IN THE MATTER OF an Arbitration pursuant to the Trade Union Act, R.S.N.S., 1989, c.

475 as
amended

BETWEEN:

Nova Scotia Nurses’ Union (the “Union” or “NSNU”)

- and -

IWK Health Centre (the “Employer” or “IWK”)

Re: Grievance on behalf of Yvonne Mackie (G2111008)

Arbitrator: Karen R. Hollett

Counsel for the Union: Jillian Houlihan

Attendance for the Union: Shelley Richard

Counsel for the Employer: Patrick Saulnier and Matthew Gough

Attendances for the Employer: Amy Goodall and Peggy Corkum

Date of Hearing: May 11th and 12th, 2022

Place of Hearing: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia

Date of Award: June 8th, 2022

AWARD

Introduction and Background

[1] This decision concerns a dispute as to whether the Grievor has established that her refusal
to be vaccinated against COVID-19 falls within a protected ground under the Human Rights Act
R.S.N.S., c. 214, (the “Human Rights Act”).

[2] The Grievor has been employed at the IWK as a Registered Nurse since 2011 and currently
holds a permanent part time position in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). The IWK’s
COVID-19 Vaccination for Team members Policy #345 (“the “policy”) requiring COVID-19

1
vaccination for staff came into effect in October, 2021 and staff were required to be vaccinated
by December 1, 2021. On or about November 12, 2021, the Grievor filed a Human Rights
Invocation form (the “invocation form”) with two attachments in accordance with the
Employer’s established practice, seeking an accommodation on the basis of religion because of
her Christian beliefs. Her request was denied and she was placed on an unpaid leave effective
December 1, 2021 because she continued to refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19. She
remains on unpaid leave.

[3]While the matter specifically concerns the IWK’s policy and the Nova Scotia COVID-19
Mandatory Vaccination Protocol for Employers, Operators, and Employees in High-Risk Settings,
neither the policy nor this protocol, both of which allowed for accommodations for medical and
human rights reasons, are disputed by the Union.

[4] The Union filed the grievance on November 24, 2021, alleging that the decision to deny the
Grievor’s request for accommodation violated Article 18, Prohibition of Discrimination and
other articles and applicable statutes. Article 18 of the collective agreement and ss. 5 (1) (d) (k)
of the Human Rights Act prohibits employment related discrimination on the basis of religion.
[5] As agreed by the parties, the sole issue to be decided at this stage is whether the Grievor
has established that her refusal to be vaccinated against COVID-19 falls within a protected
ground under the Human Rights Act, that is, religion. As I return to later, the parties also agree
that the law is as set out by the majority in Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47
(CanLII) (“Amselem”) and therefore only an objection to the vaccine which has a nexus to
religion and which is sincerely held will attract protection in the Human Rights context. The
Parties’ disagreement is how the evidence is characterized with respect to whether the Grievor
has established the required nexus.

The Facts
[6] The Union called the Grievor. As the arbitration was held at the NSNU offices, which
requires COVID-19 vaccination for attendance on the premises, I was advised that Counsel for
both parties and the Grievor had agreed that she would give her evidence and observe the
proceedings via Zoom link which is how the hearing transpired. Amy Goodall, Team Leader,
Human Resource Operation, gave in-person testimony on behalf of the IWK. The Union elected
not to cross-examine Ms. Goodall. The parties filed the Collective Agreement and a Book of
Documents by consent which was shared with the Grievor in advance
The Grievor’s Spiritual Faith
[7] It was not disputed that the Grievor is a Christian in the Protestant faith with deep ties to
her faith and strongly held religious beliefs.
[8] The Grievor has attended the First Congregational Church in Halifax since 2011 when she
and her husband moved to Nova Scotia. This is a small protestant Christian denomination that
she believed separated from the United Church over doctrinal differences. The Grievor and her

