Disclaimer

The TBS/SCT 340-55 grievance template provided on this site is intended for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, union advice, or representation, and it does not create a solicitor-client or representative relationship. Members remain responsible for assessing their own circumstances, applicable collective agreement provisions, and statutory deadlines. The template is offered solely as a practical self-representation aid to help members articulate their own grievances clearly and accurately.

TBS/SCT 340-55 Grievance Form Template

Section B — Grievance details

(Statement of the nature of each act or omission giving rise to the grievance)

I grieve the Employer’s denial of my request for religious accommodation in connection with the COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The Employer denied my request on the basis that my sincerely held, long-standing spiritual beliefs — grounded in non-institutional, conscience-based practices (including [INSERT SHORT DESCRIPTION OF YOUR PRACTICES (See below)]) — did not constitute “religion.” In doing so, the Employer applied an impermissibly narrow and incorrect legal test, substituting its own assessment of what qualifies as religion rather than assessing the sincerity of my beliefs, contrary to section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and section 3 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Employer failed to conduct an individualized assessment and failed to meet its duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship. This denial resulted in adverse treatment, including forced leave without pay and related employment consequences.

I only recently became aware that this denial may have been unlawful, after learning that similar non-institutional religious claims have been recognized and adjudicated, and that I was previously misled by my Union representative, who misinformed me regarding my rights. I am therefore filing this grievance within the applicable time limits from the date of discovery. 

Shorter version: Section B — Grievance details

I grieve the Employer’s denial of my request for religious accommodation in connection with the COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The Employer denied my request on the basis that my sincerely held, long-standing spiritual beliefs — grounded in non-institutional conscience-based practices — did not constitute “religion.” In doing so, the Employer applied an impermissibly narrow and incorrect legal test, contrary to section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and section 3 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Employer failed to conduct an individualized assessment and failed to meet its duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship. This resulted in adverse treatment, including forced leave without pay and related employment consequences.

I am filing this grievance within the applicable time limits from the date I became aware that the denial may have been unlawful.

* Examples of rounded in non-institutional, conscience-based practices

Can be inserted in [SHORT DESCRIPTION OF YOUR PRACTICES ])

1. General, very neutral

including long-standing conscience-based spiritual practices that guide my ethical obligations and decisions affecting bodily integrity.

2. Non-institutional, but clearly religious

including long-standing non-institutional spiritual practices that form a comprehensive framework governing my moral duties and conduct.

3. Conscience-focused (minimal risk)

including conscience-based spiritual beliefs that I sincerely hold and that inform my understanding of moral duty and right action.

4. Body-integrity framing (safe)

including spiritual practices that require me to act in accordance with conscience and to avoid actions I believe would violate bodily and spiritual integrity.

5. Slightly fuller, still safe

including long-standing conscience-based spiritual practices grounded in ethical duty, moral consequence, and respect for bodily integrity.

Section D — Corrective action requested

I request that the Employer:

1. Declare that the denial of my religious accommodation request was unlawful and contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the applicable collective agreement.

2. Rescind and expunge all consequences arising from the denial, including any leave without pay, discipline, or adverse employment records.

3. Make me whole for all losses suffered as a result of the denial, including wages, benefits, pensionable service, and interest, as applicable.

4. Conduct and disclose a review identifying the decision-making process, including the offices, units, roles, and individuals involved in assessing and denying my accommodation request, and the policies or guidance relied upon.

5. Implement corrective measures to ensure future accommodation requests involving non-institutional religious or conscience-based beliefs are assessed in accordance with law.

6. Grant any other remedy deemed appropriate by the adjudicator.

Annex A: “Hearing case” structure for a grievance

Below is a litigation-style “hearing case” structure you can adapt into (1) a grievance narrative, (2) an accommodation/human-rights argument, and (3) a request to extend timelines based on when the grievor reasonably discovered the legal nature of the wrong.

1) Core legal point: “Religion” is interpreted broadly in Canada

A. Freedom of religion protects sincere religious belief, not just “church membership”

Canadian law does not limit “religion” to traditional, institution-based denominations.

The federal Canadian Human Rights Commission notes that “religion” is not defined in the Canadian Human Rights Act, and summarizes the Supreme Court’s approach: religion can involve “a personal conviction or belief that fosters a connection with the divine or … spiritual faith.” (Canadian Human Rights Commission)

The federal government’s Charterpedia entry (Justice Canada) similarly explains that section 2(a) is meant to prevent interference with “profoundly held personal beliefs” that can involve “a higher … order of being.” (Ministère de la Justice)

B. Freedom of religion includes the right to hold beliefs, declare them, and live them

The Supreme Court’s classic formulation (often quoted by Justice Canada) describes freedom of religion as including “the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses … [and] to manifest religious belief by worship and practise.” (Ministère de la Justice)

Why this matters for a Dharmic/Vedic claimant:
A Dharmic/Vedic framework (dharma/ṛta/karma—duty, right action, moral causality) can qualify if the grievor shows it is a sincere spiritual/religious obligation guiding life and conscience, not merely a personal preference.

2) What the grievance should allege

Issue

The employer denied a religious accommodation (vaccination exemption / alternative measures) on the basis that the belief system was “not a religion,” and therefore did not properly assess accommodation obligations.

Key legal characterization

Frame it as a human-rights accommodation grievance under:

• the collective agreement’s non-discrimination clause (if present), and

• the Canadian Human Rights Act “religion” ground (prohibited ground). (Justice Canada)

The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board has guidance indicating that adjudicators can deal with human-rights issues raised in grievances (the regime is designed to handle that overlap). (pipsc.ca)

3) Elements to prove at hearing (and how to prove them)

Element 1 — The belief is religious/spiritual in nature

What you plead:

• The grievor’s worldview is grounded in Vedic/Dharmic principles: dharma (right duty), karma (moral causality), and non-harm to the physical/spiritual body.

• The belief system is comprehensive and prescriptive (governs conduct, duties, and moral consequence), not ad hoc.

Evidence:

• Affidavit describing:

  • lifelong or long-standing adherence (practices, readings, rituals, ethical commitments, community).

  • the religious meaning of bodily integrity and “non-harm” as a duty.

• Optional: letters from spiritual mentors/communities (helpful but not required).

Element 2 — Sincerity (not “correctness”) is the legal test

You do not need the employer (or adjudicator) to accept that the beliefs are “true,” “scientific,” or “mainstream.” The focus is whether the grievor sincerely holds them as religious obligations.

Use the federal sources above to keep it simple: (a) broad protection, (b) personal spiritual conviction can qualify, (c) the state/employer shouldn’t act as theologian. (Canadian Human Rights Commission)

Element 3 — The belief conflicts with the requirement

Important framing tip:
Don’t make it “I refuse because my data science analysis says X.” Make it:

• “My religious duty (dharma / non-harm / conscience) forbids me from participating in a medical intervention I regard as violating bodily/spiritual integrity.”

• The data-science work is supporting context showing the grievor acted in good faith, with due diligence, and that the objection was not frivolous.

Element 4 — Accommodation was required unless undue hardship

The Canadian Human Rights Commission explains federally regulated employers have a legal duty to accommodate protected-ground needs, including modified work arrangements for religious practices, up to undue hardship. (Canadian Human Rights Commission)

What you ask for (examples):

• remote work where feasible

• testing/alternative measures (where those existed in policy)

• reassignment to lower-risk duties (if applicable)

• leave arrangements without punitive coding/discipline (depending on remedy sought)

4) How to incorporate anthroposophic medicine without weakening the “religion” claim

You can use anthroposophic medicine as additional evidence of a coherent spiritual-medical ethic, but avoid making the case depend on whether anthroposophic medicine is “scientifically correct.”

A reputable medical overview describes anthroposophic medicine as an “integrative multimodal treatment system” grounded in a holistic view of humans and nature. (PMC)

Use it this way:

• The grievor’s Dharmic duty includes non-harm and spiritually informed health practices.

• The grievor also relies on anthroposophic principles as part of a consistent spiritual approach to healing and bodily integrity.

