|
COVID - Human Rights. Oulds v. Attorney General of Ontario, et al.
In Oulds v. Attorney General of Ontario, et al. (Div Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR, this against HRTO decisions that "dismissed the complaint on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction as Oulds had failed to establish that her choice not to be [SS: COVID] vaccinated was based on 'creed'":[56] The adjudicator reviewed and considered the applicable case law: Jazairi v Ontario (Human Rights Commission), 1997 ONSC 12455 and Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem, 2004 SCC 47 (“Amselem”).
[57] Noting that the Code does not define creed, in accordance with s.45.5 of the Code, the adjudicator adopted the policy enacted by the Ontario Human Rights Commission which, having adopted the test in Amselem, states the following characteristics to be relevant when determining if a belief system is a creed:A creed:. Is sincerely, freely and deeply held
. Is integrally linked to a person’s self-definition and spiritual fulfilment
. Is a particular, comprehensive and overarching system of belief that governs one’s conduct and practices
. Addresses ultimate questions of human existence, including ideas about life, purpose, death, and the existence or non-existence of a creator and/or a higher or different order of existence
. Has some “nexus” or connection to an organization or community that professes a shared system of belief. [58] There is nothing unreasonable about the adjudicator applying its own policy, which incorporates Anselem, a case followed by the Tribunal in other decisions.
[59] In my view, the Decision meets the Vavilov standard of “justification, intelligibility and transparency”: the adjudicator accepted that “Oulds’ belief may be sincerely, freely, and deeply held and accepting that it may even be linked to Oulds’ identity and self-definition” but that it lacked an “overarching systemic component” and, applied the HRTO policy in concluding that Oulds had failed to establish that her refusal to accept the Covid-19 vaccine was creed-based.
[60] The adjudicator’s conclusion that Oulds’ submissions were “focused on a singular belief around the lack of efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccine and some perception that the vaccine could alter DNA, and the need for autonomy to make this specific vaccine choice” was supported by the evidence. As submitted by Bluewater, the HRTO has repeatedly found that a “singular belief”, such as opposing the Covid-19 vaccination, has not met the threshold for the definition of creed: see, for example, Zammit v. Georgian Radiology, 2025 HRTO 371 (CanLII).
|
