Although the pandemic is behind us, COVID-related cases continue to slowly make their way through the courts and tribunals.
In the recent decision of Jameson v Keyera Corp., 2024 AHRC 117, the Alberta Human Rights Commission (the "Tribunal") upheld the Director's decision to dismiss a complaint which claimed that the employer's mandatory vaccination policy discriminated against the complainant based on their religious beliefs.
This decision confirms that the bar is high for establishing discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs when it comes to mandatory vaccination policies.
Facts
In October 2021, Keyera Corp. (the "Company") introduced a COVID-19 vaccination policy that required all employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
The policy provided that:
- employees were required to be fully vaccinated by January 15, 2022;
- unvaccinated workers could not attend the workplace after November 1, 2021 unless they provided a negative COVID-19 test;
- evidence of a negative COVID-19 test would no longer be accepted after January 15, 2022 and any unvaccinated employees would be subject to unpaid leave for 30 days, after which termination for cause could apply.
The Complainant requested accommodation from the policy due to his religious beliefs. The Company denied the request for accommodation as the documents put forth in support of the Complainant's request did not demonstrate that opposition to the vaccine was a tenet of his religious faith or a fundamental part of his expression of that faith.
The Complainant continued to go to work with proof of a negative COVID-19 test until the January 15, 2022 deadline, at which point he was placed on an unpaid leave of absence. On January 21, 2022, he resigned from his employment.
The Complainant filed a human rights complaint, alleging that the Company discriminated against him on the ground of religious beliefs, by requiring that he be vaccinated in order to remain employed. The complaint was dismissed.
He then filed a request for review of the Director's decision under s 26 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000 c A-25.5 (the "Act").
Analysis
The Tribunal found that the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success, and upheld the Director's decision to dismiss the complaint.
In order for a religious belief to be protected, a complainant must demonstrate that the belief is a tenet of their religious faith or a fundamental part of their expression of that faith.
The Complainant raised three sincerely held beliefs that prohibited him from receiving the vaccine:
- His body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and he is required to protect it from things that could damage it, including the vaccines;
- Any coerced medical treatment is against his right of conscience to control his own medical treatment; and
- Receiving the vaccine goes against his belief that all life is sacred and holy, including the life of unborn children, as it was his understanding that aborted fetal tissue was used to develop the vaccines.
The Complainant cited scriptures, and provided a baptism certificate, meeting minutes confirming his attendance at the church, and a pastor's letter, including a Statement of Religious Exemption, as support for his religious beliefs.
The Tribunal found that the Complainant's evidence failed to demonstrate that his refusal of the COVID-19 vaccination was a fundamental tenet of Christianity or of his expression of that faith, as it did not establish the nexus between his particular religious beliefs and vaccination, as required under the law.
The Tribunal went on to say that the Act does not offer protection for what the Complainant claimed was his right to follow his conscience regarding vaccination.
Notably, the Tribunal did not accept the argument that the COVID-19 vaccination policy was discriminatory to his belief that all life is sacred and holy. They found that the evidence confirmed the religious principle of the sanctity of life, but it did not demonstrate how the principle is violated by vaccination. Regardless of the belief, the Tribunal noted that there are vaccine options available that do not contain or utilize fetal cells.
Key Takeaways
This decision illustrated that the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal is not willing to accept less than a clear nexus between a religious principle and the COVID-19 vaccine when assessing whether a mandatory vaccination policy is discriminatory on the basis of religious belief.
Further, this decision suggests that the Tribunal is unlikely to overturn the Director's dismissal of a complaint where the use of aborted fetal cells in COVID-19 vaccines is the basis for the claim, as the tribunal recognized that some vaccines were created without the use of fetal cells.
Our Labour, Employment & Human Rights group is available to assist employers in defending and navigating claims of discrimination.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