2
husband became church members in March 2012. The Grievor and her family attend this
church on Sunday mornings; take part in the bible study house group and she is part of the
Worship Team. On occasion, she has also helped her husband, a missionary in the Power to
Change Ministries, with his campus ministries at St Mary’s University and Dalhousie University
such as by running booths at society fairs and by hosting students in their home.
[9] The Grievor was raised in the Protestant Lutheran Church and attended confirmation classes
for two years prior to being confirmed in that church when she was 14 years old. This is
significant to her as this reaffirmed her belief in the faith that she had been baptized into as an
infant. She has attended various denominations within the Protestant church before moving to
Halifax, including Baptist and Pentecostal congregations, depending on where she was living
and working. She has been active within the various churches she has attended including
involvement in high school youth groups; Bible study groups; the intervarsity Christian
fellowship at university; and a College and Careers group. The Grievor has also attended a two-
day conference in the United States involving missionary work in the workplace. While living in
Scotland, Ontario the Grievor attended the local Boston Baptist church where she chose to
again reaffirm her faith by being baptized by full body immersion. Although she had been
baptized as an infant, she explained the significance of this ceremony as an outward profession
of her faith as an adult and said that baptism is a common occurrence in the Bible.
[10] During her testimony, the Grievor stated that as a Christian she believes that sin and
physical death entered the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate from the Tree of
Knowledge. Prior to that, the world was perfect and destruction, decay and disease come from
sin. The Grievor believes in heaven and hell and that people choose to be separate from God by
sinning. As God is a righteous and holy god, he cannot be in the presence of sin and the penalty
for all sin is death. She believes that all people are sinful and deserve death, but that God is a
just and loving God. She believes that Jesus the son of God lived a perfect life and his death was
a sacrifice on her behalf. Jesus paid the penalty of death and died in her place so she does not
have to. In the Old Testament there was a sacrifice system where sin would be transferred on
to a sacrificial lamb as something had to die. Ultimately, Jesus came in the New Testament as
the perfect sacrifice and there was no more animal sacrifice. If we believe, God sees the
perfection of Jesus in us and we can be in relationship with God and spend eternity in heaven. If
we are separate from God we have eternal death instead of life
The Grievor’s Testimony Concerning her Objections to the Vaccine
[11] The Grievor referenced the prophecies from the Bible referred to in the Book of
Revelations and the Book of Daniel during her testimony to explain why she refused to be
vaccinated against COVID-19. She said that she believes that Biblical prophecies have been
coming true for quite a few years and that her perspective, from the way the world is headed, is
that forcing people to take the COVID-19 vaccine injection is part of an evil plan. She said not
everyone may have bad intent or malice; but people are part of an evil plan which is the
beginning of the way the Mark of the Beast is being introduced into society. This is “the most
troubling” reason why she refused the vaccine. She explained that the Mark of the Beast is
talked about in Revelations, Chapter 13. The Beast is Satan and the Bible says people will have
to take the Mark of the Beast on their right hand or forehead and people will not be able to buy
3
or sell without the Mark of the Beast on your body. She said if she has to take it to go to work
that is very concerning to her as it means she cannot “sell” her services without taking it. This is
talked about in the Bible and requires a denouncing of your belief in Christ. This is troubling for
the Grievor because she believes that what they are using now for technology and the way it is
being implemented is the platform for the way the Mark of the Beast is being introduced. She
explained that Mark of the Beast is the ultimate denial of Christ and it goes against everything
she believes in to take the Mark of the Beast renouncing all of her beliefs. She clarified that she
does not believe the COVID-19 vaccine is specifically the Mark of the Beast, but it may very well
be the platform for the Mark of the Beast. On cross-examination, the Grievor further explained
that what she has been seeing in the world geopolitically is all prophesied in the Bible and
although we have not seen one world government or one world leader yet, this is the evil plan
for evil purposes that she has been referencing. She said that a lot of what has happened in the
last ten years has been prophesied in the Bible.
[12] With respect to her other concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine, the Grievor explained
that there are a few which she described as tied together. She believes that when she became a
Christian the Holy Spirit came to dwell in her - that is the promise of God - and she is guided by
God. The Bible tells her that her conscience is given to her by God and as a Christian what is
right and wrong is informed by God and scripture. She believes the Holy Spirit speaks to her
through her conscience. She says this may be different for different people and some people,
for example, can believe that alcohol is not sinful and for others to drink alcohol is going against
what God has said is good. For the Grievor, if her conscious is telling her something is not good
she cannot do it as it would be sinful to do so.
[13] The Grievor’s evidence was also that she views her body as a temple of the Holy Spirit so as
much as possible she makes decisions healthy for her body especially concerning medical
treatments or irreversible injections into her body. She says she considers these decisions very
carefully and if she is not convinced in her mind it is good, then it is sinful for her to do it. She
believes that she was created in the image of God and he has given her a complex immune
system. This is significant to her because she has been created in a miraculous way which is
incredible and awe-inspiring such as her body’s ability to heal cuts and grow an infant without
much help from herself. She elaborated that she has such an incredible complex immune
system that he does not even pretend to understand most of how it works; but she tries to
choose less intervention rather than more. She believes that her body’s ability to heal itself and
fight off infection is far superior to what we can supply through technology. It is not that she
will not use medical intervention; but where possible she uses less rather than more. She said
that Jehovah Rapha is a name for God which means “god as healer” and she believes that
ultimately god is healer whether through her body or antibiotics etc.
[14] The Grievor views the COVID-19 vaccine as very different spiritually than others because of
the prophetic significance that she did not believe applied to other vaccines in the past. As well,
she had concerns about putting a vaccine with brand new technology and not a lot of long term
safety data into her body, unlike one that has been used for forty years, because it is a temple
of the Holy Spirit.

4
[15] The Grievor said she had discussed her objections with her Pastor and other members of
her church. Her explanation was that in any church there are primary beliefs which are the
foundation of faith and other secondary beliefs which do not impact salvation and people have
different beliefs. She indicated that they have had a very respectful discussion regarding her
beliefs about the vaccine and her Pastor very much understands where she is coming from and
that she is sincere. While he has different beliefs for himself and the significance of the vaccine
regarding the prophetic nature of the vaccine, he very much understands how her belief is
grounded in scripture. The Grievor explained that pre-marital sex is another issue where there
are different views. From her perspective, she sees this as a very important in terms of how she
lives her faith. She believes strongly that sex is sacred in marriage and to her sex outside of
marriage is a sin. This is not the same importance or issue for others and some people within
her church choose to live together.
[16] With respect to the IWK’s position that her decision not to accept a COVID-19 vaccine was
a matter of “free will” and “personal choice”, the Grievor said that she believed that the IWK
was confusing her accountability before God with free will. She elaborated that in the Garden
of Eden God gave us a choice whether to follow and obey him. She explained that people are
not robots forced to love God. For her, some sins are very personal and other sins are sinful for
all of us. She described her very individual relationship with God. Her evidence was that we are
all given a choice whether to sin or not and our free will allows us to choose evil if we want to.
She believes that free will is not that she can choose to do whatever she wants, but it is a
matter of choosing to obey or disobey god.
[17] On cross-examination, the Grievor explained that she believed that her body as a temple of
the Holy Spirit and her complex immune system are two separate concepts. With respect to the
former, she believes that she should not defile her body as a temple and that, with respect to
the references in her submissions about her complex immune system, that she has been
created in the image of God including this complex system and she honours that by not
interfering or impairing it unnecessarily. She said that there would be significant negative
spiritual consequences based on her view of prophesies and stressed the importance of
following her conscience. She agreed that her views that the injection would harm her is based
on her views that there is inconclusive scientific evidence and added as well her religious view
as to how god has created her. She agreed that her view of the COVID-19 vaccine is based on
her view of the science and once she has made up her mind and it becomes a matter of
conscience after that. She added that she is guided in this through the Holy Spirit who guides
her decisions.
The Information the Grievor Provided to the IWK
[18] The IWK based its decision on information provided to them by the Grievor. As noted, the
Grievor filed the Invocation form (with two attachments) on or about November 12, 2021. This
request was initially denied on Nov 16, 2021 by email from Amy Goodall but there were was
further information exchanged by email. The Union filed the grievance on November 24, 2021
as noted, however, the parties also continued to have discussions during the grievance
processes at steps 1 and 3, having agreed to bypass step 2.

