Docket: A-341-24
Citation: 2026 FCA 73
|
CORAM: |
MONAGHAN J.A.
HECKMAN J.A.
ROCHESTER J.A.
|
|
|
BETWEEN: |
|
|
|
CHRISTOPHER CHOLEWA |
|
|
|
Appellant |
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA |
|
|
|
Respondent |
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on April 15, 2026).
MONAGHAN J.A.
[1] In March 2022, the Canadian Armed Forces (Forces) released the appellant, Christopher Cholewa, because he failed to comply with the Forces’ COVID-19 Vaccination Policy. Mr. Cholewa had asked for a religious exemption from the Policy, but the Forces denied that request. This led him to file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, alleging that the Forces’ refusal to grant the exemption constituted discrimination based on religion.
[2] The Commission has discretion not to deal with complaints that are trivial, frivolous, vexations, or made in bad faith: Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H‑6, s. 41(1)(d). A complaint is frivolous if it is plain and obvious that it cannot succeed: Love v. Canada (Privacy Commissioner), 2015 FCA 198 at para. 23, citing Canada Post Corp v. Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) (1997), 1997 CanLII 16378 (FC), 130 F.T.R. 241 at paras. 4–5, aff’d (1999), 1999 CanLII 7865 (FCA), 245 N.R. 397 (C.A.); Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FCA 174 at para. 33. The Commission may reasonably conclude that it is plain and obvious a complaint cannot succeed where the complainant fails to establish a link between the conduct complained of and a prohibited ground of discrimination: Love at para. 24.
[3] Here, the Commission concluded that “it is plain and obvious that [Mr. Cholewa’s] beliefs are not religious or connected to his spiritual faith”
and that “there is no link to religion in [his] complaint”
. Therefore, the Commission decided not to deal with the complaint.
[4] In his complaint, Mr. Cholewa indicated his “beliefs are not of a particular religion”
. He explained his belief that humans are unique, “everyone should have the right to decide what is put into their body,”
and being able to decide that and “live with those decisions are the core principles of [his] belief”
.
[5] In considering whether to deal with the complaint, the Commission applied the Supreme Court of Canada’s broad definition of religion: Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47 at para. 39. The Commission accepted that Mr. Cholewa demonstrated “deeply held personal beliefs”
that are “linked to his own personal definition”
. However, he did not “demonstrate that the practice of his beliefs allows him to foster a connection with the divine or with a subject or object of his spiritual faith”
: see Amselem at para. 39.
[6] Mr. Cholewa sought judicial review of the Commission’s decision not to address his complaint before the Federal Court. His application was dismissed: Cholewa v. Attorney General of Canada, 2024 FC 1509 (per Lafrenière J).
[7] The Federal Court found the Commission’s decision reasonable and its process procedurally fair. Further, the Federal Court refused to address Mr. Cholewa’s arguments based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of The Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c. 11, because he did not raise them before the Commission or in his notice of application in the Federal Court.
[8] On this appeal of the Federal Court’s decision, Mr. Cholewa does not dispute that the Federal Court correctly chose reasonableness as the standard of review for the Commission’s decision: Canada (Attorney General) v. Ennis, 2021 FCA 95 at para. 46, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 39800 (20 January 2022); Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65.
[9] The four arguments Mr. Cholewa advances in support of his appeal do not persuade us that we should allow his appeal.
[10] First, we disagree with Mr. Cholewa’s argument that the Commission’s process was not procedurally fair. Mr. Cholewa made three submissions to the Commission—his complaint, his response to the Commission’s request for additional information from the parties to assist it in determining whether to consider his complaint, and his response to the respondent’s submission to that same request. If, as Mr. Cholewa alleges, the Commission did not have sufficient relevant information, it was because he failed to provide it despite ample opportunity to do so.
[11] Second, we are satisfied that the Commission addressed the main thrust of his complaint—that he was discriminated against based on religion. Mr. Cholewa asserts that the Forces gave others an exemption and he should have been treated equally. However, the fact others were granted a religious exemption based on the individual circumstances in their applications does not establish that refusing his request is discriminatory.
[12] Third, we do not agree that the Commission’s application of the Amselem test was unreasonable. To the contrary, we conclude that the Commission’s decision, including the application of that test, was reasonable largely for the reasons the Federal Court gave.
[13] Finally, we see no reviewable error in the Federal Court’s refusal to address Mr. Cholewa’s Charter arguments. Nor do we see any merit to the Charter argument he advanced before the Federal Court. He did not establish that the Commission’s decision was inconsistent with the Charter values of equality and freedom of religion.
[14] Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal. The respondent seeks costs of $4,140 but, having regard to the submissions of the parties, we award the respondent costs in the all-inclusive amount of $2,500.
"K.A. Siobhan Monaghan"
Email this Content