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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

all help it can to its members to adopt a Christianway of life. (at para. 5)[102] The Court held that the group whose interests the school primarily servedshould be defined as either the Catholic community in the Vancouver parishes or theCatholic community in the Vancouver area that supported the school.[103] The Court also accepted that the school’s policy was bona fide and reasonable.It made specific reference to the objects and purposes of the Catholic school and therole of the teacher within the Catholic school: to teach the students the principles of theCatholic faith and to form their “hearts and minds” in accordance with the religiousteachings of the Church. It also described the Catholic school as a “genuine communitybent on imparting, over and above an academic education, all help it can to its membersto adopt a Christian way of life.” (Caldwell, supra, paras. 5, 34)2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)[104] Finally, the Court made reference to the 1971 Ontario Board of Inquiry decision,Gore v. Ottawa Catholic School Board (1971), unreported, Ont. Bd. of Inq. In Gore, theOttawa Catholic School Board refused to employ an individual in a secretarial positionbecause she was not a Roman Catholic.[105] The special employment section in force at the time provided that the prohibitionon discrimination in employment did not apply to:… an exclusively religious, philanthropic, educational, fraternal orsocial organization that is not operated for private profit, or to anyorganization that is operated primarily for the welfare of a religiousor ethnic group and that is not operated for private profit, where inany such case race, colour, creed, nationality, ancestry or place oforigin is a reasonable occupational qualification.[106] The Board of Inquiry, chaired by Walter Tarnopolsky (as he then was),determined that, while it might be legitimate for the School Board to require a teacher tobe a Roman Catholic as the role of a teacher includes religious formation, it was notreasonable to require a secretary, particularly a part-time secretary, to be a Catholic.28
[107] The special employment section of the Ontario Code was also addressed inParks, supra, and Garrod v. Rheema Christian School, [1991] 15 C.H.R.R. D/477. InGarrod a Board of Inquiry found that a trans-denominational private Christian schoolwas justified in imposing a restriction that all teachers conform to its articles of faith, andin particular a restriction that teachers not be living in common law relationships.[108] The Board in Garrod struggled with the question of what constituted the “creed”of the persons whose interests the organization was primarily engaged in serving.Unlike most of the previous cases in which the religious tenets forming the basis of the“qualification” were those of an established church or denomination, the RheemaChristian School was a trans-denominational institution. The Board determined that thefaith belief as expressed by the doctrinal statements contained in the school’sconstitution and by-laws, and agreed to by all parents whose children attended theschool, formed the creed. In so concluding, the Board was able to find that the schoolserved the interests of persons identified by a common creed (the doctrinal statements)and restricted hiring to persons similarly identified (persons who were prepared to signand adopt the doctrinal statements).2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)[109] A number of common themes run through the special employment cases whereorganizations have been successful in bringing themselves within the exemption. First,(apart from Parks which will be discussed below) most deal with religious schools wherethe persons served (students and families) were all adherents to the creed of theorganization, and the purpose of the organization was religious indoctrination, educationand formation. Second, the job of the employee to whom the qualification applied wasto carry out the religious indoctrination, education and formation. Third, theorganizations were either private, or publicly funded religious schools which enjoyedConstitutional protection.[110] In addition, in special employment cases, there is typically an identity betweenthe characteristics of the members of the organization and the characteristics of theindividuals who are served by the organization.29
Page 1 and 2: HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO___
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTSOVERVIEW .........
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 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?