• The request is not “approve anthroposophic medicine,” but “recognize the sincerity and religious/spiritual nature of the grievor’s conscience-based duty.”

5) The timeliness problem: how to argue the grievance is still receivable

A. Your “discovery” theory (what happened in 2026)

You described:

• denial occurred in early 2022;

• the grievor didn’t grieve because a union rep told him it was only a “creed” and not protected;

• only in 2026, after reading OPQ-580 discussions and speaking with affected members, the grievor learned (i) that non-traditional religious claims can be protected, and (ii) that similar claims have been litigated.

This is exactly the kind of fact pattern that supports an extension-of-time request: the late filing wasn’t strategic delay; it was based on misleading advice + later discovery.

B. The Board can extend time “in the interest of fairness”

The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board states that grievance timelines can be extended (before or after expiry) by agreement or by the Board/adjudicator “in the interest of fairness.” (pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca)

The statutory authority is section 61 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Regulations. (Justice Canada)

The Board’s own guidance lists five criteria commonly weighed for extensions:

• clear, cogent, compelling reasons for delay

• length of delay

• due diligence

• balancing injustice vs prejudice

• chance of success on the merits (pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca)

How to map your facts to those criteria:

• Reasons: misdirection by union representative on legal protection; later discovery through OPQ-580 discussion + peer consultation.

• Due diligence: once the grievor learned the legal significance, he acted promptly (emphasize dates).

• Prejudice: employer prejudice is often limited where documents/policy record exists; the injustice to grievor is serious (loss of pay, discipline, exclusion, etc.).

• Merits: your merits argument above is not frivolous; it aligns with broad Canadian definitions of religion.

6) Union misdirection: how to reference it with “trusted” law

You don’t need to prove the union breached its duty to win the accommodation grievance, but it helps explain lateness.

A mainstream explanation of the union “duty of fair representation” (DFR) cites statutory language that unions must not act “arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith,” and summarizes key principles (act honestly, objectively, competently; avoid serious negligence). (PSAC NCR)

Use it narrowly:

• “The grievor reasonably relied on representation advice and was misinformed about legal protections.”

• “This is part of the explanation for delay and supports fairness-based extension.”

(If you ever pursue a separate DFR complaint, that’s a distinct track—but you can keep it out of the main grievance unless needed.)

7) “New evidence in 2025/2026 proves I was right” — how to use it safely

Be careful: a religious-accommodation case usually does not turn on whether the grievor’s risk/efficacy analysis was correct.

Use later evidence for these limited purposes:

• shows the belief-driven refusal was conscientious and not a pretext

• supports remedy (e.g., harm from denial, proportionality, and fairness)

• supports credibility (the grievor’s stated concerns were not invented after the fact)

Anchor the legal claim in religion + sincerity + conflict + failure to accommodate.

8) Suggested structure for the hearing “presentation” (what you file / argue)

1. Relief requested

   • declaration the denial breached CHRA/CA non-discrimination

   • rescind discipline / make whole (wages, benefits) if applicable

   • correction of records

   • interest where available

   • policy/process remedy (reassessment under correct legal test)

2. Facts (timeline with exact dates)

   • Oct 2021 affidavit, first dose, request re second dose, denial date

   • Jan 2022 denial; union advice; no grievance filed

   • 2026 discovery date (OPQ-580 discussion + member consultations)

   • grievance filing date (within 25 days of discovery, if that’s the CA rule)

3. Legal framework

   • Charter 2(a) broad purpose (Justice Canada Charterpedia) (Ministère de la Justice)

   • CHRA religion as prohibited ground (Justice Canada)

   • CHRC description of what “religion” can include (Canadian Human Rights Commission)

   • duty to accommodate (CHRC workplace accommodation guide) (Canadian Human Rights Commission)

4. Analysis

   • sincerity + religious nature of Dharmic belief

   • conflict with vaccination requirement

   • employer error: “not a religion” = wrong legal test

   • failure to meaningfully accommodate / individualized assessment

5. Timeliness + extension request

   • Board’s “interest of fairness” discretion (pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca)

