Self-Representation 101: Use Case – Denial of Religious Exemption for a Member Practicing Non-Institutional Spiritual Beliefs
Union said they will not support the grievance because it is "creed." She incurred psychological trauma and half a year of salary loss—and now fights back on her own.
UPDATE (January 31, 2026)
This article has been updated based on new information received from multiple members following the publication of the response to OPQ-580.
Here is the same preface, with your requested addition integrated cleanly and neutrally, without changing tone or legal posture.
Since that publication, several members have come forward who are independently challenging the denial of religious exemptions grounded in non-institutional, conscience-based spiritual practices, with varying degrees of success. Critically, their experiences confirm that Canadian constitutional law allows long-standing, non-church-based spiritual belief systems to qualify for protection under freedom of religion, provided the beliefs are sincere and form a comprehensive framework guiding conduct.
Equally important, these cases demonstrate that members are not required to abandon their rights simply because a union representative previously advised them otherwise. In several instances, members proceeded without union support and have already advanced their cases to the FPSLREB, where hearings are now pending.
This update is intended to clarify an essential point: even if a denial occurred years ago, a member may still be able to grieve it if they only recently became aware that the denial may have been unlawful — for example, upon learning that the union provided incorrect legal guidance, or that other members with similar beliefs successfully advanced comparable claims.
Most collective agreements, including those in the federal public service, allow grievances to be filed within 25 days of when the member became aware of the matter giving rise to the grievance, not necessarily from the date of the original denial. Where a delay resulted from misinformation or reasonable reliance on incorrect advice, this principle becomes especially important.
To assist members who wish to proceed, a template for TBS/SCT 340-55 grievance submission forms has been developed and is now available at:
https://en.gorodnichy.ca/members/self-representation-101/religion-1
This update is therefore both informational and practical: members who practice non-institutional spiritual or conscience-based belief systems can assert their religious rights, and should not assume it is too late to act simply because time has passed.
This Article presents a use case based on real-life experiences shared by multiple members who were denied union support in moments of profound personal and spiritual conflict.
The use case draws from numerous testimonials of public servants who followed lifelong spiritual or conscience-based practices not affiliated with organized religions, churches, or recognized religious authorities—and who found themselves abandoned by their union during critical disciplinary moments. These individuals often adhere to deeply rooted personal worldviews that include ethical, medical, and spiritual disciplines such as independent yoga lineages, Earth-based spirituality, and naturalistic or holistic wellness philosophies. Although these practices do not involve churches or clergy, they are profoundly sincere and form the foundation of how these individuals live their lives, often for decades.
One such member had followed anthroposophy and practiced anthroposophic medicine her entire life. Following her conscience-based beliefs, she avoided synthetic pharmaceuticals and instead relied exclusively on natural and holistic remedies rooted in her spiritual understanding of health. This was not a casual preference but a consistent life philosophy—a way of living shaped by decades of intentional conscious practice and reflection, fully integrated into her identity and spirituality.
Yet when a policy mandate required vaccination, she sought a religious exemption in good faith. The employer refused the exemption, and imposed an indefinite leave without pay (LWOP) until she complied—an action she viewed as extortion under threat of economic erasure.
She was willing to face hardship, but what truly traumatized her was the union’s refusal to grieve on her behalf. The response she received from her union’s Employment Relations Officer stated that:
“According to Canadian legal definitions, your practice constitutes a creed, not a religion. Therefore, there are no grounds for a grievance.”
This response not only dismissed the spiritual foundation of her beliefs—it effectively erased her lived experience.
She had trusted her union. She had paid dues for over 10 years—nearly $10,000 in membership fees—believing that it would be there for her in moments of crisis. But in the moment she needed it most, the union became the second blow.
“I expected the employer to say no. But not my union. It felt like betrayal from the inside.”
Her story is not isolated.
This member eventually discovered what the Supreme Court of Canada clarified in its decision on Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem (2004 SCC 47):
Freedom of religion includes individual and sincerely held beliefs, even if not rooted in an institutional religion or practiced within a formal congregation.
Source: Supreme Court of Canada Decision
Interpretation Summary: https://en.gorodnichy.ca/no-more-mandates/freedom-of-religion
Non-Institutional Spiritual and Conscience-Based Traditions
Canadian constitutional and human rights law does not limit freedom of religion to institutional, church-based, or clergy-led traditions. A wide range of non-institutional spiritual and conscience-based belief systems may qualify for religious accommodation where they are sincerely held and form a comprehensive framework governing moral duty and conduct.
Examples may include, but are not limited to:
Buddhist practice, including lay or non-temple-affiliated traditions where ethical discipline, non-harm, and mindful conduct are understood as religious obligations
Dharmic traditions, including beliefs grounded in dharma (right action) and karma (moral causality), where individuals are morally and spiritually accountable for the foreseeable consequences of their actions, and where knowingly causing harm is understood to generate negative ethical and spiritual consequences
Indigenous spiritual practices, particularly those transmitted through family, community, or lived tradition rather than formal institutions
Anthroposophic spiritual practice, including anthroposophic medicine, where health decisions are guided by a spiritual understanding of the human being as an integrated unity of body, soul, and spirit
Earth-based or nature-centered spiritual traditions, where moral obligations arise from a spiritually grounded relationship to life, the body, and the natural world
Conscience-based spiritual belief systems that impose duties of ethical restraint, responsibility for consequences, and respect for bodily integrity, including the belief that knowingly undertaking actions perceived as harmful violates moral and spiritual law
What matters in law is not the institutional label, doctrinal uniformity, or similarity to mainstream Western religions, but whether the belief is sincerely held, religious or spiritual in nature, and meaningfully governs moral obligation and conduct.
