Proof of sincerely held belief or tenet of faith needed
A worker’s religious discrimination complaint after he was fired for failing to comply with a mandatory vaccination policy has been dismissed by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal due to a failure to prove sincerely held religious beliefs related to the worker’s vaccination refusal.
The worker was a building maintenance manager at a residential high-rise in Calgary for Bosa Development Corp., a property management company. He was hired in August 2021 on a 90-day probationary period.
A month after the worker started, Bosa implemented a mandatory employee COVID-19 vaccination policy in response to public health guidance from Health Canada and the Alberta government. The policy required all employees and others entering the workplace to be vaccinated and show proof of vaccination. The company was willing to grant exemptions from the policy on the grounds of disability, sincerely held religious beliefs, or other protected human rights characteristics.
The worker requested an exemption via email and completing an accommodation request form, stating his Christian belief that “life begins at conception and ends at natural death” prohibited him from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine due to the alleged use of fetal cell lines in vaccine development. In support of his request, he submitted an online article and a letter purportedly from a reverend. Bosa initially allowed him to continue working and undergoing regular COVID-19 testing while it considered the request.
No evidence of religious belief
On Oct. 14, the company denied the worker’s exemption request due to “an absence of supportable and corroborated evidence of [his] sincerely held religious belief.” It placed the worker on unpaid leave for one week to allow him to either consider taking the vaccine or provide further evidence of his sincerely held religious belief.
After some back-and-forth communication with the worker, Bosa reiterated its decision while offering to keep him on unpaid leave as an accommodation. The worker rejected the offer, asserting that it amounted to constructive dismissal and indicating that he would pursue legal action. Bosa terminated his employment on Nov. 12, 2021, while he was still in his probationary period.
The worker made a human rights complaint alleging that Bosa discriminated against him in the area of employment on the protected ground of religious beliefs.
The tribunal examined whether the worker had established prima facie discrimination, requiring proof that he possessed a protected characteristic under the Alberta Human Rights Act, suffered adverse treatment, and that the protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse treatment. Bosa conceded that the worker experienced adverse treatment but disputed the other elements of the test.
The tribunal found that the evidence showed that the worker’s exemption request was copied from an online template and the letter purportedly from a reverend was actually drafted and signed by the worker himself. During cross-examination, the worker admitted that he had never personally communicated with the reverend named in the letter, and there was no evidence confirming the reverend’s existence.
Fundamental tenet of faith
Citing previous Alberta human rights decisions, the tribunal found that to establish a religious exemption, the worker had to demonstrate that refusing vaccination was a fundamental tenet of his faith, not merely a personal belief. In addition, the tribunal referred to the Supreme Court of Canada’s test that a complainant must demonstrate that “he or she has a practice or belief, having a nexus with religion, which calls for a particular line of conduct, either by being objectively or subjectively obligatory or customary” and that belief is sincere.
The tribunal determined that the worker hadn’t provided objective evidence linking his vaccination stance to his religion, nor did he show that his belief was sincerely held – particularly since there was no other indication that refusing COVID-19 vaccination was a fundamental tenet of Christianity.
“Even with a subjective lens, I cannot conclude that the [worker’s] stated beliefs are sincere,” said the tribunal, noting that the worker declined multiple opportunities to provide further information to support his claim before Bosa terminated his employment.
Given the lack of a protected characteristic, the tribunal didn’t assess whether Bosa’s actions were reasonable or justifiable, as no duty to accommodate had arisen. The complaint was dismissed. See Lepage v. Bosa Development Corp., 2024 AHRC 152.