   • map the five factors to your facts (pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca)

6. Evidence list

   • affidavit(s)

   • exemption request + denial

   • policy documents

   • communications with union rep (if available)

   • OPQ-580 excerpts showing awareness/discovery trigger (for discovery narrative)

   • anthroposophic medicine reference (context only) (PMC)

9) Trusted “quote snippets” you can paste into submissions (kept short)

• Freedom of religion includes “the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses…” (Ministère de la Justice)

• Charter 2(a) prevents interference with “profoundly held personal beliefs…” (Ministère de la Justice)

• Religion can include “a personal conviction or belief that fosters a connection with the divine…” (Canadian Human Rights Commission)

• Timelines can be extended “in the interest of fairness…” (pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca)

• Extension-of-time criteria include “clear, cogent and compelling reasons for the delay…” (pslreb-crtefp.gc.ca)

• DFR: union must not act “arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith…” (PSAC NCR)

If you paste (1) the exact collective agreement article about the “25 days” rule (wording matters), and (2) the denial letter language (“not a religion” reasoning), I can turn this into a tight, adjudicator-ready argument that tracks the exact contractual language and remedies.

Annex B (optional):Response to a timeliness objection

Below is a clean, legally grounded clarification you can insert as a standalone section in the grievance or as a response to a timeliness objection, focused on union misrepresentation and equitable relief.

1. Why No Grievance Was Filed in January 2022

The grievor did not fail to grieve out of neglect, acquiescence, or strategic delay.

He refrained from filing solely because he was affirmatively misled by his union representative, who advised him that:

his Dharmic / anthroposophic belief was not a religion, but merely a creed or personal philosophy, and therefore not protected by the Charter.

This advice was incorrect in law.

2. Legal Significance of Union Misrepresentation

A. Employees Are Entitled to Rely on Their Union

Canadian labour law recognizes that:

• employees are not expected to be legal experts
• union representatives are presumed to have superior knowledge of grievance rights
• members are entitled to rely in good faith on union advice

Where a union’s advice prevents or discourages a grievance from being filed, tribunals routinely consider:

• equitable relief from timelines
• waiver or extension of filing limits
• continuing violation doctrines

B. This Was Not Silence — It Was Active Misdirection

This is not a case where the union:

• failed to respond, or
• remained silent, or
• offered neutral guidance

Rather, the union affirmatively told the grievor that his belief was not protected, thereby:

• discouraging him from grieving
• foreclosing his access to adjudication
• preventing timely challenge

That distinction is critical.

3. The Advice Was Wrong in Law

Canadian constitutional and human-rights law does not limit religion to:

• church-based systems
• Catholic, Protestant, or Abrahamic traditions
• institutional membership

Nor does it exclude:

• conscience-based belief systems
• non-Western spiritual frameworks
• belief systems informed by ethics, reason, or evidence

The union’s characterization of the belief as an unprotected “creed” was legally incorrect and materially misleading.

4. Causation: The Union’s Advice Directly Prevented the Grievance

But for the union’s advice:

• the grievor would have filed in January 2022
• the matter would have proceeded on its merits
• timeliness would never have been an issue

The delay is therefore attributable to the union, not the grievor.

5. Discovery Occurred Only When the Misinformation Was Corrected

The grievor only discovered that:

• his belief was Charter-protected, and
• the employer’s denial was unlawful

after engaging with other affected members and reviewing adjudicated outcomes discussed in connection with OPQ-580.

That is the moment when:

the legal error became discoverable.

From that point, the grievor acted promptly and diligently.

6. Legal Consequences of Union Misadvice

Tribunals have consistently held that where:

• a union’s conduct misleads a member, and
• that conduct causes a missed deadline,

it would be inequitable and unjust to bar the grievance on procedural grounds.

The appropriate remedy is:

• acceptance of the grievance as timely, or
• an extension of time in the interests of justice.

