Federal Public Sector Labour Board Denies Employee's Religious Accommodation Request

Date: 202 60408 File : 566-34-46732 Citation: 2026 FPSLREB 34 Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act Before a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board [NAME] and canada revenue agency Employer Indexed as [NAME] v. Canada Revenue Agency In the matter of an individual grievance referred to adjudication Before: [NAME], a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board For [NAME]: [NAME], and [NAME], counsel For the Employer: [NAME], counsel ADVANCE \y 657 Decided on the basis of written submissions, filed August 22, November 14, and December 12, 2025, and January 2, 2026 .

REASONS FOR

DECISION I. Overview [ 1 ] In 2021, the Canada Revenue Agency (“the employer”) issued a policy requiring all employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19, subject to accommodation on medical or religious grounds. [NAME] (“[NAME]”) requested accommodation based on his religious beliefs. The employer denied his request. He grieved that denial and referred the grievance to adjudication. [ 2 ] I have denied his grievance.

II. General background [ 3 ] On November 8, 2021, the employer enacted the Policy on COVID-19 Vaccination for the Canada Revenue Agency (“the Vaccine Policy”). The employer is not part of the [NAME]. However, its policy was like the federal government’s mandatory vaccination policy that applied to federal public service employees working in the [NAME]. [ 4 ] The Vaccine Policy required all employees to attest to their vaccination status and to be fully vaccinated. Employees had until November 26, 2021, to attest that they had been vaccinated or request an accommodation under the Vaccine Policy. [ 5 ] Employees requesting accommodation based on their religion were required to provide a sworn affidavit indicating why their sincerely held beliefs or practices prevented them from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. [ 6 ] As per the Vaccine Policy, if an employee’s request for accommodation was denied and they were still not vaccinated, then the employer could place the employee on leave without pay as of December 13, 2021. [ 7 ] The employer suspended its Vaccine Policy on June 20, 2022.

III. Process followed to decide this grievance [ 8 ] The process followed to decide this grievance was like the one described in [NAME] v. [NAME] (Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development) , 2024 FPSLREB 58. There are approximately 90 cases like this one involving this employer and bargaining agent. A fair, efficient, and effective method to address them is in the parties’ and the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board’s (“the Board”) best interests. [ 9 ] The parties cited multiple authorities, and I have reviewed and considered all of them, but I will refer to the relevant ones in this decision.