5
[19] The Grievor was questioned on cross-examination about some of the information she
included or did not include in answer to questions on the invocation form as well as the further
information she provided to the IWK leading up to and during the grievance processes.
[20] The Grievor had noted on the invocation form that her objection was specific to
vaccination against COVID-19-and not all vaccines. She agreed on cross-examination that she
did not specify the differences of COVID-19 vaccines from other vaccines on the invocation
form.
[21] On the invocation form, the Grievor had also written “at this time” referring to her stance
on the COVID-19 vaccinations. In response to questions posed on cross-examination about this,
the Grievor explained that her objection was based on all she knows and believes and which
could change is she came to a different understanding about what is currently true about the
prophetic nature of the vaccine. She says she does not want to say never because she cannot
know the future and that she was not good with “what if” questions. In answer to what would
have to change, she replied, “a lot.” She said she have to know a lot more about the long term
safety data and completed clinical trials. At this stage she believes that the vaccines are part of
an evil plan and there is no indication to her it is not leading to the Mark of the Beast. If she
came to understand it was not leading to the Mark of the Beast she might be inclined to take it
but said she also does not routinely take the flu vaccine as an example of how she looks at her
risk and her immune system to make informed decisions about what she puts into her body.
She agreed that in terms of following her conscience that this was in relation to a decision she
had made regarding something she could not put into her body and then it became a matter of
conscience. She agreed that she made an informed decision about her assessment of health risk
based on statistical information etc.
[22] The Grievor stated on the invocation form that she believed “the injection may have
significant spiritual and prophetic importance and negative spiritual sequelae.” She agreed on
cross-examination that she did not specifically state or explain these prophesies and concerns
about the Mark of the Beast and one world leader, which was the evil plan for evil purposes she
was talking about in her testimony, on the invocation form.
[23] The Grievor also agreed that she indicated on the invocation form that the decision not to
be vaccinated against COVID-19 was her choice.
[24] The Grievor had made reference to her rights as a “Sovereign Canadian Citizen” on her
invocation form. She was questioned on cross-examination about this reference and her use of
capital letters. Her explanation was that this did not have any special significance just that to
her, as a Canadian citizen, she believes she has inalienable God given rights which she believes
came from God before the Charter and human rights laws were created to protect them.
[25] The Grievor had included a sworn affidavit with the invocation form. The Grievor says she
included the affidavit because it was under oath and she wanted to swear to her religious views
and express their importance to her. On cross-examination, the Grievor explained that she got
the affidavit from the lawyer who took her signature. She had heard this lawyer was available
to swear affidavits and she went to Wellington, NS which is about half an hour away to sign

6
hers. She said the affidavit was about religion or creed, depending on a person’s belief, and
agreed that it was the mandatory requirement to take the vaccine that the affidavit addressed.
She acknowledged that the affidavit did not state her personal religious beliefs or how these
prevent her from taking the vaccine; but she added that these were in her submissions to the
IWK.
[26] The Grievor had also attached “A Christian Declaration on Freedom from Vaccination
Coercion” from the Liberty Coalition of Canada. She described this document as a letter signed
by a number of elders and pastors of different churches which showed that while there are
different views on secondary issues within the Christian faith, a significant segment in Canada
holds similar views as hers. On cross-examination, she agreed this letter was a form letter she
obtained from the internet and it did not come from her pastor. She said she included it
because she believed that it demonstrated that other members of the Christian faith hold
similar views as she does and she is “not just making it up.”
[27] Prior to the Step 3 meeting the Grievor also prepared a further written submission and
attached further documents including a further document from and links to information on the
Nova Scotia Civil Liberties Association (NSCLA) website and an “Open Letter to Canadian
Employers” from the Liberty Coalition of Canada.” The Grievor said she was invited to become a
member of the NSCLA in October an as RN and that Brian Harman, who used to be her
husband’s boss at the Power to Change Ministries, is representing the faith community. On
cross-examination, the Grievor agreed that the new documents and information provided were
not about religious concerns. She agreed that she was a founding member of the NSCLA, which
she joined in mid-October and that this is not a religious organization and is also not associated
formally with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. She also agreed that the information was
concerned with the efficacy and harm of the vaccine which is some of her concern. The Grievor
said she was trying to help the IWK understand why she had religious concerns about what she
was putting into her body.
[28] The Grievor and others who refused the vaccine were required by the IWK to attend an
online education session about the vaccine. She described this e-learning presentation as very
generic and not addressing hers or other people’s concerns. In response to watching the
presentation, the Grievor prepared a document primarily concerning the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.
The Grievor stated she did so because as a Registered Nurse she is held to a standard of
competence, safety and informed decision making and she felt the IWK should be held to the
same standard. For that reason, she said some of the slides were quite concerning to her. On
cross-examination, the Grievor agreed that most of the questions and concerns she raised were
from the presentation and some were about the speed of getting the vaccines to market. She
agreed that she did not specifically address the prophetic nature of the COVID-19 vaccines; but
rather reasons she believed that it would harm her immune system. She agreed she did not
seek advice from the IWK about the Mark of the Beast in her questions following the online
presentation which she also agreed the IWK would not be in a position to advise her on. She
agreed that she had written, in response to the slide stating the mRNA vaccine used “harmless
genetic material” that “the potential harm from the mRNA technology is exactly what concerns
many people, myself included…”