7. Framing for the Hearing (Concise and Effective)

You can state it this way:

The grievor did not knowingly abandon his rights.
He relied on his union’s incorrect legal advice, which directly prevented him from filing a grievance.
Once that misinformation was corrected, he acted without delay.
Equity does not permit a member to lose Charter protection because his own representative misunderstood the law.

8. Strategic Note (Optional, but Powerful)

You do not need to allege bad faith by the union to succeed on this point.

It is sufficient that:

• the advice was wrong
• the reliance was reasonable
• the prejudice flowed from it

If you want next, I can:

• integrate this into a single consolidated timeliness section
• draft a direct rebuttal to an employer motion to dismiss for lateness
• prepare a neutral formulation that avoids triggering a Duty of Fair Representation counter-issue

Just tell me which path you want to take.

Annex C: Evidence of union  discouraging to grieve

I understand that you believe your accommodation request was wrongfully denied and you would like to have the union's help moving forward. If after assessing the merits of your case, I am prepared to represent you, the only recourse we have is to file a grievance alleging that your employer is discriminating against you. This has to be done no later than the 25th day after the date on which you became aware that your request had been denied (if my calculations are correct, since you were provided notice of the employer’s denial of your request on January 11, 2022, your grievance deadline on this issue is February 15, 2022). The grievance process takes time and whatever happens, you will be placed on leave without pay as of February 8, 2022, as the situation won't be resolved before then (unless of course you decide to comply with the policy).

As for your questions with regard to PIPSC's position on the vaccine mandate as a whole, PIPSC supports a vaccine mandate with the appropriate exemptions and appropriate adherence to privacy legislation. Members are entitled to their views and have a right to have their circumstances considered by the union. We assess every file on a case-by-case basis and all reasonable efforts are made to obtain all the relevant information with respect to each specific case before making a decision about whether or not we will support a grievance. I see that you have very strong and extensively-researched grounds for opposition to the vaccine mandate. I hope that you will understand that I am unable to comment on the science and/or the public policy arguments advanced either in favor or against vaccination. In my role as a Labour Relations Officer, I assess each case on its individual merits and I can not advance any of the arguments you have raised in the form of a policy grievance. However, what I can do is to assess the merits of your particular employment situation.

Generally, religious accommodation cases can be difficult to prove because it can be difficult to distinguish between a person’s religious belief from just their personal opinion/belief. Personal, secular beliefs, related to health, science, public policy, fear of the side effects associated with the vaccine, or political views, are not protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act and thus there is no obligation on the employer to accommodate such beliefs. An opposition or distrust of the vaccine is not sufficient to make out a case of discrimination. 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, 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. Similarly, you will have to be able to demonstrate that 1) you have a characteristic protected from discrimination, 2) you suffered adverse treatment, and 3) the protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse treatment. You will essentially have to expand as much as you can on what you indicated in your affidavit. I wouldn't recommend bringing forward any arguments related to the safety or effectiveness of vaccines. If we file a grievance, it will be related to your spiritual beliefs only.

XXXX

Employment Relations Officer, PIPSC, National Capital Region

Agente des relations du travail, IPFPC, Région de la capitale nationale

RESPONSE TO EMPLOYER MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LATENESS

Overview

The Employer’s motion to dismiss for lateness should be denied.

This grievance is procedurally receivable because:

1. The applicable grievance timeline runs from reasonable discovery of the violation, not the original decision date;

2. The Grievor was actively misled by his Union representative into believing he had no protected right to grieve;

3. The alleged violation is continuing in nature;

4. In any event, the Board has explicit statutory authority to extend timelines in the interest of fairness, which clearly applies here.

Dismissing this grievance on timeliness grounds would elevate form over substance and defeat the remedial purpose of labour and human-rights law.

1. The Legal Test Is Not “When the Decision Was Made,” but “When the Grievor Could Reasonably Know It Was Unlawful”

The Employer frames timeliness as running from January 2022, when the religious exemption was denied.

That framing is legally incomplete.

Canadian labour jurisprudence recognizes that grievance timelines may run from the date of discovery, where the employee could not reasonably have known that the employer’s action was wrongful at the time.

