Decision questions whether employer met duty to accommodate religious beliefs
Canadian Natural Resources Limited's rejection of a worker's religious exemption to its COVID-19 vaccination policy was overturned by Alberta's Human Rights Tribunal, marking another setback for the energy giant facing at least 13 similar complaints.
In a January 30, 2026 decision, tribunal member Faraz Bawa found that Gerardo Valencia's complaint has a reasonable prospect of success, despite the employer's argument that the five-year heavy equipment operator relied on form letters and failed to demonstrate sincerely held religious beliefs.
The exemption request
Valencia submitted his exemption request on October 6, 2021, approximately two weeks after Canadian Natural Resources announced its mandatory vaccination policy. The policy required full vaccination by December 1, 2021, and explicitly stated that "non-compliance would not be tolerated and would result in progressive disciplinary action, up to and including termination."
His submission included a confirmation of church attendance from Northlife Fellowship Baptist Church and a personal letter stating: "I have been made aware that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (the Jansen vaccine) uses cell lines from a child that was aborted in 1985: and the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines test the mRNAs on cell lines from a child aborted in 1973."
The company refused the exemption request on November 23, 2021. The refusal letter stated that "these form letters are not evidence of a sincerely held religious belief and therefore were rejected." Valencia was suspended without pay on December 22, 2021, and ultimately terminated on April 12, 2022, after he failed to respond to a staged return-to-work offer.
Company's defence: scientific facts over religious conviction
Canadian Natural Resources defended its rejection with scientific reasoning about fetal cell lines. The company argued: "The reasons contained in the Letter centred entirely around opposition to the use of fetal cell lines in the research and production of some COVID vaccines, stating that such vaccines condone abortion. While some vaccines utilized fetal cell lines in their research and/or production stage, the fetal cell lines today have been grown in labs for decades. This means that the cells used today no longer contain fetal tissue."
The employer further noted that similar cell lines were used in developing common medications including ibuprofen and Tylenol. The company also alleged Valencia failed to participate in a reasonable accommodation process.
Notably, Valencia pointed out the vaccination policy was not applied to contractors, raising questions about consistent enforcement that the tribunal identified as a "genuinely triable issue."
The tribunal's reversal and broader implications
Bawa overturned the Director's initial dismissal, finding the allegations were not bare assertions. The tribunal member wrote: "I accept that there is a generally accepted notion that some Christians oppose abortion as well."
On the question of whether accommodation arises as an issue, Bawa noted the respondent did not accept Valencia's request for accommodation through an exemption to the vaccination policy. Bawa stated: "I make no findings as to whether the complainant's beliefs qualify as sincerely held religious beliefs. I cannot, however, find at this stage that there is no reasonable prospect of success for the complainant given the low bar to be applied."
The matter now proceeds to a full hearing where accommodation obligations will be examined, including whether the uniform approach on accommodation offered by the respondent meets their duty to accommodate.
See Valencia v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2026 AHRC 8
