Download this publication - PULP

98 Chapter 3
example, the virtues of a Christian life’. 107 Following Caldwell, the
Newfoundland Board of Enquiry concluded that requiring teachers’
conformity to the religious beliefs and rules of the church was reasonably
necessary to protect the religious nature of the school. Again, there was no
evidence that the teacher concerned was involved in religious instruction.
Canadian decision makers have not always found in favour of
religious associations that engage in employment discrimination on
otherwise prohibited grounds, however. In Parks v Christian Horizons, 108 a
carer in a group home run by a Christian organisation claimed she had
been discriminated against on the grounds of marital status after she was
dismissed for being involved in an extra-marital relationship. By contrast
with Caldwell, Garrod and Kearley, ‘there was no mention at any time of the
requirement that all employees had to adopt a moral and sexual lifestyle
that would not be in conflict with the Evangelical Christian doctrinal
principles of Christian Horizons’. 109 The employment contract did not
include a provision imposing this requirement. 110 The Court found for the
employee, reasoning that employment discrimination of this kind would
only be acceptable if ‘lifestyle requirements [were] clearly indicated or
referred to in the employment contracts, and if at all possible, confirmed in
the application and interview process leading to employment’. 111
Following the decision in Parks, Christian Horizons introduced a
‘Lifestyle and Morality Statement’ for inclusion in all contracts of
employment. Nevertheless, in its recent decision, Heintz v Christian
Horizons, 112 the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario refused to permit
Christian Horizons to discriminate against an employee, Heintz, by
terminating her employment when it discovered she was a lesbian involved
in a same-sex relationship. Christian Horizons justified its discrimination
on the grounds that Heintz's conduct was inconsistent with the
fundamental Evangelical Christian principles recorded in the ‘Lifestyle
and Morality Statement’ and incorporated into her employment contract.
The Tribunal found against Christian Horizons on the ground that it had
not demonstrated that the discrimination was reasonably necessary.
Notwithstanding the Tribunal's finding in favour of Heintz, the Heintz
decision does not alter the Canadian jurisprudence dealing with religious
educational institutions since the Tribunal affirmed the decisions in
Caldwell and Garrod. It distinguished these decisions from Heintz on the
grounds that, unlike the schools in Caldwell and Garrod, Christian Horizons
was not in the business of religious education, and did not provide services
107 Kearley (n 105 above) para 54.
108
(1991) 16 Canadian Human Rights Reporter D/40 (Ontario Board of Enquiry).
109 Parks (n 108 above) para 7.
110 Parks (n 108 above) para 8.
111
Parks (n 108 above) para 57.
112 (2008) 65 CCEL (3d) 218 (Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario).