Ontario tribunal weighs whether removing a fired worker's photo is discrimination
When a security company fired Jesspreet Grewal and removed his photograph from its public-facing employee recognition content on its website and social media, both acts were later placed before a human rights adjudicator as potential discrimination.
In a March 2, 2026 decision, Emily Morton of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the application.
The termination, the incident, and the deleted photo
Grewal worked as a security guard for Security Guard Group Limited until June 17, 2024, when the company terminated him following an incident, characterizing it as gross misconduct. Grewal maintained he had followed the proper procedures and policies with respect to the incident. The Employment Insurance General Division later allowed his appeal, finding the Commission had failed to establish misconduct.
After the termination, the company removed his photograph from its public-facing employee recognition content on its website and social media. Grewal alleged both the termination and the photo removal were linked to his race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, and citizenship. His performance record, he noted, had been consistently satisfactory, with positive feedback from supervisors.
Grewal argued the photo removal was a discrete act of discrimination, stating that "the timing and context demonstrate a nexus to the applicant's protected characteristics under the Code."
When belief alone does not meet the bar
The Tribunal found Grewal had made what are referred to in some of the cases cited in the NOID as "bald allegations." When his application asked him to describe how he identified in terms of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin or citizenship, he did not answer directly. Instead, he stated that to "ascertain discrimination it is essential to analyze the particular context including the rationale behind why has an employee been dismissal (sic) and the nature of the photographs that were removed."
Grewal also appended the photographs to his application, contending they included elements "pertaining to race, gender, religion and so forth, and if the removal was connected to the employee's termination, it could be contended that the act of removal was discriminatory." Morton found this did little to clarify which protected ground Grewal relied upon and, more specifically, how the protected characteristic was a factor in the termination of his employment.
The application was dismissed in its entirety.
The Tribunal's jurisdiction and the factual basis requirement
Both the termination and the photo removal were before the Tribunal as alleged acts of discrimination. Morton found Grewal had failed to provide a factual basis beyond a bald assertion to link his adverse treatment to the Code grounds with which he identified. It was not enough to point to adverse treatment, identify with protected characteristics, and believe there was a connection between the two.
The Tribunal's reasoning sets out the threshold: to come within its jurisdiction, an allegation must provide "some factual basis which links the respondent's conduct to the applicant's Code grounds."
Morton concluded: "the applicant must provide some factual basis beyond a simple assertion of such a link."
