The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board has ruled in favor of two employees who sought religious exemptions from the National Research Council (NRC) of Canada’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, while denying three similar grievances.
In a complex decision examining five individual grievances filed against the employer’s vaccine mandate, the adjudicator found that two grievors successfully established prima facie cases of discrimination on religious grounds, while three others failed to meet the threshold requirements.
The policy context
The National Research Council of Canada implemented its mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy in November 2021, mirroring the federal government’s approach. Employees were required to attest to their vaccination status by Nov. 30, 2021, or request accommodation on human rights grounds. Those who failed to comply were placed on leave without pay starting Dec. 15, 2021.
All five grievors made exemption requests based on religious grounds. After being denied accommodations, they were all placed on leave without pay before filing individual grievances. The employer suspended the policy on June 20, 2022.
The successful claims
R.S., a business intelligence analyst who identifies as Christian, and C.P., who identifies as Catholic, successfully established prima facie cases of discrimination.
R.S. argued that receiving the COVID-19 vaccine would violate his religious beliefs because vaccines were “developed and tested using fetal cell lines.” The adjudicator found this belief had a clear nexus with his Christianity, noting that “abortion kills babies and using their tissue for medical research, no matter how far removed violates God’s command against killing.”
The board accepted this belief was sincerely held, citing evidence that R.S. had not received any vaccines in 20 years and had submitted a personalized letter from his pastor confirming his devotion to his faith. The adjudicator noted the pastor’s letter was “personalized and intimate” and there was “no doubt that R.S. is no stranger to the pastor, as a devoted member of his flock.”
Similarly, C.P. successfully established that her opposition to the vaccine was rooted in her Catholic faith. She claimed the vaccines “employ cell lines derived from aborted children, and my personal religious conviction compels me to abstain from any cooperation, direct or indirect, in abortion, which I view as the killing of innocents.”
The board found evidence of sincerity in her consistent religious practices, including that she “carries a rosary and a bronze scapular, tries to attend mass daily, and tries to live to the teachings of Our Lady of Fatima.” C.P. also demonstrated consistency with her religious beliefs by showing she “does not take antibiotics, would not receive a blood transfusion, and has not received any vaccines since she left the military.”
The unsuccessful claims
Three grievors failed to establish either a nexus between their beliefs and religion or that their beliefs were sincerely held.
A.S., who identified as an Orthodox Christian, claimed the COVID-19 vaccine represented the “prophesied Mark of the Beast and the coming of the Antichrist.” While the adjudicator found this belief had a nexus with religion, A.S. failed to prove it was sincerely held. The ruling noted he provided “no evidence that his religious belief is consistent with any of his other religious practices” and his affidavit was “devoid of any information about any other religious practices that form part of a comprehensive system of beliefs.”
C.J. initially requested a medical exemption due to penicillin allergies, only later claiming religious grounds. The adjudicator found this inconsistency undermined her sincerity, stating she “continued to provide little to no evidence to support the sincerity of her belief” and “provided no evidence of any of her other religious practices.”
M.H., who identified as Catholic, failed to establish his beliefs had a nexus with religion. The adjudicator noted that his affidavit merely cited “what may lead a Catholic to refuse certain vaccines” but “nowhere in his affidavit submitted with his exemption request…does he state that his subjective belief forbids him from becoming vaccinated and that it has a nexus with his religion.”
Legal framework applied
The adjudicator applied the two-stage test from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem (2004) to determine whether the grievors established prima facie discrimination. This test examines whether:
- The grievor has a practice or belief with a nexus to religion
- The grievor sincerely holds that belief
For the two successful grievors, the adjudicator found that being placed on leave without pay represented “a significant interference” with their freedom of religion that was “more than trivial or insubstantial.”
The ruling emphasized that courts and tribunals “must not be arbiters of religious dogma or teachings” but are “well placed to assess whether a religious belief is sincere.” It noted that the inquiry must be “minimal” and not based on past beliefs, with emphasis on “personal choice of religious beliefs.”
In the successful cases, the adjudicator highlighted that “whether a belief is true, and whether it is supported by religious leaders, religious dogma, or other religious tenets, is not part of a court’s or tribunal’s inquiry.”
The parties have 90 days to inform the board if they’ve reached settlement on remedies for the successful grievors.
For more information, see Harrison and others v. National Research Council of Canada, 2025 FPSLREB 57 (CanLII).
