WestJet ruling shows courts expect careful, individualized assessments of religious accommodation requests: legal expert
A recent decision from the Alberta Court of Justice is sending a clear signal to Canadian employers: when dealing with religious accommodation requests, particularly in the context of mandatory workplace policies, blanket decisions and one-size-fits-all approaches can lead to legal liability.
In Yee v. WestJet, 2025 ABCJ 87, the court found that WestJet wrongfully terminated an accountant who was fired for failing to comply with the airline's COVID-19 vaccination policy after being denied a religious exemption.
The court ruled the company’s denial of her request was not reasonably handled, and her dismissal was disproportionate given her circumstances, including the fact that she was working from home.
Employment lawyer Dylan Snowdon of Carbert Waite LLP in Calgary says the case should be a reminder that in any wrongful dismissal claim, context is everything.
“You can’t make a blanket statement that any particular situation is going to be just cause, because it might not be,” he says.
“It depends on the circumstances, and so an employee breaching policies, an employee refusing to adhere to policies, is that cause? It depends. We always have to go in and have that analysis.”
The court found that WestJet failed to conduct a sufficient review of the employee’s exemption request, focusing too heavily on her stated safety concerns rather than the religious basis she also outlined.
Snowdon points to a key mistake in WestJet’s approach: a failure to recognize that an individual may hold both religious and secular objections.
“WestJet then said, ‘Well, if you think it's unsafe, then it's not a religious belief, and therefore you don't have a legitimate religious belief,’ which the court, I think appropriately, was confused by,” Snowdon says.
“Both could be true, which WestJet didn't seem to consider.”
He adds that employers must ask for clarification when in doubt, rather than relying solely on initial written responses or assumptions: “Ask some followup questions to really drill down on the particular issues impacting this individual. It looks like they had one standard form, they used it for everyone, and they made decisions on that basis without looking at each particular circumstance, which is the legal requirement.”
The legal threshold for religious accommodation under Canadian human rights law is well-established. Snowdon references the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem as the leading case.
“The court says that where there's a belief that has a nexus with religion, and the individual demonstrates a sincere belief that a particular action is mandated, it doesn’t matter if the belief is part of an officially recognized religious dogma,” he explains.
What this simply means is that the test to determine if an employee’s religious objection to a policy is legitimate has three parts. As outlined in Syndicat, they are:
the existence of a religious precept
a sincere belief that the practice dependent on the precept is mandatory
the existence of a conflict between the practice and the rule.
“While in general, most cases have found that general claims of Christianity don't prohibit vaccination, and there are no Christian texts that prohibit vaccination, there can be smaller sects that have that belief, or even individuals that have that belief,” Snowdon says.
“And if they do, then it can be upheld.”
This means employers cannot dismiss a request simply because a belief isn't part of mainstream religious doctrine. However, Snowdon notes that employers can legitimately ask questions and request supporting documents to assess sincerity.
He explains that consistency matters – for example, if an employee claims a religious belief but hasn’t followed related practices, that may weaken their claim. Or, if they refuse vaccination but have been vaccinated in the past.
“I think it’s absolutely appropriate to have inquiries on past actions,” says Snowdown, such as how long the individual has been practising the religion.
“Because if we have an employee that claims they have a sincere religious belief, but they regularly don't follow what they state is mandated by that religion, then it starts to become a legitimate inquiry as to whether this is a sincerely held religious belief.”
Snowdon encourages HR professionals to think of religious accommodation the same way they approach medical accommodations.
“We’re dealing with medical disability and accommodation requests very frequently, and I would say this is exactly the same,” he says.
“It is legitimately necessary to assess the accommodation request and to form an accommodation plan, and if the employee doesn’t provide that information, then it’s going to impact whether accommodation is provided or not.”
He explains that just as employees can’t demand accommodations for a medical disability without sharing some evidence, the same applies to religious beliefs: failure to provide information can affect the outcome.
“I think bringing that same lens to religious accommodation requests will ensure that employers are following those requirements set out under the human rights legislation.”
In Yee, the court found WestJet moved too quickly to termination without considering alternative accommodations, such as continuing her remote work arrangement.
Snowdon emphasizes the need for a more nuanced approach.
“In WestJet’s case, the employee was working at home, and was going to continue working at home,” Snowdon says.
“So the court looked at that and asked the question, ‘What impact does this breach of policy have on WestJet?’ And the answer is ‘none.’”
Employers must avoid treating policy non-compliance as automatically just cause for dismissal. Snowdon cautions that termination should only follow a detailed and documented review of the specific facts.
“Just cause terminations should always receive individual analysis to look at the exact circumstances of that individual, without making blanket statements or assumptions … and relying on just cause without specific information.”
When assessing accommodation requests, Snowdon recommends HR leaders avoid binary thinking (doing exactly what the employee asks or doing nothing). Instead, he suggests exploring a wide range of options.
“I like to recommend that we engage in a creative thinking exercise: What are 10 or 20 different possible accommodation options?” he says.
“Some of them are going to be ridiculous, and we can discount those, but going through that process of coming up with many different possible accommodation plans often unlocks some options that hadn’t previously been considered.”
In this case, the court noted that an unpaid leave might have been a viable solution, especially since the employee was working remotely and posed no health risk.
“[With] an employee in the face of a pandemic who’s saying, ‘I can’t get vaccinated,’ then maybe an appropriate accommodation is an unpaid leave until such time as pandemic conditions have passed, and maybe that’s the accommodation,” Snowdon says.
Employers are expected to make reasonable efforts before denying an accommodation or terminating employment. According to Snowdon, employers will be in a stronger legal position if they document thoughtful and personalized assessments.
“The employer would be in a far better position to defend their choice of selecting just cause if they’ve taken those steps,” Snowdon says, “to make the further inquiries and really consider the circumstances of this employee.”
