COVID-19 Religious Accommodation Case Allowed to Proceed

In Goman v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2025 AHRC 14, the Chief of Commission and Tribunals overturned a Director’s decision to dismiss a claim of religious accommodation involving COVID-19.

This case is significant because religious accommodation cases related to COVID vaccination have usually been unsuccessful, even where similar to these facts.  The Commission had dismissed this matter without a hearing as has having no “reasonable prospect of success”, but in this summarized decision the Tribunal allowed it to go forward to a hearing.

Facts

The following were some of the pertinent facts summarized by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal:

• The complainant Regina Goman was employed by CNRL from 2013 to 2022 as an Analyst
• In September 2021, CNRL implemented a vaccination policy requiring employees to be fully immunized against COVID-19 by December 1, 2021
• The policy indicated that violations would not be tolerated, and could result in discipline including termination of employment
• Goman requested an exemption from the vaccine policy for religious reasons: she is a Christian and member of Church in the Vine
• CNRL denied the exemption
• The complainant did not take the vaccine and did not comply with the December 1 deadline
• CNRL advised that she was in breach and if she did not provide proof of second dose vaccination by December 21 she would be suspended without pay
• The complainant went on medical leave on December 10. She did not provide proof of vaccination by Dec 21
• Around March 2022, letters were sent to employees on unpaid suspension explaining that CNRL would be ending vaccination requirement April 4, 2022 and employees were required to return to work
• The complainant was on Short Term Disability leave supported by a medical note at the time, so was not expected to return to work
• The human rights complaint is that CNRL improperly rejected her claim of religious exemption from vaccination
• The Director dismissed the human rights complaint as having “no reasonable prospect of success”
• This summary relates to request for review to the Tribunal of the Director’s decision

Analysis / Conclusion

The complainant’s position was essentially that she does not take vaccines because she believes it would violate God’s design of her immune system and DNA. 

She provided a letter from her Pastor at Church of the Vine which stated certain principles of Christian faith related to bearing the image of God and viewing their bodies as temples.  He said that for the complainant, this meant not injecting her body with experimental, synthetic or potentially dangerous substances like mRNA vaccines, and protecting unborn children from medical experimentation (i.e. using anything derived from fetal cell lines).

CNRL had considered the following questions as a guide when considering exemption requests:

1. Is the exemption request supported by a sincerely held belief connected to the complainant’s faith?
2. Is the asserted religious belief in good faith, neither fictitious nor capricious, and is not an artifice?
3. Has the complainant provided a sufficient objective basis to establish that the belief is a tenant of a religious faith, and that it is a fundamental or important part of expressing that faith?

CNRL had declined the request, stating that it had been based on personal beliefs and distrust of the vaccine.

The Tribunal found that fetal cell lines were used in only two of the COVID-19 vaccinations: Jannsen and AstraZeneca.

The Tribunal made no finding as to whether the complainant’s beliefs qualify as religious beliefs, but overturned the Director’s decision that there was no reasonable prospect of success, finding as follows:

[45] … In the facts of this case, I defer to the TRribuanl on whether the complainant has a sincerely held religious belief.  This isnot one of those cases wherethe complaintn has made a bare assertion such as in Pelletier v 1226309 Alberta Ltd. o/a Community Natural Foods, where the Chief Commissioner held:

…an individual must do more than identify a particular belief, claim that it is sincerely held, and claim that it is religious in nature. This is not sufficient to assert discrimination under the Act. They must provide a sufficient objective basis to establish that the belief is a tenet of a religious faith (whether or not it is widely adopted by others of the faith), and that it is a fundamental or important part of expressing faith.

My Take

This case is interesting because despite how many disputes there were over COVID-19 vaccination exemptions, including religious accommodation cases, there have not been a large number of decisions on the subject and most of them have not been favorable to complainants.  It will be interesting to see what happens with this case after it has gone through an actual Tribunal hearing on the merits.

Bow River Law provides these regular legal blog articles for the purposes of legal news, education and research for the public and the legal profession.  These articles should be considered general information and not legal advice.  If you have a legal problem, you should speak to a lawyer directly. Bow River Law is a team of knowledgeable, skilled and experienced employment lawyers handling employment law, human rights (discrimination) and labour law matters.  Bow River Law is based in Calgary but we are Alberta’s Workforce Lawyers.