A former member of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) was denied Employment Insurance (EI) benefits after being dismissed for failing to comply with the military’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, a decision upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal.
The court ruled that the Social Security Tribunal (SST) had reasonably determined that the applicant’s refusal to be vaccinated constituted misconduct under the Employment Insurance Act.
Religious exemption sought
The applicant, M.Z., was a member of the 423 Maritime Helicopter Squadron when he sought a religious exemption from the CAF’s vaccination policy. M.Z. argued that receiving a vaccine tested on human embryonic kidney cell lines would violate his Roman Catholic beliefs.
While the CAF acknowledged the sincerity of his religious belief, it determined that the risk posed by an unvaccinated member was too great and denied the exemption. With no alternative vaccines approved by Health Canada at the time, the CAF classified M.Z. as “unwilling” to be vaccinated and ultimately discharged him from service.
Application for EI
Following his dismissal, M.Z. applied for EI benefits. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission disqualified him under subsection 30(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, which precludes benefits for individuals dismissed due to misconduct. M.Z. appealed the decision to the SST’s General Division, which found that his refusal to be vaccinated was a conscious and deliberate act, constituting misconduct under established jurisprudence.
The SST noted that for conduct to qualify as misconduct, it must be willful, meaning the claimant knew or should have known that their actions could lead to dismissal. The tribunal found that M.Z. was repeatedly warned that non-compliance with the policy would result in termination and that his refusal was therefore voluntary. The tribunal’s findings were upheld by the SST’s Appeal Division, which determined there was no reviewable error in the General Division’s decision.
Judicial review
M.Z. then sought judicial review of the SST’s decision, arguing that his religious beliefs rendered his refusal involuntary and thus could not be classified as misconduct. He cited Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence asserting that religious beliefs and the conduct they govern are immutable, and therefore, his decision to abstain from vaccination should not be considered a matter of choice.
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the SST had reasonably applied the well-established definition of misconduct. The court referred to prior decisions, including Francis v. Canada (Attorney General) and Abdo v. Canada (Attorney General), which upheld EI disqualifications for claimants dismissed over vaccine policy non-compliance. In both cases, the courts rejected arguments that religious belief negated the element of willfulness in misconduct determinations.
The court found that M.Z. had made a deliberate choice not to comply with the policy, despite understanding the potential consequences.
It also pointed to M.Z.’s own documentation, including a letter from his military chaplain and his request for religious accommodation, both of which emphasized the individual responsibility to make moral decisions based on personal religious convictions. The court noted that while religious beliefs may inform one’s decisions, the act of refusing vaccination was ultimately a voluntary decision within the meaning of the Employment Insurance Act.
Moreover, the court emphasized that the SST’s role was to determine EI entitlement, not to assess the reasonableness of the employer’s policy or adjudicate wrongful dismissal claims. It reiterated that misconduct under the Act does not require moral blameworthiness, only that the claimant engaged in conduct they knew or should have known could lead to dismissal.
The Federal Court of Appeal concluded that the SST had applied the correct legal test and reached a reasonable decision. The application for judicial review was dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.
For more information, see Zagol v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 40 (CanLII).
