The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed a complaint filed by a part-time security guard who alleged his former employer, Paladin Security Group, discriminated against him based on religious beliefs.
In its decision, the tribunal found the guard — O.S. — did not establish a sufficient connection between any religious practice and the termination of his employment, which took place during a probationary period. The ruling highlights several key factors that led to the dismissal, including credibility issues, undisclosed bail conditions and a lack of corroborating evidence to show religious discrimination.
Probationary contract
The tribunal noted that O.S. was hired on a probationary contract that required him to work at least one shift per pay period. According to the decision, “The complainant did not reply to the respondent’s emails or show up for the assigned shift,” prompting the employer to review his file when he later cancelled additional shifts on short notice.
Ultimately, O.S. was terminated for “his failure to work the minimum shifts required, their inability to contact him, a poor attitude toward management, and general unsuitability for the job.”
Religious rites interfered with schedule: Guard
O.S. claimed that religious rites prompted him to cancel his shifts, insisting he had to observe ceremonies following the death of an ancestral king in Nigeria. The tribunal stated, “The complainant alleges he told the respondent he needed to cancel the shifts due to his religious rites after the death of an ancestral king in Nigeria,” but found that O.S. presented no evidence he ever communicated this information to Paladin Security Group at the relevant time.
Instead, the respondent asserted it was told O.S. was travelling to Toronto to help his wife pack. In the end, the tribunal preferred the testimony of the respondent’s witnesses, who “denied the complainant’s version of events.”
Accommodation request not made: Tribunal
A critical factor in the tribunal’s analysis was the question of whether O.S. genuinely raised a religion-based accommodation request at the time of termination. The tribunal wrote, “I disbelieve the complainant’s uncorroborated testimony that he raised religious beliefs or requested accommodation for religious reasons at the termination meeting.”
Two employees of the respondent, identified as S.L. and A.A., testified that O.S. never mentioned his faith-based obligations during that final interaction. Their testimony, according to the decision, was consistent and credible.
Credibility played a central role in the outcome. The tribunal set out its framework for assessing who was more believable, emphasizing that “credibility and reliability are distinct but related concepts. Credibility relates to the honesty, sincerity or trustworthiness of a witness, while reliability relates to their accuracy.” The adjudicator weighed multiple factors, concluding that O.S.’s testimony was unreliable due to inconsistencies surrounding his claim of needing to travel outside Alberta — even though he was bound by bail conditions that barred him from leaving the province. The decision notes, “He was untruthful when he claimed an urgent need to go to Toronto to help his wife pack.”
Bail conditions ‘pivotal’
Those bail conditions turned out to be a pivotal discovery. While O.S. initially testified he had difficulty communicating because his cellphone was seized, further examination revealed he was under a criminal recognizance order that explicitly prohibited him from possessing a cellphone, using email or leaving Alberta.
The tribunal wrote, “I find the complainant was untruthful and deliberately failed to tell the respondent about his criminal charges and Recognizance (bail) conditions … The Recognizance was evidence the complainant could not have worked any shifts at the Peter Pond mall.” Because shopping centres naturally include patrons under age 16, O.S. would have been in violation of the recognizance had he worked at that location.
Criminal charges not disclosed
In addition, the tribunal’s decision highlighted that O.S. never reported his criminal charges to the employer, as required under the Security Services and Investigators Act. The adjudicator stated, “The complainant admitted he had never reported his criminal charges to the respondent and stated that because his criminal activity did not arise while working for the respondent, he was not required to report it. That testimony … demonstrated a callous disregard for the law under the Security Act.”
The employer was unaware of the charges, which raised the risk of losing its own security licence had the matter gone undetected.
After considering whether O.S. provided enough evidence to connect his dismissal to religious discrimination, the tribunal concluded he failed on multiple grounds, including the basic test for establishing discrimination. Citing the Supreme Court of Canada’s framework from Moore v British Columbia (Education), the adjudicator found that while O.S. experienced an adverse impact in the form of a job loss, he did not show his religion was a factor in that decision. “I accept the respondent’s evidence that his religious beliefs were not a factor in the termination of the complainant’s employment,” the tribunal wrote, noting the termination stemmed from O.S.’s overall unreliability, missed shifts and poor communications.
Request for anonymity
Although O.S. requested anonymity to avoid publication of the criminal charges on legal databases, the tribunal denied the request. It invoked the open court principle, stating, “The complainant has not provided any exceptional circumstances. The complainant’s embarrassment at being charged criminally is not a sufficient reason to anonymize this decision.”
Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed the complaint in its entirety, finding “no discrimination against the complainant has been established.” Paladin Security Group Ltd. was granted leave to apply for costs, though no decision on costs was included in the publicly released document.
Near the close of the decision, the tribunal emphasized that while O.S. may choose to pursue other legal avenues, his claim of religious discrimination did not meet the necessary threshold under provincial human rights legislation.
“I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the complainant raised religious beliefs or requested accommodation to observe religious rites,” the adjudicator stated, concluding that the respondent’s reasons for termination were legitimate and unrelated to any protected ground.
For more information, see Shodunke v Paladin Security Group Ltd., 2025 AHRC 1 (CanLII).
