WestJet and NRC Workers Denied Exemptions, Vindicated in Court: What Recent Rulings Reveal About COVID-19 Mandates, Historical Parallels, and What to Expect Next. Mark Your Calendar - 29 May 2024
Free Workshop on 29th May To Learn More About Spike Protein in mRNA Vaccines
Three recent legal victories in Canada (including one for friend of mine at NRC) shed light on a troubling pattern: when governments and employers overreach, courts are willing to call out procedural injustices—but not the underlying policies.
In each case, the religious beliefs of unvaccinated employees were disregarded, and their careers upended. Courts ruled in their favour, yet carefully preserved the legitimacy of the mandates themselves.
These rulings echo a historical precedent set by Soviet leaders, who blamed atrocities not on policy but on “excesses at the local level.” The Soviet Party was never wrong—only those who carried out its vision too zealously. Are Canadian institutions adopting similar narratives today? Let’s dive deeper in to that.
Case 1: R.S. v. National Research Council (2025)
R.S., a devout Christian and NRC employee, refused COVID-19 vaccination on religious grounds, citing fetal cell lines used in vaccine development. He provided a detailed explanation and a personal letter from his pastor.
The NRC denied his exemption and placed him on unpaid leave. In 2025, a federal labour board ruled in his favour, recognizing his belief as sincere and religiously grounded. The decision acknowledged that denying him accommodation violated his Charter right to freedom of religion.
Full decision: FPSLREB Decision 2025 on R.S.
Case 2: C.P. v. National Research Council (2025)
C.P., a Catholic NRC employee, opposed vaccination due to its association with abortion. She submitted a thorough accommodation request and lived a demonstrably devout lifestyle.
The NRC also denied her request and placed her on leave. The 2025 ruling determined that her rights were violated due to improper consideration of her faith. Like R.S., she was found to have been discriminated against.
Full decision: FPSLREB Decision 2025 on C.P. (same ruling document as above; covers multiple grievors)
Case 3: Yee v. WestJet Airlines (2025)
Duong Yee, an accountant at WestJet, was fired after her religious exemption request was denied. She had worked remotely for over six months with no issues and provided a detailed statement of her Christian beliefs, supported by her pastor.
WestJet claimed her concerns were not truly religious because she also cited vaccine safety. The Alberta court disagreed, ruling that she was wrongfully dismissed. It awarded her nearly a year’s salary in compensation.
Key legal commentary: CanuckLaw summary
Full judgment: Yee v. WestJet, 2025 ABCJ 87
In meanwhile, in US
In the meantime, the U.S. is calling for a halt to administering COVID boosters to healthy Americans and demanding greater scrutiny of testing protocols—while in Canada, these boosters are still surprisingly (?) recommended even for babies as young as 6 months old. Read more about such a drastic difference in approaches between two neighbouring countries in the article that I wrote for my other (ivim) substack:
And meanwhile, elsewhere in Canada - Free Learing Event this week. Mark your calendar!
For those who have suffered adverse effects from COVID vaccines (including individuals I personally know from NRC, CBSA, and other PIPSC members who reached out to me) and for anyone interested in understanding how the spike protein in these vaccines behaves in the body post-injection (and what can be done to mitigate its effects), the Canadian Citizen’s Care Alliance (CCCA) in partnership with CanConnect19 - Canada's newest support group for our Covid-19 vaccine injured, is offering a free online workshop on May 29. Visit their website to learn more and register: www.canconnect19.ca
And now, some discussion…
Appendix A: Historical Parallels—From Soviet “Excesses” to Canadian COVID Policies
In 1956, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev delivered a speech condemning the crimes of Joseph Stalin—but framed them as deviations from Leninist ideals, not as the failure of the communist system. Stalin, he said, had allowed a cult of personality and empowered local officials who distorted central policy.
This rhetorical approach—maintaining ideological purity while blaming implementation—was not new. In 1930, during a brutal collectivization campaign, Stalin himself admitted some local officials overstepped, but insisted the policy was correct. The problem, he wrote in “Dizzy with Success,” was merely execution.
Today, Canadian courts and agencies seem to apply a similar frame. COVID-19 mandates are repeatedly upheld as legitimate, while wrongful terminations or rights violations are attributed to poor handling at the local or managerial level. As in the USSR, this strategy preserves institutional legitimacy while deflecting accountability.
For further reading:
Khrushchev’s Secret Speech: Marxists.org archive
Stalin’s “Dizzy with Success” article (1930): RIA Novosti commentary
Appendix B: Lost NRC Exemption Cases
While R.S. and C.P. won their grievances, three other NRC employees—identified as A.S., C.J., and M.H.—were unsuccessful in securing religious exemptions.
A.S. claimed the COVID vaccine was the prophesied “Mark of the Beast” but failed to provide any evidence of regular religious practice or commitment to his stated beliefs. The board noted a complete absence of supporting documentation or testimony.
C.J. initially pursued a medical exemption and later shifted her claim to a religious basis. This switch undermined her credibility. She provided no corroborating material or details of any specific religious practice.
M.H., while identifying as Catholic, did not demonstrate how his personal opposition to vaccination was rooted in a sincerely held religious belief. He merely cited general church teachings, without showing that his own conduct adhered to them.
Full decision: FPSLREB Decision 2025 on All NRC Grievors
In contrast to R.S. and C.P., these applicants failed the legal test of sincerity and religious nexus. The labour board emphasized that it is not the truth or orthodoxy of the belief that matters, but whether it is personally and consistently held.
Observation: All six NRC grievors in this case appear to have been Christian. But what about employees whose belief systems do not rely on formal doctrine, written statements, or recognized clergy—such as Mahāyāna Buddhists, Indigenous spiritual practitioners, or those with deeply personal but informal ethical convictions? These traditions may not lend themselves to the same kind of documentary proof demanded by adjudicators.
Conclusion: These cases suggest that the strength of an exemption request often hinges on how well an employee can articulate and document their personal religious convictions. But religion—and conscience more broadly—is an inherently intimate, internal reality. It should never be the case that one must perform or validate their spirituality in writing in order to retain bodily autonomy, informed consent, or access to livelihood.
Conclusion: The Pattern Repeats ?
Whether in Soviet Russia or 21st-century Canada, the script is known: blame the error, not the system. Courts acknowledge rights were violated, but only because the rules weren't followed “correctly.” Policies remain sacred.
For public servants and citizens, the question remains: can justice truly be served without examining the broader framework that enabled the harm in the first place?
Is that the case? The time will show.
Support This Work Across All Channels
If you believe in open dialogue, informed choice, and exploring underreported perspectives, help keep the conversation going—like and share this article on your preferred platform.
I write these articles on my own time as a contribution to my community—especially for those seeking truth and guidance in these increasingly censored times. Your support—through follows, likes, and shares—makes a real difference.
You can follow me here:
🔹 LinkedIn
🔹 Facebook
🔹 Twitter/X
🔹 YouTube (@Dr.Dmitry.Gorodnichy), YouTube (@IVIM)
My articles are, and will always remain, free to read.