7
[29] The Grievor said once she received the Employer’s Step 3 response she felt she had done
and explained everything she could demonstrating well how her religion prevents her from
getting the vaccine, but they have not addressed her objections. The Grievor described the
intervening time as an emotional roller coaster because of the unpaid leave and the fact that
everyone knows why she is not at work. She said she loves her job and cannot imagine not
working for the rest of her career and described the emotional and financial stress and
uncertainty she has been living with.
Types and Availability of COVID-19 Vaccines
[30] It was not disputed that the Grievor has had access to different types of COVID-19
vaccines. The Grievor was questioned about this during cross-examination. She agreed that she
had access to vaccines based on both mRNA (Pfizer and Moderna) and viral vector technologies
(AstraZeneca) prior to when staff vaccinations were required and vaccine passports were
introduced in the community. At that time, these were strongly recommended for staff. It was
put to the Grievor as an RN that she would be aware that the purpose of vaccines are to prime
the immune system to recognize pathogens faster so a person would not get sick, or not as sick.
The Grievor responded that certain vaccines were okay. The Grievor also agreed she had
priority access to Pfizer but at some point could have accessed Moderna and AstraZeneca as a
member of the public. She agreed that viral vectors were more traditional forms of vaccines but
said she believed that there were differences between the flu vaccine, also a viral vector, and
the AstraZeneca in some of the technology such as nanoparticles and lipids. She said she did
not check into that with the IWK to confirm if that was true. She also agreed that the Johnson
and Johnson vaccine, another viral vector vaccine, was made available sometime in November
2021 to health care staff who were unwilling to take the mRNA technology vaccines. She
indicated that she did not look into the Johnson and Johnson vaccine because the technology
was not her only concern with the vaccines after the mandate was known. In response to a
statement that she had access to the viral vector technology prior to any coercion, she said by
October the requirements regarding staff vaccine were known and that she had believed it
would become a requirement before this.
Amy Goodall’s Reasons for Denying the Accommodation
[31] Amy Goodall said she ultimately denied the Grievor’s request because she was not seeing a
nexus to religion establishing that the Grievor was unable to take the vaccine because of
religious reasons.

[32] Ms. Goodall has been Team Leader, HR Operations at the IWK for approximately seven
years and has been with the IWK in various Human Resource roles for approximately eighteen
years. In her current role, she provides leadership to the Human Resources department and
she deals with matters involving labour relations, collective bargaining, Human Rights issues,
and policy etc. and has previous experience dealing with religious and family status
accommodation requests. She was one of two people assigned to review completed invocation
forms to determine if a request should be allowed. She received and reviewed the Grievor’s
completed invocation form with two attachments and after reviewing the material and some
internal consultation, she responded to the Grievor denying her request.
8
[33] Ms. Goodall’s evidence was that she did not believe that the invocation form submitted by
the Grievor explained how her religious beliefs prevented her from being vaccinated against
Covid-19. She felt the answers on the invocation form itself were lacking a connection between
religion and the vaccine. The Grievor referred to her conscience and to her immune system, but
Ms. Goodall could not understand the nexus between the vaccine and her religion. She felt the
affidavit attached to the invocation form was very generic and did not explain the nature of the
Grievor’s beliefs and the further document from the Liberty Coalition of Canada indicated that
the Christian religion was not saying not to take the vaccine, but rather that people should have
the right to choose whether to take it and not be judged for their choices.

[34] Ms. Goodall’s overall take on to the questions the Grievor posed by email as to what the
IWK looking for was that, for the Grievor, religion was a very subjective, personal matter and
thus Ms. Goodall did not have the ability to give an “answer key” other than the information
requested on the invocation form. She said she sent another email to introduce the concept
that the Grievor’s objection was based on personal belief and not religion. She said she
mistakenly referred to the Catholic Church in one of her emails; but this was simply an error
when she was keying and the denial was not related to that oversight on her part. Ms. Goodall
had also enquired by email as to whether the Grievor was a member in good standing of a
congregation which she explained was part of the process they used when assessing the
religious nature of an objection. She said she had received a letter from the Grievor’s pastor
confirming her membership in the congregation, but this did not change her decision. She did
feel this was significant as this letter did not expand or reference the Grievor’s request to be
exempted from the vaccine.
[35] With respect to the further information submitted by the Grievor prior to the Step 3
meeting, Ms. Goodall said she reviewed everything but these documents satisfied her of the
decision she had made. She described some of the articles and documents as fairly far removed
from any reference to religion and felt these were more about the concept of coercion and
freedom of decision with quite a large emphasis on science and efficacy and provided no nexus
to religion.
[36] The Grievor’s written response including questions about the compulsory online education
she was required to attend was shared with Amy Goodall because of the active grievance and
Ms. Goodall sent the reply to the Grievor on behalf of Steve Ashton, VP, People and
Organization.
[37] Ms. Goodall was asked about a statement she made in response to the Step 1 grievance
meeting on December 9, 2021. In that response letter, she wrote that “The griever’s religion
advocates for the free will of their members to choose whether or not to be vaccinated,
therefore demonstrating this belief to be of a personal nature, opposed to one grounded fully in
religion.” Ms. Goodall’s evidence was that she was trying to convey to the Grievor that it was
clear that the Christian community was of the view that COVID-19 vaccination was a matter of
personal choice and the Christian community was not for or against these vaccines. She said the
Grievor drew a fine line between personal and religious beliefs and it was hard to distinguish

