No evidence of link between religious beliefs and objection to vaccine requirement
The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a worker’s complaint alleging religious discrimination based on his employer’s COVID-19 vaccination policy.
The worker was a maintenance planner for Keyera Corp., a midstream oil and gas operator based in Calgary.
On Oct. 1, 2021, Keyera introduced a workplace COVID-19 vaccination policy as required by its occupational health and safety obligations and public health guidelines. The policy required employees to be fully vaccinated by Dec. 15, but this was later extended to Jan. 15, 2022, when the recommended interval between doses was changed. After Jan. 15, any worker not fully vaccinated would be “subject to corrective measures, including unpaid leave up to 30 days after which termination for cause may apply.”
Request for religious accommodation
Three days after the policy was introduced, the worker submitted a written request for accommodation on the basis of religious beliefs by exempting him from the vaccination requirement. He provided a baptism certification from Living Faith Fellowship and a letter from a pastor including a statement of religious exemption. Keyera determined that none of these documents showed that opposing the vaccine was a tenet of the worker’s religious faith or a fundamental part of expressing that faith and denied the request.
The worker made a second request for accommodation without further evidence, which was also denied. He continued to report to work with proof of a negative COVID-19 test until Jan. 15, 2022. On Jan. 16, Keyera placed him on an unpaid leave of absence. Five days later, the worker resigned from his employment.
The worker made a human rights application alleging that the requirement to be vaccinated in order to remain employed was discrimination in the area of employment on the ground of religious beliefs.
The Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission found that the worker didn’t provide a sufficient objective foundation that tied his decision to not be vaccinated to a tenet of a religious faith or fundamentally expressing that faith. The director also found that, even if the worker had a belief protected under the Human Rights Act, Keyera accommodated him up to the point of undue hardship.
Religious beliefs
The worker filed a request for review of the director’s decision, arguing that other measures could have been effective in protecting the workplace from COVID-19 instead of mandatory vaccinations. He maintained that his refusal to be vaccinated was based on his religious beliefs, although he didn’t provide any new relevant evidence on his beliefs.
The worker argued that his body was “a temple of the Holy Spirit” and he was required to protect it against damaging things like vaccines, coerced medical treatment went against his right of conscience to control his own treatment, and his beliefs commanded him to avoid anything that compromised the sanctity of life such as aborted fetal tissue used in vaccines.
The tribunal referred to the Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47, ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, which specifies that religious beliefs must demonstrate a “nexus with religion” and a particular religious conduct the individual is sincerely compelled to follow. The tribunal concluded that the worker had not provided sufficient evidence to show that opposition to vaccination was a fundamental part of his Christian faith.
‘No protection for political thought’
The worker’s evidence, including scriptures and the pastor’s letter, failed to demonstrate a direct connection between Christianity and a prohibition against vaccination, said the tribunal. The church documents, according to the tribunal, presented refusal of vaccination as a personal choice rather than a religious imperative.
The tribunal noted that “there is no protection in the Act for political thought or freedom of conscience,” adding that such protection “would mean that every decision made by an individual is subject to protection.”
The tribunal determined that the worker’s refusal to be vaccinated didn’t constitute a protected religious belief under the Alberta Human Rights Act. The director’s decision to dismiss the complaint for having no reasonable prospect of success was upheld. See Jameson v. Keyera Corp., 2024 AHRC 117.