Taking Action Without the Union
Faced with both employer suspension and union abandonment, the member chose to fight back alone.
She began the grievance process without representation. Assisted by other members, she found the process rather straightforward and easy.
She also filed a Duty of Fair Representation (DFR) complaint against the union - as described in the guide written by another member who found himself in a similar situation:
Her case is ongoing, but her story serves as both warning and inspiration. I’ll keep you updated on its progress.
The Summary Timeline of key actions is provided below:
January 2022 – The employer denied her request for a religious exemption and placed her on indefinite Leave Without Pay (LWOP).
February 2022 – She discussed the matter with her union’s Employment Relations Officer (ERO), who advised against grieving, claiming her belief system was not a religion but a creed. Based on this, she did not file a grievance.
May 2022 – After conducting her own research and speaking with others, she discovered that her belief system likely qualified for protection under Canadian law. She realized the union had misled her.
Sep 2022 (Within 90 days of this discovery), she filed a Duty of Fair Representation (DFR) complaint against the union, as permitted by FPSLREB rules.
Simultaneously, she also filed a grievance directly against the employer, using a clause in the collective agreement that allows for a grievance to be submitted when the employee discovers that the employer’s action may have been illegal or unjust.
Nov 2023, After her grievance was denied at all three levels within her organization, she proceeded to submitting her case to FPSLREB for arbitration and is now awaiting for her hearing to be scheduled.
Below in the Appendix, you’ll find the actual affidavit from a member seeking an exemption from the vaccination mandate based on her Non-Institutional Spiritual Beliefs, along with a quote from the PIPSC union legal officer denying union support for her grievance.
Conclusions:
Why This Matters
Religious freedom is not limited to mainstream faiths. It includes deeply personal, consciously practiced beliefs that guide a person's ethical, medical, and spiritual choices. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms defends that freedom. When both the employer and the union violate it—the employee must stand as their own advocate.
Lessons and Key Takeaways
Lesson 1: Always file a grievance—even if your union discourages it.
Refer to Part 2 to understand the types of cases where unions often decline support. Filing protects your record and gives you a future opportunity to escalate the case.
Lesson 2: It is never too late to file a DFR complaint— you have 90 days from the moment you discover that the union's advice was misleading or unjust.
Lesson 3: If you do file a grievance yourself, expect the process to take at least one year to complete all three levels. It is common for grievances to be denied at every stage since they are reviewed by the same managerial structures.
Lesson 4: Once all levels of internal grievance are exhausted, you may apply for arbitration.
From that point, it often takes 2–3 years to receive a hearing date from the adjudication board.
In our next chapter, we’ll examine the journey of a public servant who filed a grievance without union support, reached the end of all three levels, and is now preparing for arbitration.
Appenix A: Affidavit describing member’s life long non-institutional spiritual practices
Appendix B: Union response
This is actual response from PIPSC ERO recommending against filing a grievance. Highlights in bold have been added. PII (Personally identifiable information) is removed.
“… I see that the affidavit you submitted doesn't mention any "religious" beliefs per se, but rather beliefs about anthroposophic medicine. Those could be viewed as part of a creed, but I do not believe they can be qualified as "religious".
If you are to be successful in challenging the employer’s decision, it will be crucial for you to provide clear and sufficient evidence that there is a nexus between your opposition to the vaccine and your spiritual beliefs. Further on this point, it is important to understand that not every adverse impact on a person’s religion or creed is discriminatory.
Of course, I understand that for many people of faith, their spiritual beliefs inform every choice that they make. However, for obvious reasons, human rights law does not go so far as to elevate decisions made by some (spiritual) employees over those of other (secular) employees when the matters concerned are only peripherally connected to their spiritual beliefs.
When an employee seeks an accommodation, the burden of proof that the accommodation is required lies with the employee, both to prove the existence of a protected ground and to confirm your specific restrictions/functional limitations.In the case of a request for a religious accommodation, it is your burden to prove that your opposition to the vaccine is part of a comprehensive system of belief which has a connection to the divine (ex. a god/spirit) and that is sincerely held.
If you want to argue that the denial of your accommodation request is discriminatory, you must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that 1) you have a religious identity/beliefs captured by the CHRA (Canadian Human Rights Act), 2) you suffered adverse treatment, and 3) your religious identity/beliefs were a factor in the adverse treatment.
As previously said, I don't believe you have a protected characteristic under the CHRA as your beliefs don't seem to be linked to a religion. Creed is not protected under the CHRA, but it is protected under your collective agreement (section 44.01) and we could therefore try to argue that the denial of your accommodation request violates the collective agreement. “