The Ontario Divisional Court is set to consider whether sincerely held personal religious beliefs must be recognized as protected under human rights law in a case challenging a COVID-19 vaccine mandate that led to a student being removed from his university program.The case centres on former Ontario Tech University engineering student Philip Anisimov, who was deregistered in 2022 after his request for a religious exemption from the university’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement was denied. He ultimately delayed completing his degree and graduated in 2023.Legal filings submitted on Friday, by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms argue that earlier decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario applied the wrong legal standard when assessing Anisimov’s claim.According to constitutional lawyer Hatim Kheir, who is representing Anisimov, the tribunal improperly required an “objective” foundation for the student’s religious belief rather than evaluating whether it was sincerely held and connected to faith. He argues that such an approach risks placing religious freedom under the authority of external religious validation, contrary to human rights protections.Anisimov was enrolled at Ontario Tech University when Ontario introduced vaccine requirements for post-secondary institutions in 2021. After his exemption request was rejected, the university removed him from his courses, effectively halting his academic progress until he was able to return and graduate the following year..In court filings, his legal team contends the tribunal also erred in refusing to revisit its original ruling, despite arguments that its reasoning conflicted with established protections for religious freedom under Canadian law.“By requiring an objective component, people’s religious beliefs become subject to the approval of religious authorities, which is contrary to human rights law,” Kheir said.The case raises broader questions about how tribunals determine what qualifies as a protected religious belief and whether individuals can be required to prove their convictions meet external standards of validity.A hearing is scheduled for October 5, 2026, where the court will determine whether the tribunal’s approach should be upheld or set aside.