IV. Facts about [NAME] [ 10 ] [NAME] is Catholic Christian. His beliefs are that he has free will and the right to choose what goes into his body and that there is no research on the long-term side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine on fertility. His beliefs are as follows: … As a practicing Bible reading Christian, taking the vaccine goes against my religious beliefs for multiple reasons. The first reason is that it has to do with free will. I treat my body as a temple and choose what enters it according to the Bible, man has free will and so we have the right to choose which medications and vaccinations enter our body. Since I have been in control of my own decisions, I have not permitted any other vaccines or medications to enter my body. I do not take any drugs or medications and simply rely on [NAME] given natural remedies. The Bible says: Genesis 1:26 “And [NAME] said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Genesis 3:22 “And the Lord [NAME] said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad, what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!” These verses explain that humans are made in the image of [NAME] and are given the same mental capacities as our creator. Therefore I am granted free will to think for myself and make my own decisions in this world. In Genesis 3:22 it is explaining how I have the consciousness to choose what is good and bad. With my conscious mind, I have the right to exercise my free will that was granted to me by [NAME]. The Bible says: Genesis 1:28 “And [NAME] blessed them, and [NAME] said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea,” In Matthew 9:22 “Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, ‘Take hear, daughter; your faith has made you well.’ And instantly the woman was made well.” In this regard, I am using my own free will to reject the vaccine which brings me to my second point of having numerous concerns about the vaccine and one is that there is no research on the long term effects. My main concern is the vaccines effect on fertility. Having children is something I am planning in the near future and the fact that there is very little research done on how the vaccine affects fertility makes me very hesitant on going against my beliefs. I do not want to partake in any vaccine that could jeopardize my ability to reproduce and have babies which is something [NAME] has called me to do. In conclusion, I have faith in the body that [NAME] gave me to fight Covid. I have never taken flu shots nor similar and considering that Covid has a near 99% survival rate, I believe that taking the vaccine would be an expression of my lack of faith in my [NAME] given immune system. … [ Sic throughout] [ 11 ] The employer asked [NAME] questions to clarify his accommodation request and the information that he provided in his affidavit. The questions and his answers to them are as follows: … · What is your specific denomination or sector of your religion (i.e. Christianity)? - I am a Catholic Christian Acts 2:21 “And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” · Why does your belief differ from the religious leaders of your faith who are in favour of vaccines (if applicable)? - As stated previously, I treat my body as a temple and it is my choice what enters it or not, not someone else’s decision, whether that is the government, a priest or the pope himself. [NAME] put me on this earth with free will to make my own decisions and with that said, my conscience tells me not to take this vaccine as it would damage my everlasting soul and the only one who can judge me is [NAME] himself, as mentioned in the bible: [NAME] 33:22 “For the Lord is our judge; the Lord is our lawgiver; the Lord is our king; he will save us” · Please provide a credible source of the statement on covid-19 having “an effect on fertility” - Regarding the fertility issues, I only mentioned we do not have very many statistics or testing on the long term effects of this vaccine and how that could have an impact on fertility. I prefer to leave my faith in [NAME]’s hands to have children without taking a chance of jeopardizing my unborn children’s futures. There has been issues with certain pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines in the passed and it is not a chance I am willing to take as once again, science does not trump my religious beliefs. Psalm 127:3 “ Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward ” · What does your religious belief say about your conscience - My religious beliefs tell me to follow my conscious and to use my [NAME] given free will to make decisions, as [NAME] intended us to do. My conscience guides me between right and wrong in any given situation. It also tells me that it is morally unacceptable to force something upon someone without their consent or free will. [NAME] 30:31 “And your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying ‘This is the way, walk in it’, when you turn to the right or when you turn to the left. · What are the religious consequences of acting against your conscience? - Acting against my conscience and my beliefs would not be in good faith as they guide me to know what is right and wrong in any given situation. Going against such faith could mean condemnation to eternal punishment. Therefore going against this could have severe religious consequences as sins damage the soul, and would be viewed the same in my eyes as murder and stealing (vengeance and greed for example). [NAME] 4:17 “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do, for him it is sin.” · Can you give other examples of actions that would go against your conscience and religious beliefs? - As described above, committing murder (vengeance) and stealing (greed) would be examples of going against my religious beliefs and my conscience. Nothing should be done to anyone without their will and consent. Proverbs 1:10 “[NAME], if sinners entice you, do not consent” · How is receiving this vaccine similar to those examples? - My religious beliefs tell me this vaccine would compromise my soul as it would no longer be pure, as would stealing and committing murder, and doing so would clearly go against my beliefs and being in a state of disgrace from Gods favour is not a place I would like to be in. John 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” [ Sic throughout]

