He blamed his firing on age, faith and eyesight, but the tribunal wasn't convinced
A newly hired package handler said he was fired over his age, religion and eyesight. A tribunal disagreed on every count, faulting him for never actually asking for help.
In a decision released June 15, 2026, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal member Jayashree Sengupta dismissed the complaint against United Parcel Service Canada Ltd., ruling the company was not required to accommodate a disability, religious practice, or age-related need the worker never disclosed.
Struggles on the loading dock
The complainant, a foreign-trained intellectual property lawyer who had recently returned to Canada, was hired in April 2021 as a probationary package handler with United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. After an orientation session in which he signed off on the company's accommodation and professional conduct policies, he began three days of supervised training on the loading dock.
Supervisors testified the worker struggled to keep pace with the conveyor belt, and one said he saw packages left on the floor, which he described as a safety hazard. Both supervisors said they asked the worker to keep his glasses on rather than removing them repeatedly. He told them he needed the glasses only for reading and preferred not to wear them under a mask.
The worker later said he mentioned observing Ramadan to one supervisor and left his station briefly to pray on one occasion, without asking permission in advance. Neither supervisor recalled being told he was fasting, and both said no formal accommodation request, for prayer time or otherwise, was ever raised with them.
A disputed termination
On his fourth day, a supervisor brought the worker into an office to complete an outstanding training document. He refused to sign it and became upset. The supervisor testified she did not have authority to “disqualify” a probationary worker on her own, so she called in an operations manager, who testified that “refusing to sign the document was the equivalent of refusing to work” and made the decision himself.
The worker gave a different account, testifying he was first told he was being let go because of his “weak vision,” and that the operations manager only later cited his slow pace. Sengupta found the supervisor's version, that the meeting began over the unsigned document, more persuasive than the worker's.
According to the manager's testimony, the worker called him a racist and said he could not be fired during Ramadan, which the manager said was the first he had heard of the worker's religion. Company policy allowed employees to request time to pray, the manager said, but no such request had been made before the termination.
No prima facie case of discrimination
Sengupta ruled the worker had not established a prima facie case on any of the three grounds he raised. Across all three, she pointed to the same gap: he never told anyone at the company, during his four days on the job, that he needed an accommodation related to his age, religion or vision.
On age, Sengupta cited uncontested evidence the workforce ranged from 19 to 68 and that no one had commented on his age. On religion, she found his overnight shifts did not conflict with fasting hours, and that he chose not to disclose his Ramadan observance or request prayer time. On disability, she noted he had told both supervisors he could do the job without his glasses.
The tribunal also noted the company had acknowledged a “regrettable and extreme delay in paying the wages owed to the complainant,” a delay of 18 months blamed on payroll system errors. Sengupta found no credible link between the delay and any protected ground, and agreed with the company that it had no obligation to investigate a complaint filed after his employment had already ended. The complaint was dismissed in full.
See Elgelani v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd., 2026 CHRT 64
