TD lawsuit raises questions about religious expression in email signatures

 A TD manager is seeking more than $400,000 in damages, alleging wrongful termination for tagging a Christian symbol at the end of her email signature. 

The case raises a bigger question for employers: when does religious freedom of expression cross the line at work, and how can companies create policies around it? 

According to Kenneth Krupat, a Toronto employment lawyer, employers have good reason to set limits on what goes in an email signature, especially when employees are speaking on behalf of the company. 

It all started when Sonja Denobrega began tagging the symbol in support of a colleague who received a complaint for adding "Pronouns: I am HIS ✝" to her email signature, according to the National Post. 

That led to Denobrega joining meetings with an HR representative and her boss about TD's signature compliance policy, the post reported. 

When she refused to remove the symbol, the meetings continued. Denobrega also pushed for a company-wide email signature check, which TD rejected. She was officially fired in January 2026, the Post sates.  

According to her statement of claim, as reported by the Post claim, Denobrega felt there was a lack of resources for Christian employees compared to the LGBTQ+ community, which she found unfair. She also argued that the policy only allowed for gender and sex identification, not for other identities.  

In its statement of defence, TD stated that its email signature policy only allows "limited, optional identifiers such as personal pronouns," in line with the company's code of conduct and respectful workplace policy. 

TD also stated Denobrega's dismissal had nothing to do with creed, her age or any other protected characteristic, but was due to her insubordination after warnings to comply with the email signature policy. 

None of the allegations have been proven in court. 

In an email to Canadian HR Reporter, a TD media representative stated: "TD Insurance has defended the claim and, as the matter is before the courts, we are unable to comment further." 

"For a company — especially a bank sending correspondence all over the place — requesting that employees not include information that might cause religious offence, make a political statement, or cause any other kind of problem makes sense. They don't want to alienate people receiving the correspondence who might worry about whether they'll be treated fairly in any kind of dispute," Krupat says. 

When is religious expression protected? 

Courts and human rights tribunals respect religious freedom and expression to a significant degree, and it all comes down to whether it's a religious requirement or part of a religious belief, says Krupat. 

"The Supreme Court has provided a fairly wide definition — a person doesn't have to prove it's required by a particular minister, imam or rabbi. But they do have to show there's a reasonable religious belief requiring them to do something that requires accommodation.” 

Under the Ontario Human Rights Code, creed is a protected ground, and employers are required to accommodate religious belfies and practices to the point of undue hardship. However, these protections have limits, and do not extend to religious expression that causes harassment or infringes on others' rights. 

As stated in section 9 of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's Policy on preventing discrimination based on creed, "organizations have a duty to accommodate both obligatory and voluntary expressions of faith, as long as they are sincerely held. It is the creed-based, 'religious or spiritual essence of an action, not any mandatory or perceived-as-mandatory nature of its observance, that attracts protection.'" 

The commission also highlights that "sincerity of belief means honesty of belief," and that it "should generally be accepted in good faith unless there are evident reasons for believing otherwise." 

While Krupat isn't familiar with all the details of the case, he says it would be a stretch to argue that any religion requires employees to advertise their faith when signing documents on behalf of their employer. 

Drawing the line between identity and expression 

In her claim, Denobrega says she told HR she wanted pronouns removed from TD's email signatures, arguing the policy allowed for gender and sex identification but left no room for other identities. Krupat, however, says pronouns serve a different purpose 

"Pronouns directly relate to how somebody is going to be addressed in response to correspondence. It's not telling anyone anything beyond making it clear how different employees want to be addressed," he says. 

While the Ontario Human Rights Code does not mandate the use of pronouns, it does prohibit discrimination and harassment of a person based on gender identity and expression. According to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, "everyone has the right to self-identify their gender 

In TD statement of defence according to the Post, TD noted it could not change or reverse the pronoun policy as "doing so would be a breach of its obligations under the Canadian Human Rights Act," which covers federally regulated employers. 

Religious messages, political statements and symbols are a different matter, Krupat says, and employers can apply the same limit across the board. 

Krupat points to the pride flag as an example. "If an employee wanted to attach a pride flag to their name, the bank or any other employer might reasonably say,’ We've included pronouns, but we don't really want a pride flag going out on all of our correspondence from this institution,’" he says. 

Creating flexible workplace policies 

While employers can decide what is and isn't included in their email policy, Krupat says the key, especially when it comes to religious freedom, is to build flexible policies from the start. That applies to everything, including dress codes and other forms of freedom of expression. 

Employers, he says, should show their willingness to be open to and review concerns raised by individuals, including accommodation requests. 

"Many policies that employers institute need to include language saying that if a person has a reason why they can't comply with a policy or has a request, the employer will look into it, give it appropriate consideration, and consider whether an exception should be made and how the person might be accommodated," Krupat says. 

Courts have gone a long way to accommodate religious freedom, he adds, but there are limits. 

"It's not an unlimited right."