# 2023-083 Careers, COVID-19

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-04-16

The grievor disputed the decision of his Commanding Officer (CO) to deny his parental (PATA) leave request. The CO based his decision on the Chief of the Defense Staff (CDS) Directives that formed the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) COVID-19 Vaccination Policy. These directives stated that Leave Without Pay could not be granted for the purpose of avoiding the administrative consequences of remaining unvaccinated. The grievor, who refused to be vaccinated, noted that he made his PATA request before the CAF policy was promulgated. The grievor argued that he had an entitlement to PATA leave under the Canada Labour Code.

The Initial Authority (IA) concluded that granting the grievor's PATA request would be in clear violation of CDS Directive 002. Therefore, the IA found that the CO's decision was reasonable.

The Committee first determined that the CAF COVID-19 Vaccination Policy, including the CDS Directives, was unreasonable. The Committee also determined that the grievor had not requested PATA leave to avoid the consequences of refusing vaccination but rather because of the birth of his child. Finally, the Committee concluded that the decision to deny the grievor's PATA request was not supported by the facts and was contrary to the PATA leave provisions. The Committee noted that the unjustified denial had resulted in profoundly negative consequences for the grievor.

The Committee found that the grievor had been aggrieved and recommended the Final Authority grant redress by addressing the financial prejudice suffered by the grievor as a result of the unjust denial of his PATA leave benefits.