What he told the tribunal didn't match what the documents showed
A hotel sous chef blamed his COVID layoff and a lost promotion on religious and racial bias. A human rights tribunal saw it differently, dismissing his case after his own testimony worked against him.
A discrimination claim dismissed
On July 21, 2026, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario adjudicator Marinus Lamers dismissed a discrimination application brought by a sous chef against Vista Waterloo Limited Partnership, operating as the Crowne Plaza Kitchener-Waterloo Hotel. The worker, who identifies as a Canadian Muslim Arab, alleged that his creed, ethnic origin, place of origin and race were factors in how he was treated. Lamers found he had not proven discrimination on a balance of probabilities.
The worker testified that he was forced onto a temporary layoff in March 2020 as the pandemic took hold, was never permanently recalled, and was passed over for the top kitchen job in favour of a colleague of Indian descent. He said those decisions were tied to his background and faith. The employer denied any discrimination.
The case was heard by videoconference on July 10, 2026, with the worker representing himself and the hotel represented by counsel. The only witnesses were the worker and the hotel's general manager. Lamers found the general manager's account more credible and reliable, noting the worker's evidence was often inconsistent with the documents.
A disputed remark about faith
Much of the worker's claim turned on his requests for help documenting his employment during the shutdown. When he asked for a letter confirming a firm return-to-work date, he alleged the general manager replied, "I'm not Allah to know when you'll go back to work". He characterized the remark as religious discrimination.
The general manager testified that he made no religiously charged statements, and said he had only explained that the pandemic made any return date impossible to predict. Lamers accepted that evidence. He added that even if the manager had referred to Allah to stress that he could not foresee the future, such a reference would not amount to discrimination under the Code.
Lamers also examined the worker's request that the hotel issue him three pay slips to support a mortgage application while he was on layoff. The adjudicator observed that the slips could be seen as fraudulent from the lender's perspective, since their purpose was to suggest current employment that did not exist. The employer declined the request.
Shifts offered and turned down
The layoff itself, Lamers found, swept up most of the hotel's unionized and non-unionized staff after Ontario declared a state of emergency, and was not aimed at the worker. Although the worker had described it as a forced vacation, the documents showed a broad shutdown of the hotel's restaurant, bar, banquet and conference operations.
The worker maintained that he was never recalled and never refused work. Under cross-examination, though, he acknowledged turning down several shifts the hotel offered in September 2020, including eight-hour shifts, because he had moved to London, Ont., and would not commute unless the work was full time. Lamers found the documents backed the employer's account.
On the promotion, the employer maintained that the executive head chef role had already been filled before the pandemic by a chef from another property, was never posted, and was never applied for by the worker. Finding no link between the worker's Code grounds and any of the hotel's decisions, Lamers noted the tribunal has repeatedly held that "an applicant's belief, no matter how strongly held, is not evidence" that discrimination occurred.
