Pareja v. OE Quality Friction, 2012 HRTO 250

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Francisco Pareja

Applicant

-and-

OE Quality Friction, Bryan Watts and Robert Lee

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: February 6, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 250

Indexed as: Pareja v. OE Quality Friction

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the applicant’s allegation that he was discriminated against on the basis of his “creed.”

2The applicant filed his Application on May 11, 2011 alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status and creed contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.10, as amended (the “Code”). In his Form 1A, the applicant describes his creed as a belief “in being truthful.”

3The applicant states that he believes that he was discriminated against on the basis of that creed because he was “forced by the controller, through a written request, to lie and modify invoice dates.” In his response to Section 8 (“What Happened”) of his Application, the applicant alleges in particular 4 that he “was instructed to modify invoices to benefit companies books, in writing and against my better judgement.”

4In response to a previous Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 1996, which requested the parties to file submissions on whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to deal with the applicant’s allegations concerning his creed, the applicant submits that he feels his “core religious values as a catholic person were violated and undermined.” He further states: “One of the key commandment in Catholic life, is NOT to lie. I violated this value, which I cherish, to keep my job and bosses happy.”

5Assuming, without deciding, that truthfulness was part of the applicant’s set of sincerely held religious beliefs and practices, there is no evidence that he was discriminated against on the basis of this belief. That is, he is not alleging he was asked to do something others were not on the basis of his religious beliefs. On the face of his Application, there is no differential treatment, and certainly no link between the treatment and his religious beliefs. Without the link between the ground and the alleged treatment, there is no allegation that he was denied “equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because” of his creed.

6Moreover, as pointed out by the respondents in their submissions, the applicant did not ask to be exempt from any activity or job requirement because to engage in such an activity or requirement would violate his creed. That is, he did not identify his creed nor did he ask for accommodation of one of the tenets of his faith.

7The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to deal with that portion of the Application that asserts discrimination on the basis of creed. Accordingly, the ground of creed is struck, and the applicant’s allegation in section 8 of his Application that he was instructed to modify invoices is dismissed.

8I am not seized of this matter.