V. Issue [ 12 ] Did the employer’s denial of [NAME]’s accommodation request on religious grounds constitute prima facie discrimination under the agreement between the Canada Revenue Agency and the Public Service Alliance of Canada (Program Delivery and Administrative Services; “the collective agreement”), that expired on October 31, 2021, and the Canadian Human Rights Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6; CHRA ) ? [ 13 ] Proving a case of prima facie discrimination requires [NAME] to establish that: 1) they have a characteristic protected from discrimination under the collective agreement and the CHRA ; 2) that they faced an adverse impact; and 3) that the protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact (see [NAME] v. [NAME] (Education) , 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33). The burden then shifts to the employer to establish a valid justification for the conduct, or it will be considered discriminatory (see [NAME] at para. 33). [ 14 ] The protection against discrimination based on religion is triggered when a religious belief and its sincerity are established. [ 15 ] [NAME] has claimed that the employer’s conduct constituted discrimination based on religion, which is prohibited under both the collective agreement and the CHRA . [ 16 ] [NAME]’s religious beliefs need only be a factor and not the sole factor in the adverse impact that was experienced. The fact that [NAME] provided a mix of religious beliefs and beliefs that were not religious but secular as reasons to not receive the COVID-19 vaccine is not enough to deny his request for religious accommodation (see [COMPANY] v. [NAME] , 2013 ONCA 396 at paras. 111 and 112; Public Health Sudbury & [NAME] v. [NAME]’ Association , 2022 CanLII 48440 ([NAME]) at para. 50; [COMPANY] v. [NAME] , 2022 CanLII 120371 ([NAME]) at para. 88; and [NAME] v. [NAME] Company , 2025 CHRT 110 at para. 79). [ 17 ] Further, whether there was an intention to discriminate is irrelevant. What matters is the effect of the employer’s actions on [NAME] (see [COMPANY] at paras. 111 and 112). [ 18 ] Unlike other protected characteristics, religious beliefs are not immutable, which means that they are subject to change. Within the first part of the [NAME] test, the Board must determine if [NAME]’s religious interests have been engaged. Tribunals and arbitrators have adopted the test set out in [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2004 SCC 47, when determining allegations of discrimination based on religion under human rights legislation (see [NAME] at para. 32). [ 19 ] [NAME] was the Board’s first case to apply the [NAME] framework to a case involving a [NAME] who contested his employer’s decision to deny his request for a religious exemption from the [NAME]’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. [ 20 ] The test in [NAME] requires a claimant to demonstrate: 1) a sincere belief or practice that has a nexus with religion and 2) an interference with the belief or practice that is more than trivial ( [NAME] at paras. 56 and 57). [ 21 ] Accordingly, I will use the first part of the [NAME] framework, as applied in [NAME] , to determine if [NAME]’s religious interests were engaged. [ 22 ] The first part of the test in [NAME] requires a party to demonstrate that the practice or belief at issue has a nexus with religion and that it is sincere. [ 23 ] [NAME] , at para. 28, outlines the key principles from [NAME] as follows: [28] … · It is only beliefs, convictions, and practices that are rooted in religion that are protected, not those that are secular, socially based, or conscientiously held (at paragraph 39). · Religion is about “… deeply held personal convictions or beliefs connected to an individual’s spiritual faith and integrally linked to one’s self-definition and spiritual fulfilment, the practices of which allow individuals to foster a connection with the divine or with the subject or object of that spiritual faith” (at paragraph 39). · The emphasis is on the personal choice of religious beliefs, which in turn means that freedom of religion does not protect only those aspects of religious belief that are objectively recognized by religious experts as being obligatory tenets or precepts of a particular religion (at paragraph 43). · Freedom of religion requires a “nexus” between the belief or practice and the person’s religion (at paragraph 46). [ 24 ] The Supreme Court of Canada stated in [NAME] that decision-makers should avoid an exhaustive inquiry into religious dogma (at para. 50) and should instead ensure that the “… religious belief is in good faith, neither fictitious nor capricious, and that it is not an artifice” (at para. 52). Assessment of sincerity is a question of fact. [NAME]’s credibility as well as whether the practice at issue is consistent with the individual’s current religious practices are factors that a decision-maker can consider in making this determination (see [NAME] at para. 53). [ 25 ] [NAME] also provides helpful guidance about sincerity at paragraph 98. To demonstrate sincerity one must do this: [98] … … simply describe their beliefs in an honest manner, preferably with details about when the belief started and how consistent it has been followed … any inquiry into the sincerity of belief should be “minimal” and not based on past beliefs.… [Emphasis in the original] [ 26 ] [NAME] v. National Research Council of Canada , 2025 FPSLREB 57 at para. 50, also lists as follows some of the criteria that may be used to assess sincerity: [50] … · the credibility of [NAME]’s testimony and other evidence; · when the belief arose (i.e., before or after the exemption was denied); · the belief’s degree of consistency during the relevant period; · whether the belief is consistent with other current religious practices; and · whether [NAME]’s actions reflect their belief that is subjectively or objectively obligatory (i.e., in these cases, whether [NAME] gets vaccinated).

