HRTO Rules Ethical Veganism Is Not a Creed Under Ontario Human Rights Law: What the Knauff Decision Means for Workers

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) has released its long-awaited decision in Knauff v. Ontario (Natural Resources and Forestry) — a case that drew national attention after an Ontario firefighter alleged he was discriminated against for being an ethical vegan.

The Tribunal has now ruled that ethical veganism is not a creed under Ontario’s Human Rights Code, and dismissed the applications brought forward by firefighter Adam Knauff.

This decision closes a multi-year legal saga that began with a 2017 wildfire deployment in British Columbia and grew into a closely watched test case.

Below is a clear, easy-to-follow breakdown of the decision, the background, and how it aligns with the early legal analysis provided by Samfiru Tumarkin LLP employment lawyers Lior Samfiru and Jon Pinkus in 2019.

Background: What Happened in 2017?

In July 2017, Knauff was one of roughly 1,000 firefighters sent to Williams Lake, BC during a major wildfire emergency. According to Global News reporting at the time, he alleged that he often went hungry because vegan meals were unavailable or contaminated with animal products.

He also described long shifts, limited food access, and repeated incidents where meals didn’t meet his needs. Tensions escalated, leading to swearing, conflict with camp kitchen staff, and ultimately a suspension.

Knauff brought his case to the HRTO, arguing:

• He is an ethical vegan — not just someone who avoids animal products, but someone who sees animal exploitation as morally unacceptable.
• Ethical veganism is a creed under the Human Rights Code.
• The Ministry failed to accommodate that creed and then disciplined him unfairly.

The Central Legal Question: Does Ethical Veganism Count as a Creed?

This question had never been squarely addressed by an Ontario tribunal before.

What Knauff Needed to Prove

Under the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policy on Preventing Discrimination Based on Creed, a belief system must meet five criteria to qualify as a creed, including:

1. Being sincerely and deeply held.
2. Being tied to a person’s identity and fulfillment.
3. Addressing “ultimate questions” about human existence (life, purpose, death, a higher order, or Creator).
4. Being comprehensive, with overarching principles.
5. Having a community or organization with shared beliefs.

The HRTO accepted that Knauff’s beliefs were sincere and deeply held. But it ultimately found that ethical veganism does not address questions about a higher order or Creator, and therefore does not meet the full test (See paras. 17–22 of the decision).

As a result, ethical veganism does not qualify as a creed under the Code — at least on the evidence provided in this case.

HRTO Findings: Why the Applications Were Dismissed

1. Ethical Veganism Is Not a Creed Under the Code

The Tribunal found:

• Ethical veganism is a moral and philosophical system concerning the treatment of animals and the environment.
• It doesn’t address the “ultimate questions” required under the Code’s definition of creed.
• There was no evidence of spiritual fulfillment or contemplation of a higher order.

Because a Code-protected ground was not established, the HRTO ruled it had no jurisdiction to decide the discrimination claim.

2. The Reprisal Claim Failed

In one of his applications, Knauff also claimed reprisal. But the HRTO found:

• He never told his employer that veganism, as he practised it, was part of a code-protected creed.
• If the employer doesn’t know the belief is tied to human rights protections, it can’t form the intent to retaliate.

Therefore, this part of the claim was also dismissed.

3. No Need to Consider Consolidating Files

Because both applications fell outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, no further procedural steps were required.

How This Aligns With Early Legal Commentary by Samfiru Tumarkin LLP

When this case first gained public attention in 2019, our lawyers were interviewed by major radio stations to break down the legal issues.

Jon Pinkus on 570 News

In his interview, Jon noted that ethical veganism might satisfy the criteria for creed, but the claimant would still need to prove discrimination and lack of accommodation.

He explained the five-part test, the importance of sincerity, and the role of accommodation in remote work environments. Pinkus also pointed to the employee’s duty to cooperate during accommodation — something the HRTO later highlighted in its reprisal ruling.

Lior Samfiru on 640 Toronto

Lior predicted that the claim was unlikely to succeed because:

• Veganism had not historically been treated as a creed.
• It lacked the religious or spiritual dimensions required by law.
• It could open the door to countless preference-based accommodation demands.

He also emphasized the challenge of accommodating dietary restrictions during emergency wildfire deployments — exactly the kind of operational reality the Tribunal acknowledged.

The final HRTO decision closely tracks Lior’s analysis from 2019.

Key Takeaways for Workers and Employers

For Employees

• Ethical veganism is not currently recognized as a creed in Ontario human rights law.
• Dietary preferences — even deeply held ones — may not trigger a legal duty to accommodate.
• If you need an accommodation at work, clearly communicate why the need arises and whether it is connected to a protected ground (religion, disability, etc.).

For Employers

• You must still accommodate workers based on disability, religion, and other protected grounds.
• When an employee raises a dietary need tied to a protected ground, take immediate steps to discuss and document accommodation efforts.
• In remote or emergency work environments, the standard is still reasonableness — but clear communication is critical.

Why This Case Matters

This ruling sets an important precedent in Ontario:
Ethical veganism, as presented in this case, does not qualify as a creed under the Human Rights Code.

However, it also highlights that the law continues to evolve. As belief systems develop and become more widely recognized, future cases may revisit the definition of creed.

For now, this decision provides helpful clarity for both employees and employers navigating human rights obligations in the workplace.