Alberta worker's religious discrimination claim gets second chance

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has restored a worker’s claim of religious discrimination related to his vaccine refusal, finding that a hearing is necessary to determine a connection between the worker’s refusal and a religion.

Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL) is a Canadian-based oil and gas company that operates mostly in Western Canada. Most of its employees work out in the field in close proximity, as well as reside in close quarters in camps while on the job.

CNRL implemented significant safety protocols during the pandemic, but due to the nature of the work, many employees still contracted COVID-19, including some fatalities. When the vaccines became readily available in 2021, the company implemented a policy requiring its employees and anyone working at its worksites to be fully vaccinated against the virus by Dec. 1. On that date, the company suspended site access for employees who weren’t compliant with the policy.

The policy allowed employees to apply for an exemption on the basis of medical or religious grounds, which had to be submitted by Nov. 15. A religious exemption had to have a detailed explanation of the belief along with a letter from a religious authority figure attesting that the employee was a member of the particular religion and the vaccination requirement conflicted with their religious beliefs.

CNRL received more than 200 requests for religious exemptions, which were reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

The worker began his employment with CNRL in November 2020, with part of his job performed remotely and part of it involving work in the field. He generally worked and travelled alone.

Religious beliefs

On Nov. 10, 2021, the worker applied for an exemption based on his religious beliefs, claiming that he was “a Christian who follows the Bible as the one and only true word of God.” He said that vaccines were developed and tested through the use of fetal cell lines, which were derived from aborted fetuses. He believed that abortion was murder, so taking the vaccine would be “complicit with murder.”

The worker’s application referred to scripture and said he “would have to answer to Jesus for benefitting from the breach of the Lord’s commandments.” He said that he got together regularly with other Christians for fellowship and communion, and studied the word of God. He added that he had only recently became aware that vaccines use fetal cell lines, so he may have taken vaccines previously and for that, he repented.

The worker included a letter from his pastor confirming his faith in Jesus Christ and that the worker’s “dedication to God was evident in all aspects of his life in the church, in public, and in the workplace.” The letter didn’t say that church members weren’t permitted to be vaccinated or why the worker’s religious beliefs conflicted with the vaccine mandate.

On Nov. 23, CNRL denied the worker’s request for a religious exemption because he didn’t establish that his belief was connected to a tenet of his faith. Individual choices based on non-protected grounds didn’t “override the rights of others to earn their livelihood” in a safe workplace, the company said.

Discrimination claim

The worker made a human rights application alleging discrimination in the area of employment on the ground of religion.

The Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission dismissed the worker’s application, finding that it had no reasonable prospect of success in a hearing. The Director didn’t doubt the worker’s beliefs, but found that the worker didn’t prove that his opposition to the vaccine was religious in nature, agreeing with CNRL that “personal belief and freedom of conscience are not protected characteristics under the act.”

The worker filed a request for review of the Director’s decision, arguing that holding to the teachings of the Bible was one of the tenets of the Christian faith and the Bible “admonishes people not to add or detract” from its teachings.

The tribunal noted that the Supreme Court of Canada established that someone claiming freedom of religion must demonstrate that they had a practice or belief with a nexus to religion that calls for a particular line of conduct, regardless of whether it’s required by official religious dogma or religious officials.

The tribunal also referred to Ontario decisions that addressed religious beliefs and what differentiates them from personal preferences or singular beliefs.

Sincerely held beliefs

The tribunal found that the worker’s beliefs related to the vaccine and fetal cell lines were “sincere and deeply held,” as was attested to by his pastor. The worker also provided scriptural authority for his belief, which was more than “a bare assertion” that his faith required him to refuse vaccination, said the tribunal.

While the pastor’s letter didn’t say anything about whether church members weren’t permitted to be vaccinated, it explained the significance of his faith and how it directed his choices in life. This raised the possibility that the worker’s beliefs were religious beliefs that prevented him from getting vaccinated, the tribunal said.

Noting that there was no definitive case as to whether the use of fetal cell lines in the production of a vaccine qualified as a sincerely held belief, the tribunal found that there was a genuine issue to be resolve as to whether the worker provided sufficient information to prove a religious belief requiring accommodation and, ultimately, and exemption from the vaccination policy.

The tribunal overturned the Director’s decision and referred the worker’s complaint for a hearing. See Elliott v. Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2025 AHRC 16.