VI. Analysis [ 27 ] These cases present challenges because of the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. Both parties have argued that the parties were trying to make complex decisions, with little case law guidance during the pandemic. Employers were trying to maintain safe and healthy workplaces for their employees which required making decisions in a public health landscape that was changing. Employees were trying to make decisions about vaccinations and in some cases were trying to explain their religious beliefs to request an exemption from mandatory vaccination requirements. A. [NAME] does not have a protected characteristic [ 28 ] At the first step of the prima facie test, the Board must determine if [NAME] has a protected characteristic, in this case, religion. As mentioned, [NAME]’s alleged beliefs and practices will be assed under the [NAME] framework to determine if they have a nexus with religion and are sincerely held. Although, I find that the some of [NAME]’s beliefs have a nexus with religion, they are not sincerely held.

1. Free will is not a religious belief [ 29 ] I conclude that this belief is not a religious belief. [ 30 ] [NAME] states the following: … … The first reason [he opposes the vaccine] is that it has to do with free will. I treat my body as a temple and choose what enters it and according to the Bible, man has free will and so we have the right to choose which medications and vaccinations enter our body. Since I have been in control of my own decisions, I have not permitted any other vaccines or medications to enter my body. I do not take any drugs or medications and simply rely on [NAME] given natural remedies. … … humans are made in the image of [NAME] and are given the same mental capacities as our creator. Therefore I am granted free will to think for myself and make my own decisions in this world. In Genesis 3:22 it is explaining how I have the consciousness to choose what is good and bad. With my conscious mind, I have the right to exercise my free will that was granted to me by [NAME]. The Bible says: Genesis 1:28 “And [NAME] blessed them, and [NAME] said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea,” In Matthew 9:22 “Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, “Take hear, daughter; your faith has made you well.” And instantly the woman was made well.” In this regard, I am using my own free will to reject the vaccine …. … [ Sic throughout] [ 31 ] He also states this: … … I treat my body as a temple and it is my choice what enters it or not, not someone else’s decision , whether that is the government, a priest or the pope himself. [NAME] put me on this earth with free will to make my own decisions and with that said, my conscience tells me not to take this vaccine as it would damage my everlasting soul and the only one who can judge me is [NAME] himself …. … - My religious beliefs tell me to follow my conscious and to use my [NAME] given free will to make decisions , as [NAME] intended us to do. My conscience guides me between right and wrong in any given situation. It also tells me that it is morally unacceptable to force something upon someone without their consent or free will. … - Acting against my conscience and my beliefs would not be in good faith as they guide me to know what is right and wrong in any given situation. Going against such faith could mean condemnation to eternal punishment. Therefore going against this could have severe religious consequences as sins damage the soul, and would be viewed the same in my eyes as murder and stealing (vengeance and greed for example). … [Emphasis added] [ Sic throughout] [ 32 ] [NAME] has not shown a nexus between this belief and his religion. His conscientious objection is not religious. Arbitrators and adjudicators have rejected similar claims that other employees have made (see Nova Scotia Union of Public & Private Employees, Local 13 v. [NAME] , 2022 CanLII 129860 (NS LA) at paras. 182 to 184 and 187; [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2025 HRTO 1995 at paras. 109 and 111; [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2023 HRTO 1134 at para. 17; [NAME] ; [NAME] v. [NAME] (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) , 2025 FPSLREB 33 at paras. 59 to 63; and [NAME] v. [NAME] (Department of National Defence) , 2025 FPSLREB 73 at para. 21). [ 33 ] [NAME]’s belief that [NAME] gave him free will, that he should follow his conscience, and that [NAME] supports his actions is not sufficient because there is no nexus between his belief and his religion (see [NAME] v. [NAME] of Public Employees, Locals 905-20 (Hourly), 905-21 (F/t) And Local 905-22 ([NAME]) , 2024 CanLII 8991 ([NAME]) at para. 27; [NAME] at para. 148, and [NAME] , at para. 76). [ 34 ] [NAME]’s belief also seems singular with a focus on the COVID-19 vaccine because he states this: “My religious beliefs tell me this vaccine would compromise my soul as it would no longer be pure …” [emphasis added].