9
between them. The Grievor was conveying that personal choice is deeply rooted in Christian
faith, but your personal belief is what guides decision-making. Ms. Goodall stated that there
was no distinction between personal and religious beliefs according to the Grievor.
[38] Ms. Goodall was also asked about a statement she made in response to the Step 3
grievance meeting on January 13, 2022. In that response letter she wrote, “While the Employer
acknowledges the notion of Christian free will, it remains our position that the griever’s decision
not to comply with policy is rooted within her own personal belief, opposed to irrefutably a
religious belief.” Her evidence was that this reference to “irrefutably” was not significant.
[39] Ms. Goodall also said that it was concerning and significant to her that the Grievor was
claiming she could not take the COVID-19 vaccine, but it was not clear to her how this was
different from other vaccines at the time.
Position of the Parties
[40] As noted, the parties agree that the law is set out by the majority in Amselem. Both parties
also submitted other authorities from the Supreme Court of Canada and various tribunals which
I have carefully reviewed; however, neither provided any case law directly dealing with religious
freedom in the context of the pandemic.
[41] The Union began by pointing to the fundamental purpose of human rights legislation and
the importance of freedom of religion to Canadian society as expressed by the Supreme Court
of Canada which has found that religious freedom is a matter of individual personal choice not
limited to the official doctrine of any church. Counsel pointed to other decisions of the Supreme
Court of Canada and how it has considered other freedom of religion cases without dissecting
the granular details such as upholding that a person’s belief that called him to proselytize
homosexuals in quite an extreme and graphic way was a “religious belief” without dissecting
whether this was supported by Biblical references as this was his sincere belief (Saskatchewan
(Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11 (CanLII). Counsel for the Union also
referred to the lower court decisions in Anselem which, in the Unions’ view, mirrors the IWK’s
approach to the Grievor’s case and which reasoning was rejected by the majority.
[42] From the Union’s perspective, the Grievor has given her interpretation of what the Bible
calls her to do which are her views of Biblical prophecy and also that she is called to make
decisions regarding medical interventions based on her view of her body as a temple. She has
testified as to her view of God as healer who created her with a miraculous immune system and
that she sincerely believes in deferring to God as healer. These personal religious beliefs call for
a particular line of conduct. The Union’s submission was that the Grievor has established that
her objection to the vaccine was based on her sincere Christian beliefs and that requiring her to
accept the vaccine interferes in her ability to act in accordance with those beliefs and, although
this has not been called into question, she is sincere. Although it is not necessary to prove this,
the Grievor’s evidence about her longstanding faith and the role of Christianity in her life
speaks to her sincerity.
[43] With respect to the information the Grievor provided to the Employer, the Union asserted
that the Grievor completed the invocation form and there was sufficient information on that

10
form to establish a prima facie case of religious basis for her beliefs as these relate to the
vaccination policy. If the IWK had further questions, such as what the reference to prophetic
reasons related to, it could have done an individual assessment which is what is required similar
to the way is assesses a claim for a disability accommodation. Counsel cautioned that the
additional information sought in religious freedom cases should be quite limited and not
require what the broader religious community supports or whether the beliefs are valid vis a vis
the Bible for instance.
[44] The Employer, on the other hand, disputes that the information provided by the Grievor to
the IWK was sufficient to trigger a human rights claim. It disagrees with the way the Union has
characterized the evidence and the information the IWK relied upon, as it was entitled to rely
on, that is in dispute. The Employer disagrees that the Grievor has established a nexus between
her strong objection to all types of COVID-19 vaccines and religion necessary to claim religious
discrimination. The Employer’s view is that the Grievor’s opposition is not religious, but rather a
matter of personal choice based upon her scientific assumptions about the vaccine. Counsel for
the IWK distinguished the Union’s cases which cases talk about religious beliefs giving rise to
certain practices views and choices. From the Employer’s perspective, the situation in this
instance is more the opposite. Counsel argued that more likely than not, the Grievor’s
opposition to all types of COVID-19 vaccines, but not all other vaccines, is based on the non-
religious, more secular material she provided to the IWK .While the Grievor undoubtedly has a
strong connection to her religion and strongly held religious beliefs, the evidence is that her
opposition to these vaccines does not emanate from religion but she is trying to justify that
opposition within her religious framework. There is a wealth of information that she has
concerns in relation to the safety, efficacy and technology used in the vaccines and these do not
emanate from her religion. Rather, as she agreed in cross-examination, she made a decision as
a matter of conscious then once she made the decision going against that offended her
religious beliefs.
[45] Counsel for the IWK submitted that in the instant case there is no evidence of a religious
framework that leads to a belief that the Grievor cannot be vaccinated against COVID-19 and
why her opposition is only to the COVID-19 vaccine. Here the Grievor has made bare references
to Biblical passages but has not provided the explanation as to what these mean or how these
relate to her opposition to being vaccinated. The affidavit she provided was a template, was not
personal to her and adds nothing as it is obvious it related to the mandate but the Grievor’s
opposition arose before the vaccine mandate. The “Christian Declaration on Freedom from
Vaccination Coercion” from the Liberty Coalition of Canada document also concerned the
mandate, but does not explain why prior to the mandate the Grievor was not vaccinated. At the
Step 1 meeting, she referred to differences’ in the science and technology to explain her
opposition to the COVID-19 vaccines, but gave no other explanation why this was different
from other vaccines and she did not explain why she was opposed to non-mRNA COVID-19
vaccines. At the Step 1 meeting, she made bare assertions related to the Mark of the Beast -
which she explained in her evidence a little more at the hearing - but she was not clear whether
it was the Mark of the Beast or the platform for the Mark of the Beast. On her invocation form,
she noted she might change her mind about the vaccines but she was not able to articulate how
or why. While the Grievor put quite a bit of effort into her critique of the e-learning module on

