Evidence Required to Prove Religious Discrimination

/in /by

A string of recent decisions released by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) confirmed the evidence required to support claims for discrimination under the Alberta Human Rights Act (“the Act”). More stringent, clearer standards will allow employers to navigate requests for accommodation with less fear of grievances or claims arising under the Act. Although the decisions are focused on exemption from vaccination policies, they offer guidance to employers who are responding to requests for religious exemption from any policy in the workplace.

All four cases concerned an employee’s denied request for an exemption from a mandatory workplace vaccination policy on the grounds of religious belief. Each of the employees claimed discrimination under the Act. The evidence they brought to support their claims was as follows:

  1. In Haahr v. Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., 2024 AHRC 26, the claimant brought a personal statement explaining their belief.
  2. In Sheppard v. Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., 2024 AHRC 37, the claimant provided a letter from their Reverend as evidence.
  3. In Scott v. Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., 2024 AHRC 42, the claimant brought a letter from their lawyer supporting their belief.
  4. In Ducharme v. Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., 2024 AHRC 44, the claimant provided a letter from Christ’s Forgiveness Ministries and a personal statement.

The outcome of these cases was guided by the Tribunal’s previous decision in Pelletier v. 1226309 Alberta Ltd. o/a Community Natural Foods, 2021 AHRC 192. Pelletier stands for the principle that to assert discrimination, it is not sufficient to sincerely hold a religious belief. The claimant must bring sufficient evidence to establish on an objective basis that the belief is a tenet of religious faith, and that it is a fundamental part of expressing that faith.

None of the evidence brought by the claimants in these cases was sufficient. In each claim, the Tribunal determined the failure to comply with the vaccine mandate was based on personal conviction rather than an objective tenet of faith.

The quartet of decisions establish that complaints of discrimination for religious faith in Alberta require evidence that objectively demonstrates the item at issue is prohibited by the complainant’s religion. It is now clear that personal statements and notes from religious authorities or a lawyer are insufficient to ground a case for discrimination under the Act. This standard will help employers gauge which requests for exemption they ought to accept, and which can be rejected without entering the realm of discrimination. Should this issue arise outside of Alberta, these decisions may influence the outcome in other Provinces.