Use Case:
Denial of non-institutional spiritual practices

Originally published at Making Your Voice Heard at PIPSC Substack

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.

This chapter presents a fictionalized case based on real-life experiences shared by multiple members who were denied union support in moments of profound personal and spiritual conflict.

The example 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

Other spiritual or conscientious traditions that fall outside organized religion—but may still require religious accommodation—include:

Buddhism (especially lay Buddhist practice not tied to temples)
Stoicism or philosophical naturalism
Traditional Indigenous spiritual practices
New Age or Earth-based spirituality
Homeopathic and energy-based healing traditions

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:

How to Hold Your Union Accountable: Filing a Complaint for Failure to Represent You During the Unjust & Excessive, Employer-Enforced Vaccine Mandate – A 5-Step Guide, Thrive By Design

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.

In this particular case, the employer rejected the grievance on the basis that it had not been filed within 15 working days of the original decision in January. They did not accept the May discovery as a valid reset point for the deadline.

Nevertheless, Her experience underscores that even when systems are stacked against you, persistence matters—and key legal principles, like the 90-day DFR window, can provide a way to fight back.

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.

Self-Representation 101: Identifying Areas Your Union Won’t Support You (Part 2) Dmitry Gorodnichy, Ph.D.

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. “

Thanks for reading (Making) Your Voice (Heard) at PIPSC! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Use Case: Denial of non-institutional spiritual practices