Ruling (.pdf) - International Center for Law and Religion Studies

More documents

Recommendations

Info

APPEARANCES)Connie Heintz, Complainant ) Eddie Taylor, Counsel) (after December 2006)))Ontario Human Rights Commission ) Raj Dhir, Counsel) Eddie Taylor, Counsel) (to December 2006)2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII))Christian Horizons, Respondent ) Adrian Miedema, Counsel) Christina Hall, Counsel)ii
TABLE OF CONTENTSOVERVIEW ................................................................................................... 1THE COMPLAINT AND THE PROCEEDINGS ................................................ 4FACTUAL BACKGROUND ……….......................................................................... 5Connie Heintz ............................................................................................... 5Christian Horizons .. ..................................................................................... 7Christian Horizons as an “Evangelical Christian Organization” .................... 12Christian Horizons and the Developmental Service Sector in Ontario ........ 14The Development of the Lifestyle and Morality Statement .......................... 15Connie Heintz’s Employment at Waterloo 2 and Waterloo 6 ...................... 172008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)DECISIONS AND ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 22ISSUES ....................................................................................................... 22Is Christian Horizons Entitled to the Exemption in Section 24(1)(a) in theCircumstances of this Case? ........................................................................ 23The Legislative Provision and the Jurisprudence ........................................ 23Analysis and Application of the Facts to the Statutory Provision .................. 30Is Christian Horizons a Religious Organization? .......................................... 30Is Christian Horizons primarily engaged in serving the interests ofpersons identified by their creed?................................................................. 32Does Christian Horizons employ only or give preference in employmentto persons similarly identified? ..................................................................... 32Is the qualification (the restriction in employment to persons similarlyidentified by creed) a reasonable and bona fide qualification because ofthe nature of the employment? .................................................................... 47Did Christian Horizons create, or permit a poisoned work environment, orotherwise discriminate against Ms. Heintz, such that her right to be freefrom discrimination was infringed? .............................................................. 62iii
Page 1: HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO___
Page 5 and 6: I) OVERVIEW[1] In March 1995, the c
Page 7 and 8: Code which provides a framework and
Page 9 and 10: [19] The length of the hearing and
Page 12 and 13: [31] Rev. Reese testified that, aft
Page 14 and 15: objects and purposes essentially re
Page 16 and 17: meet the needs of individuals who w
Page 18 and 19: support services to the residents,
Page 20 and 21: organization. Each retreat involved
Page 22 and 23: Heintz was given a Letter of Employ
Page 24 and 25: Ms. Dorothy Girling, Ms. Heintz’s
Page 26 and 27: with pay pending the investigation
Page 28 and 29: ancestry, place of origin, colour,
Page 30 and 31: such a defence should not be read i
Page 32 and 33: all help it can to its members to a
Page 34 and 35: Analysis and Application of the Fac
Page 36 and 37: [117] On the basis of the evidence
Page 38 and 39: [124] Rev. Dr. Brent Hawkes, the Co
Page 40 and 41: doctrine, unjustifiably entangle th
Page 42 and 43: Christian Horizon urges me to adopt
Page 44 and 45: persons, individuals identified by
Page 46 and 47: the residents, they were not able t
Page 48 and 49: noted above, that families came fro
Page 50 and 51: would otherwise be discriminatory,
Page 52 and 53:
confronted about being in a same se
Page 54 and 55:
whole. Section 24(2) imposes a duty
Page 56 and 57:
57. The first step in assessing whe
Page 58 and 59:
a rational connection between the q
Page 60 and 61:
If individuals in Canada were permi
Page 62 and 63:
the faith beliefs of the organizati
Page 64:
And so they have gay and lesbian st
Page 67 and 68:
discriminatory views of managers or
Page 69 and 70:
Horizons’ management from the poi
Page 71 and 72:
• On this and suspicious abuse al
Page 73 and 74:
Christian Horizons relied on the di
Page 75 and 76:
we're committed to as God's way in
Page 77 and 78:
obligations placed on all employers
Page 79 and 80:
Inc. (No. 4) (1990), 12 C.H.R.R. D/
Page 81 and 82:
late in 1999. She testified that wh
Page 83 and 84:
Heintz. None of her concerns about
Page 85 and 86:
[268] Ms. Heintz testified about he
Page 87 and 88:
take steps to justify why gays and
Page 89 and 90:
for over 40 years. It has grown fro
Page 91 and 92:
1. the respondent, Christian Horizo
Page 93 and 94:
ADDENDUM TO FINAL DECISION[1] This
Page 95 and 96:
Horizons appealed that decision, an
show all

Ruling (.pdf) - International Center for Law and Religion Studies

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?