11
the vaccines, she did not put much effort into explaining the framework she operate on and
how that religious framework gives rise to a nexus to religion in relation to the COVID-19
vaccinations. The evidence is clear the Grievor is concerned with the potential harm from the
vaccine. By the Step 3 meeting, all of the additional information the Grievor provided was
secular in nature.
[46] Counsel for the Employer submits that the Grievor’s opposition to the vaccine is more
secular, social and conscientiously held rather than rooted in religion. The law in Anselem
requires examining whether the opposition to the vaccine is more personal, secular or
conscientiously held rather than rooted in religious belief. The foundational matrix which
connects the dots is missing and respectfully, the Grievor has only made rather vague
references to the Mark of the Beast; “end of times” and the “evil plan” and how this relates to
the vaccines rather than provide the evidentiary basis evident in other cases. It is clear from the
case law that the right has to emanate from the religious beliefs and one cannot make a choice
and then claim a religion right after. From the IWK’s perspective, there is a wealth of
information that the Grievor’s decision was based on other grounds which she put into faith
matrix once her decision was made.
[47] In rebuttal, Counsel for the Union responded to the IWK’s characterization of the evidence
and the law. With respect to the former, the Union submitted that the Grievor’s concern with
vaccines is not exclusive to COVID-19 as she indicated on the invocation form that she delayed
the vaccination of her children for two years and she declines the flu vaccine. This is consistent
with her approach to her faith as choosing natural healing choices and her beliefs as to how
God made her and her individual approach to which vaccines she is able to take. With respect
to the prophetic implications of the COVID-19 vaccines, the Grievor indicated on her invocation
form that there were prophetic and significant spiritual implications of the vaccine. The
evidence is that the Grievor was actively trying to understand what the IWK was seeking and
that elaboration was only given a month into the process was a function of the process and not
the Grievor’s fault. The Union also pointed to the Grievor’s evidence that she believed that the
vaccine would become mandatory and that this informed her view of the vaccine. With respect
to the documents provided to the IWK, which the Grievor said she believed would be helpful to
them, the Union urged that close attention should be paid to her own words and her own
beliefs as to what God calls her to do. With respect to the law, Counsel for the Union noted that
the Supreme Court of Canada has set a low threshold for religious freedom cases and the
Grievor has met that threshold. The Employer’s cases can be distinguished on the facts in that
these were situation where the individual was found not to be sincere or the issue was so trivial
as to not amount to interference and not actually connected to religion.
Findings and Analysis
[48] The issue to be decided at this stage is whether the Grievor’s objections to the policy
requiring vaccination against COVID-19 falls within the protected ground of freedom of religion.
If the Grievor’s objections to being vaccinated against COVID-19 have the required nexus to
religion and are sincerely held, as required by Anselem, this will engage the protections under
her collective agreement and the Human Rights Act.

12
[49] The relevant test, as set out in Anselem, can be found at para 56. In order to ground a
freedom of religion claim the Grievor must first establish that:
(1) he or she has a practice or belief, having a nexus with religion, which calls for a
particular line of conduct, either by being objectively or subjectively obligatory or
customary, or by, in general, subjectively engendering a personal connection with
the divine or with the subject or object of an individual’s spiritual faith, irrespective
of whether a particular practice or belief is required by official religious dogma or is
in conformity with the position of religious officials; and
(2) he or she is sincere in his or her belief. Only then will freedom of religion be
triggered.

[50] Religion was broadly defined by the majority in Anselem as follows at para 39:
39 In order to define religious freedom, we must first ask ourselves what we
mean by “religion”. While it is perhaps not possible to define religion precisely,
some outer definition is useful since only beliefs, convictions and practices
rooted in religion, as opposed to those that are secular, socially based or
conscientiously held, are protected by the guarantee of freedom of
religion. Defined broadly, religion typically involves a particular and
comprehensive system of faith and worship. Religion also tends to involve the
belief in a divine, superhuman or controlling power. In essence, religion is about
freely and 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.

[51] The Supreme Court of Canada has endorsed an individual view of freedom of religion and
thus a religious belief, in order to be protected, need not conform to official church doctrine or
obligations. As the majority further noted in Anselem at paras 46 and 69:

46 To summarize up to this point, our Court’s past decisions and the basic
principles underlying freedom of religion support the view that freedom of religion
consists of the freedom to undertake practices and harbour beliefs, having a nexus
with religion, in which an individual demonstrates he or she sincerely believes or
is sincerely undertaking in order to connect with the divine or as a function of his
or her spiritual faith, irrespective of whether a particular practice or belief is
required by official religious dogma or is in conformity with the position of religious
officials.

69 Rather, as I have stated above, regardless of the position taken by religious

officials and in religious texts, provided that an individual demonstrates that he or
she sincerely believes that a certain practice or belief is experientially religious in
nature in that it is either objectively required by the religion, or that he or she
subjectively believes that it is required by the religion, or that he or she sincerely
believes that the practice engenders a personal, subjective connection to the

13
 divine or to the subject or object of his or her spiritual faith, and as long as that
practice has a nexus with religion, it should trigger the protection of s. 3 of
the Quebec Charter or that of s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter, or both, depending
on the context.

[52] As commented by Arbitrator Albertyn in 407 ETR Concession Company v. CAW-Canada,

Local 414, 2007 CanLII 1857 (ON LA), the majority’s approach in Anselem allows for “an almost
unlimited range of individual extrapolation on core religious beliefs. It means that virtually any
belief, founded in some tenet of the worker’s faith, sincerely held, will trigger the onerous duty
to accommodate to the point of undue hardship.”
[53] Unlike the minority in Anselem, which would have applied a more stringent test requiring a
reasonable belief in the existence of a religious precept, the majority focused on the individual
and subjective nature of religious belief. The majority held that courts, and thus arbitrators, are
not qualified to rule on the validity or veracity of any particular religious practice or belief, or to
select between different interpretations; but we are qualified to inquire into the sincerity of a
stated belief where this is in issue. However, the requirement to establish sincerity, as
Arbitrator Albertyn also commented, “...does not set the bar very high.”
[54] The following statements, extracted from the majority decision in Anselem, provide some
guidance on the limits of a permissible inquiry into the sincerity of an individual’s religious
beliefs:
 sincerity of belief simply implies an honesty of belief [para 51];
 ..the court’s role in assessing sincerity is intended only to ensure that a
presently asserted religious belief is in good faith, neither fictitious nor
capricious, and that it is not an artifice. [para 52];
 Assessment of sincerity is a question of fact that can be based on several non-
exhaustive criteria, including the credibility of a claimant’s testimony as well
as an analysis of whether the alleged belief is consistent with his or her other
current religious practices. [para 53];
 A person’s connection to or relationship with the divine or with the subject or
object of his or her spiritual faith, or his or her perceptions of religious
obligation emanating from such a relationship, may well change and evolve
over time. Because of the vacillating nature of religious belief, a court’s inquiry
into sincerity, if anything, should focus not on past practice or past belief but
on a person’s belief at the time of the alleged interference with his or her
religious freedom [para 53]; and
 it is inappropriate to require expert opinions to show sincerity of belief. An
“expert” or an authority on religious law is not the surrogate for an individual’s
affirmation of what his or her religious beliefs are. Religious belief is intensely
personal and can easily vary from one individual to another. [para 54]

