The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a complaint by a legal assistant with the Alberta Public Service Commission who alleged religious discrimination after being placed on unpaid leave for refusing to comply with the employer’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.
The Tribunal concluded that R.D.’s complaint had “no reasonable prospect of success” and upheld the Director’s decision to dismiss it. The ruling reinforces the importance for employers to provide reasonable accommodations and highlights the necessity for employees to substantiate claims of discrimination based on protected grounds.
Background of the complaint
In September 2021, the Alberta Public Service Commission introduced a mandatory vaccination policy requiring employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by Dec. 14, 2021. Employees who were not vaccinated were given the alternative of providing a negative COVID-19 test result taken within 72 hours of each shift. The policy allowed for accommodations on protected grounds such as health or religion, offering free COVID-19 testing or exploring other possible accommodations.
R.D. requested an exemption from the vaccination policy based on her religious beliefs. However, on Nov. 26, 2021, her application was denied as she “had not provided a sufficient link between her religion and the choice not to vaccinate.” The employer informed her that she could continue working if she provided negative COVID-19 test results at her own expense or else be placed on unpaid leave.
Citing her belief that testing was ineffective and expensive, R.D. refused to submit to regular COVID-19 testing. Consequently, she was placed on unpaid leave on Jan. 10, 2022. Following changes to government mandates, the employer ended its vaccination policy on March 1, 2022, and R.D. returned to work on April 4, 2022.
On March 22, 2022, R.D. filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment practices on the grounds of religious beliefs. She also filed two labour grievances through her union: one alleging failure to accommodate her religious beliefs and another contesting her placement on unpaid leave.
Tribunal’s analysis and decision
The Tribunal conducted a de novo review, assessing whether the complaint had a reasonable prospect of success. It noted that while R.D. sincerely held her beliefs, “the complainant has provided clear information demonstrating her strongly held personal opinion and desired choice to avoid vaccination, but she has not demonstrated that her decision to refuse COVID vaccination has an objective foundation that links it to a tenet of a religious faith or that it is a fundamental or important part of expressing that faith.”
R.D. had provided quotes from scripture and a statement from a Baptist church emphasizing individual choice and conscience but failed to establish that her refusal to vaccinate was a tenet of her religion. The Tribunal referenced a similar case, Smart v University of Lethbridge, where the complainant’s personal beliefs were not sufficient to claim a religious exemption.
Even if R.D. had established prima facie discrimination, the Tribunal found that the employer had met its duty to accommodate. The vaccination policy did not result in immediate job loss but offered reasonable accommodations, including regular COVID-19 testing.
“At this screening stage, there is sufficient information to demonstrate that at a hearing by the Tribunal, the respondent would demonstrate that it met its duty to accommodate the complainant,” it said.
R.D.’s refusal to participate in the accommodation process, based on cost and doubts about test efficacy — which are not protected grounds under human rights legislation — further weakened her case. The Tribunal noted that the employer was willing to cover the cost of testing if a legitimate protected ground was established.
For more information, see Delia v His Majesty the King in Right of Alberta (Alberta Public Service Commission), 2024 AHRC 133 (CanLII).
