|
COVID - Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). Cholewa v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Cholewa v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, this brought against the dismissal of a JR, and that brought against a decision where the CHRC "decided not to deal with the complaint" - here where the appellant had been dicharged from the CAF for not following it's COVID vaccination policy.
Here the court considers the argument that refusing COVID vaccination was justified as an aspect of the appellant's religion:[3] Here, the Commission concluded that "“it is plain and obvious that [Mr. Cholewa’s] beliefs are not religious or connected to his spiritual faith”" and that "“there is no link to religion in [his] complaint”". Therefore, the Commission decided not to deal with the complaint.
[4] In his complaint, Mr. Cholewa indicated his "“beliefs are not of a particular religion”". He explained his belief that humans are unique, "“everyone should have the right to decide what is put into their body,”" and being able to decide that and "“live with those decisions are the core principles of [his] belief”".
[5] In considering whether to deal with the complaint, the Commission applied the Supreme Court of Canada’s broad definition of religion: Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47 at para. 39. The Commission accepted that Mr. Cholewa demonstrated "“deeply held personal beliefs”" that are "“linked to his own personal definition”". However, he did not "“demonstrate that the practice of his beliefs allows him to foster a connection with the divine or with a subject or object of his spiritual faith”": see Amselem at para. 39.
|
