By Barry W. Kwasniewski and Martin U. Wissmath

A recent Alberta ruling offers a useful example for employers across Canada on how tribunals approach religious-belief accommodation requests and participation in the accommodation process. In Pothier v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, decided on October 29, 2025, the Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta upheld the Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission’s dismissal of a complaint under the Alberta Human Rights Act (the “Act”). The Tribunal agreed there was no reasonable prospect of success where an employee did not provide objective supporting evidence to back up a claimed religious exemption from a COVID-19 vaccination policy.

Nicholas Pothier (the “Complainant”), worked for Canadian Natural Resources Limited (the “Respondent”). In September 2021, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Respondent introduced a vaccination policy requiring employees to be fully vaccinated by December 1, 2021. Although the policy permitted medical and religious exemptions, applicants were required to complete an exemption form, describe the religious belief said to conflict with vaccination and provide written confirmation from a religious authority explaining how the requirement conflicted with a specific tenet of faith. The Complainant objected on the basis that, as a Christian, he believed the vaccines relied on aborted fetal cell lines and contained “unclean additives”, which he said would violate his duties before God. He did not complete the exemption form or provide any documentation from a religious authority. When he remained non-compliant with the policy, he was suspended from work and later filed a complaint alleging discrimination based on religious beliefs.

On review of the Director’s dismissal, the Tribunal stated that while adjudicators do not assess the correctness of religious beliefs, they may consider a limited review of sincerity, citing a case from the Supreme Court of Canada, which had held that “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.” The Complainant’s statements referred broadly to scriptural obligations and vaccine safety concerns but did not identify any tenet of his religion that prohibited vaccination. Without information showing that his objection was a fundamental or important expression of his faith, the Tribunal found that a protected characteristic under the Act had not been established.

The Tribunal also concluded that the complaint could not succeed because the Complainant had not cooperated in the accommodation process. The Respondent’s exemption procedure required specific information, and by declining to provide it, the Complainant prevented the Respondent from assessing the request. Individuals seeking accommodation must participate in good faith and provide the information the employer reasonably requires. An employee cannot demand accommodation while withholding essential details.

The Tribunal upheld the dismissal because the complaint lacked any reasonable prospect of success, both on the question of a protected characteristic and on the duty to accommodate. The result is consistent with earlier decisions requiring objective evidence of religious belief and meaningful participation in the accommodation process.

For Ontario charities and not-for-profits, the decision illustrates the importance of clearly structured exemption procedures, thorough documentation and active engagement with employees seeking accommodation. It also signals that subjective statements alone will not support a religious-belief exemption and that tribunals will consider whether both parties have met their responsibilities when evaluating accommodation disputes.

​Read the November 2025 Charity & NFP Law Update