[55] It is against this framework that I must examine the evidence to determine whether the
Grievor’s religious freedom is infringed by the policy because her religious beliefs do not allow
her to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

14
[56] Although the Grievor raised a number of reasons for her Human Rights invocation
regarding the policy, her testimony was that the most troubling concern for her is the COVID-19
vaccine being forced on her in order to “sell her services” as she believed these injections may
be the platform for the Mark of the Beast and the end of times (for ease of reference,
“prophetic objection”).
[57] In support of her prophetic objection, the Grievor has affirmed her beliefs which arises
from her understanding of the Bible and how God wants her to live her life as a Christian in the
Protestant faith. She believes that the Book of Revelations prophesizes the end of times and
that the COVID-19 injections may be the platform for the Mark of the Beast. She has testified
that the COVID-19 injections being forced on her in order to “sell her services” to the Employer
is part of the evil plan referred to in the scriptures. I accept this testimony and believe that she
is sincere when she says that, for her, to accept an injection which may be used as the platform
for the Mark of the Beast, which she describes as the ultimate denial of Christ, would go against
everything she believes in as a Christian.
[58] Whether the Grievor’s beliefs about the prophetic implications of the COVID-19 vaccines is
reasonable or whether her beliefs are shared by leaders of her church or other members of her
faith are simply not questions that have to be asked and answered in the affirmative in order to
establish the required nexus to religion. As long as the Grievor’s subjective belief that she must
not take a COVID-19 injection arises from understanding of her personal obligations of her
Protestant Christian religion, as I find to be the case, and she is sincere in asserting this
obligation, the required nexus to religion is established.
[59] While the Grievor no doubt raised other concerns about the new COVID-19 vaccines and
their impact on her immune system and health, which I return to discuss later, in my view, this
is not an opportunistic attempt to avoid the requirements of the policy for secular or non-
religious reasons which would clearly not meet the sincerity requirement of Anselem. I find the
Grievor has raised this prophetic objection in good faith and whatever other objections she may
have – which she may be required to bend or adjust where these are secular – she is entitled to
the protection of her collective agreement and the Human Rights Act where her religious
beliefs are at issue.
[60] The IWK suggested that the Grievor did not raise her concerns about these Bible
prophesies until sometime into the process. If this were the case, this would certainly have cast
doubt about the sincerity of her beliefs. It was clear, however, that the Grievor stated on the
invocation form that she believed that the COVID-19 injections had “significant spiritual and
prophetic importance and negative spiritual sequelae”. As these were not elaborated upon on
the invocation form, the IWK could have asked her about this in order to better understand
whether there was a required nexus to religion as the Grievor was clearly willing to provide
whatever information necessary to help them understand her religious concerns. She did
expand upon what she had referred to as “the prophetic nature of the COVID-19 injections” in a
document she prepared for the step 1 grievance meeting. This meeting was the first time she
was able to engage in direct conversation with the IWK about her objections. In that
preparatory document, the Grievor explained that:

15
 …I believe we are entering into the end of times, the time of Revelation. I believe
the Covid-19 injections are a way the Mark of the Beast, referred to in the book
of Revelation, is being introduced into our society. I believe the Covid-19
injections are part of an evil plan for evil purposes. In Revelation it states that I
‘will not be able to buy or sell’ anything without the mark of the beast. If I do not
take this Covid-19 injection, I will no longer be able to ‘sell my services’ as a
registered nurse to you, my employer. In light of this, anything in this age that I
am told I HAVE to take into or make part of my body in order to provide services,
I can NOT do.

[61] Counsel for the Employer referred to 407 ETR Concession Company v. CAW-Canada, Local
414, supra, which is a case involving religious objections to biometric scanning. The grievors in
that case were members of the Pentecostal faith who opposed biometric scanning as they
believed, inter alia, it may be a precursor for the Mark of the Beast under the rule of the Anti-
Christ. There was no precept of the Pentecostal church prohibiting their members from
submitting to biometric scanning and the church left it to its members to act in accordance with
their consciences. It was clear from the decision that the arbitrator viewed the grievors’ beliefs
about digital images (to which they did not object) and biometric scanners (to which they did)
as inconsistent and somewhat illogical; nonetheless this apparent contradiction he agreed their
beliefs concerning biometrics and enrolling in a system which might become the Mark of the
Beast were connected to their religion, these were sincerely held and thus their beliefs were
protected by religious freedom. As Counsel for the IWK noted, the arbitrator in that case heard
expert evidence from various leaders in the Pentecostal church concerning biometric scanning
and the Mark of the Beast. While this evidence may have been helpful to him, I do not agree
that its absence here means the evidentiary record is necessarily lacking.
[62] As I understand the majority in Anselem, there is no requirement for independent or
expert evidence to establish the existence of an individual’s subjective religious obligation or
belief nor to establish that these are sincerely held. While the belief has to be rooted in a
religion, as the Supreme Court of Canada has defined that, this is not a situation where it is
necessary to examine whether the beliefs in issue arise from an unfamiliar or dubious religion.
In my view, the Grievor is a sincere Christian and her evidence provides the link between her
prophetic objection and her Christian religion as long as I am satisfied her beliefs are also
sincerely held.
[63] One of the IWK’s concerns, but certainly not the only one, was that although the Grievor
raised significant concerns about the new messenger RNA technology, she also had access to
viral vector vaccines. The Grievor agreed on cross-examination that viral vectors were more
traditional forms of vaccines and although she believed that there were differences between
the flu vaccine and the AstraZeneca vaccine in some of the technology she did not check to
confirm if that was true. Her evidence was that she did not investigate another viral vector
vaccine from Johnson and Johnson, which was not available to her until the policy’s mandatory
requirements were made known, because “the technology was not her only concern.” It was
also put to her that she had access to the more traditional vaccines prior to any coercion and
her answer was that by October the staff vaccine policy was known and also that she had
believed it would become a requirement before this. On cross-examination, the Grievor stated