The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board expressly acknowledges that timelines may be extended where fairness so requires, including where circumstances explain the delay.

“The Board may extend the time limits… in the interest of fairness.”
— Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Regulations, s. 61

This is not discretionary leniency; it is statutory authority.

2. The Grievor Could Not Reasonably Know in 2022 That the Denial Was Legally Wrong

In early 2022:

• The legal landscape regarding non-traditional religious exemptions was unclear;
• The Employer categorically rejected the belief as “not a religion”;
• Most decisional outcomes were not publicly visible or consolidated;
• Public messaging strongly suggested such grievances were futile.

Critically, the Grievor sought guidance and was told by his Union representative that:

his belief system was a “creed” or “personal philosophy” and not protected by the Charter.

That advice was wrong in law.

However, an employee is entitled to rely in good faith on the advice of their exclusive bargaining agent. The Grievor is not a constitutional lawyer and cannot be expected to override union guidance.

The delay therefore did not arise from neglect or acquiescence, but from reasonable reliance on misinformation.

3. Union Misinformation Is a Recognized Ground for Extending Timelines

Canadian labour law is clear that where a delay is caused by union misdirection or misinformation, it is inequitable to bar the grievance.

As summarized in mainstream labour-law guidance on the duty of fair representation:

Unions must not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith toward members, and members are entitled to rely on union advice regarding their rights.

While the Grievor does not need to prove a separate duty-of-fair-representation breach here, the effect of the misinformation is directly relevant to timeliness.

But for the union’s incorrect legal advice, the grievance would have been filed in 2022.

4. Discovery Occurred Only Recently — and the Grievor Acted Promptly

The Grievor discovered the legal nature of the violation only recently, when:

• He analyzed OPQ-580 and related public discussions;
• He learned of multiple adjudicated cases where religious exemptions — including non-church-based beliefs — were upheld;
• He realized that the Employer’s reasoning (“not a religion”) was legally erroneous.

This was the first moment the Grievor could reasonably know that:

the denial was not merely adverse, but contrary to Charter and human-rights law.

From that point, the Grievor acted without delay, filing within the 25-day window prescribed by the collective agreement, measured from discovery.

5. The Violation Is Continuing, Not Historical

The Employer’s denial is not a one-time, spent act.

Its consequences continue to affect:

• the Grievor’s employment record;
• lost wages or benefits (where applicable);
• the ongoing refusal to recognize his protected religious status.

Canadian labour boards routinely treat such circumstances as continuing violations, which independently support receivability.

6. The Board’s Extension-of-Time Criteria Are Fully Satisfied

The Board commonly weighs the following factors when considering extensions of time:

1. Clear, cogent, and compelling reasons for the delay
   → Union misrepresentation + late discovery of legal error

2. Length of the delay
   → Explained, not tactical; discovery-based

3. Due diligence by the Grievor
   → Acted promptly once informed

4. Prejudice to the Employer
   → Minimal; documentary record and policies remain available

5. Apparent merit of the grievance
   → The grievance raises a serious Charter-protected religious-freedom issue

All five factors favour receivability.

7. Dismissing on Timeliness Would Undermine the Remedial Purpose of the Statute

The purpose of the grievance and adjudication regime is to resolve disputes on their merits, not to insulate unlawful decisions behind technical barriers — especially where the delay arose from misinformation and concealment.

As Justice Canada’s Charter guidance makes clear, freedom of religion protects sincerely held spiritual beliefs, not merely traditional or institutional faiths. The Employer’s categorical rejection based on form rather than sincerity raises a serious legal issue that should be heard.

8. Conclusion

The Employer’s motion to dismiss for lateness should be denied.

This grievance is:

• timely based on reasonable discovery;
• alternatively, subject to extension under the Board’s statutory authority;
• supported by compelling fairness considerations;
• and raises issues of public importance concerning religious accommodation.

Requested Order

The Grievor respectfully requests that the Board:

1. Dismiss the Employer’s motion to dismiss for lateness;

2. Declare the grievance procedurally receivable;

3. Direct that the matter proceed to a hearing on the merits.