2. The right to choose what goes into his body [ 35 ] This belief did not appear to be the main focus in [NAME]’s affidavit or in his answers to the employer’s question, but the parties raised it in written submissions. I conclude that it is a religious belief, based on his statements, as follows: … … I treat my body as a temple and choose what enters it according to the Bible, man has free will and so we have the right to choose which medications and vaccinations enter our body .… … … I treat my body as a temple and it is my choice what enters it or not, not someone else’s decision, whether that is the government, a priest or the pope himself. [NAME] put me on this earth with free will to make my own decisions and with that said, my conscience tells me not to take this vaccine as it would damage my everlasting soul and the only one who can judge me is [NAME] himself …. … [Emphasis added] [ Sic throughout] [ 36 ] [NAME]’s belief about his body is a temple is similar to [COMPANY] , where the arbitrator found that individual’s belief that she could not take the COVID-19 vaccine because her body was a temple had a nexus with her religious belief. [ 37 ] I find that [NAME]’s submissions were not well articulated but, well articulated submissions are not required at this stage (see [NAME] v. [NAME] (Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) , 2024 FPSLREB 175 at para. 23).

3. Lack of research on the long-term side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine and fertility [ 38 ] I conclude that this is a religious belief, based on his statements as follows: … The Bible says: Genesis 1:28 “And [NAME] blessed them, and [NAME] said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea,” … In this regard, I am using my own free will to reject the vaccine which brings me to my second point of having numerous concerns about the vaccine and one is that there is no research on the long term effects. My main concern is the vaccines effect on fertility. Having children is something I am planning in the near future and the fact that there is very little research done on how the vaccine affects fertility makes me very hesitant on going against my beliefs. I do not want to partake in any vaccine that could jeopardize my ability to reproduce and have babies which is something [NAME] has called me to do. … [ 39 ] [NAME] has a subjective belief that having children is required by his faith and that the vaccine could compromise his ability to do so. B. His beliefs are not sincerely held [ 40 ] I conclude that his beliefs are not sincerely held. [ 41 ] Sincerity is a low threshold to meet, and it involves testing whether the claimant’s alleged belief is consistent with their other current religious practices; see [NAME] at para. 53. [ 42 ] The issue in this case is the lack of information and the mix of religious and secular reasoning for not taking the vaccine that makes it difficult to assess the sincerity of [NAME]’s religious beliefs. [ 43 ] Since the bar for demonstrating sincerity is low it prevents a tribunal from conducting a probing inquiry into one’s religious beliefs, however there is a burden of proof. [NAME] has the burden to demonstrate that his religious beliefs are sincerely held. He did not meet his burden. He stated this: “Since I have been in control of my own decisions, I have not permitted any other vaccines or medications to enter my body. I do not take any drugs or medications and simply rely on [NAME] [ sic ] given natural remedies.” [ 44 ] He also stated that he has never taken “flu shots nor similar”. Besides this general statement, he did not provide information about when this practice began and did not explain how he lives his life in a way that is consistent with his religious belief that his body is a temple or how his belief and religious practices integrate into his daily life. [ 45 ] I conclude that [NAME] does not have a protected characteristic under the CHRA because he has not demonstrated that his religious beliefs are sincerely held. For that reason, he has not met the first part of the prima facie test. [ 46 ] For all of the above reasons, the Board makes the following order: (The Order appears on the next page)

VII. Order [ 47 ] The grievance is denied. April 8, 2026. [NAME], a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board