resolution. Consequently, the Committee did not address this aspect of the complaint further.

Finally, the Committee found that even if the grievor was ultimately made aware of the content of the CAF vaccination policy, given the short delays and the significance of the consequences for non compliance, the CoC should have acted promptly to provide the information to the grievor and his peers. However, after reviewing the grievor's representations for wanting to submit a request for accommodation, the Committee concluded that he would not have met the prima facie test for accommodation since he did not explain the connection between his nationality and the vaccination issue.

The Committee recommended the Final Authority grant partial redress by quashing the RMs and that all references to the grievor's tentative release be removed from his file.