16
that she “might be inclined” to take a COVID-19 vaccine if she came to understand it was not
leading to the Mark of the Beast although she also does not routinely take the flu vaccine as she
looks at her risk and her immune system to make informed decisions about what she puts into
her body. The Grievor’s evidence that she did not explore any alternative to an mRNA vaccine
after the mandate was announced but she might be inclined to take some form of COVID-19
vaccine after assessing her risk, as she usually does, if she came to understand these vaccines
would not lead to the Mark of the Beast supports my finding that her prophetic objection was
the most concerning to her and sincerely held.
[64] Counsel for the IWK also pointed out that the Grievor did not get vaccinated against
COVID-19 prior to the mandate, but this does not lead me, on the circumstances of this case, to
conclude her prophetic objection to the coercive nature of the vaccines is not sincere. As
referred to in the preceding paragraph, these vaccines were strongly recommended prior to the
announcement of the policy and the Grievor believed this would become a mandate.
[65] The IWK also referred to the Grievor’s involvement in the Nova Scotia Civil Liberties
Association (NSCLA) which is a secular organization created to oppose coerced vaccines and the
Grievor’s inclusion of secular information in support of her request as evidence that her real
concerns were secular in nature. While I appreciate how this secular affiliation and the secular
information she presented muddied the waters in terms of the IWK’s assessment of her request
for a religious exemption to the policy, it does not – considering all of the circumstances of this
case – lead me to conclude that she is asserting religious beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccine
and the Mark of the Beast in bad faith or dishonestly toward a secular goal. I noted that the
Grievor, with her lifelong deep ties to her Protestant faith, did not get involved in the NSCLA
until October at which point the vaccine mandate was known and her employment was at risk.
The fact that she took a secular route to oppose the mandate does not mean her religious
objection was not sincere.
[66] While the majority in Anselem cautions against requiring evidence of religious past practice
or belief, the evidence of the Grievor’s lifelong involvement in her church and her faith speak to
the sincerity of her prophetic objection to the vaccine. It is obvious that the Grievor has long
ties to her Christian faith and deep personal convictions about how she believes God and the
Bible instructs her to live her life as a Christian. As she referred to in her testimony, and noted
on her invocation from, the Grievor also holds strong beliefs on sexual relations outside of
marriage which arise from her understanding of certain passages in 1 Corinthians in the Bible.
These are also not shared by all members of her congregation and the wider Christian faith, but
she has lived her life in accordance to what her faith calls her to do even when, as she says, this
has been difficult or unpopular.
[67] The Union has also asserted that the Grievor’s beliefs concerning the spiritual nature of her
body - that her body is a temple and that she was made in the image of God with a complex
immune system - are protected religious beliefs. Assuming for the moment that these are, in
broad strokes, the types of beliefs that the majority in Anselem intended, if sincerely held,
should be protected, it is still necessary to carefully examine any subjective obligations arising
from such beliefs and how these may be impacted by the policy. A review of the Grievor’s
evidence about how she makes health decisions would not support a conclusion that the policy
17
interfered with these beliefs and infringed her religious freedom. The Grievor’s testimony was
that as much as possible she makes decisions healthy for her body and where possible she uses
less medical intervention and puts her trust in God as healer. She testified that she considers
medical decisions very carefully and if she is not convinced in her mind it is good, then it is
sinful for her to do it. She agreed that she looks at the science and once she has made up her
mind then it becomes a matter of conscience and that the Holy Spirit guides her decisions.
While I do not doubt the sincerity of the Grievor when she says this is how she makes health
related decisions, her evidence - including that she had not fully explored possible vaccines
based on the more traditional technology and that but for her prophetic objection she might be
inclined to accept some form of COVID-19 vaccine after making an informed decision - does
not support necessary findings that these beliefs meant that she was unable to take any kind of
COVID-19 vaccine (absent the prophetic objection) and that a policy requiring her to do so
constitutes substantial interference with these beliefs.
[68] Although the Grievor raised these other objections to the policy, I have found that that the
Grievor’s subjective beliefs about the Mark of the Beast arise from her understanding of the
Biblical prophecies and that her belief that she must not take any COVID-19 vaccines and risk
taking what may become the Mark of the Beast thereby denouncing Christ is sincerely held and
arises from her understanding of her personal obligations as a Christian. As the policy requires
her to be vaccinated against COVID-19, this policy constitutes a significant intrusion on these
religious beliefs and therefore infringes her freedom of religion.
[69] For the foregoing reasons, I find that the Grievor’s rights under the collective agreement
and the Human Rights Act are engaged. The issue at this time is not how or whether the
Grievor’s religious objection to the vaccine can be reasonably accommodated in a health care
setting. The parties have asked and, I have agreed, that I shall retain jurisdiction in the event
the parties are unable to resolve the remaining issues with respect to the grievance.

Dated this 8th day of June, 2022

Karen R. Hollett, Arbitrator

18