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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

[117] On the basis of the evidence presented in this case, I have no difficulty infinding that Christian Horizons is a religious organization.Is Christian Horizons primarily engaged in serving the interests of persons identified bytheir creed?Does Christian Horizons employ only or give preference in employment to personssimilarly identified?[118] I propose to address these two questions together because, while they areseparate elements in a section 24(1)(a) analysis, they are related in a very practicalway. Christian Horizons does not make the claim that it is primarily engaged in servingthe interests of persons identified by their creed in the abstract. The claim is madebecause it seeks to employ only persons “similarly identified”, that is, by a commoncreed. It wishes to maintain its policy that all employees must be in strict compliancewith the articles of faith of its founders and members.2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)[119] The Commission argues that a “creed” should be restricted to religiousdenominations, and as Evangelical Christianity is multi-denominational, it cannot be a“creed” within the meaning of the Code. The Commission argues that even ifEvangelical Christianity can be considered a creed, the statements of faith adopted byChristian Horizons, particularly the Lifestyle and Morality Statement, are purelysubjective and do not represent an accurate interpretation of Christian biblicalmandates.[120] I accept that a creed need not be restricted to a particular religiousdenomination. “Creed” has been held to be synonymous with “religion”, and hasincluded trans-denominational organizations. (Huang v. 1233065 Ontario Inc. (No. 2),2006 HRTO 1; Garrod, supra; Ontario Human Rights Commission, Policy on Creed andthe Accommodation of Religious Observances)[121] What identifies a creed is a set of sincerely held religious beliefs and practices.These beliefs and practices need not be based on the edicts of an established church or32
particular denomination. In Amselem, supra, the Supreme Court defined religiousbeliefs as beliefs that have:… a nexus with religion, in which an individual demonstrates heor she sincerely believes or is sincerely undertaking in order toconnect with the divine or as a function of his or her spiritualfaith…. ( para. 46)[122] Christian Horizons argues its creed is Evangelical Christianity, or alternatively,the faith belief of its founders and members as expressed in its Doctrinal Statement.Rev. Dr. Stiller testified that the Doctrinal Statement adopted by Christian Horizons isindicative of an Evangelical Christian organization, and is, in fact, the DoctrinalStatement of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. The Evangelical Fellowship ofCanada is an organization made up of individuals and churches who identify asEvangelical Christians, but it is not a church or denomination. It was not suggested thatonly individuals or groups who are members of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canadacan be called Evangelical Christians. Individuals may self identify as EvangelicalChristian even though they are members of a denomination which would not identify asEvangelical Christian. Rev. Dr. Stiller testified that the Evangelical community is not amonolith where all persons or organizations that identify as Evangelical hold exactly thesame beliefs.2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)[123] It was not disputed that most organizations that identify as Evangelical Christianhave Doctrinal Statements which their members are required to sign. Someorganizations may also require employees and members to adopt and sign a Lifestyleand Morality Statement. Typically these Statements will be similar in content to thoseadopted by Christian Horizons, but they are not necessarily identical in all respects, andneed not be approved by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada or other externalreligious institution. Indeed, Rev. Dr. Stiller testified that there is variation in the contentof lifestyle and morality statements amongst organizations that identify as EvangelicalChristian. There is no central body or individual that has the power to authoritativelydefine the tenets of “Evangelical Christianity” or that accredits churches or organizationsas “Evangelical.”33
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 32 and 33: all help it can to its members to a
Page 34 and 35: Analysis and Application of the Fac
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?