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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Christian Horizon urges me to adopt the reasoning and finding in Parks. TheCommission argues that Parks was wrongly decided, that it is absurd to conclude thatan organization can be “primarily” engaged in serving “two sets” of interests. Therelevant passage is found at paragraphs 50-52:[50] A critical stage in this decision is now reached. If I agreewith the assertion of counsel for the Commission that ChristianHorizons is primarily serving the interests of thedevelopmentally handicapped without discrimination as tocreed, then Christian Horizons under the third element of s.23(1)(a) can only discriminate in employment as regards topersons similarly identified. This means that Christian Horizonsis permitted to hire or show preference in employment only asregards developmentally handicapped individuals! This isclearly an absurd result and would rob Christian Horizons of theprotection of s. 23(1)(a) even as regards the highest policymakingand executive positions in the organization.2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)[51] In the course of oral arguments, I stressed to counsel forthe Commission that such a ruling could threaten the continuedexistence of Christian Horizons, if I were to accept completelyhis argument concerning the interests Christian Horizons wasprimarily engaged in serving.[52] I cannot so rule. As the former COMSOC Minister, theHonourable John Sweeny, testified in these hearings, ChristianHorizons has been of tremendous assistance to parents andguardians of developmentally handicapped individuals since theformer government began its five-year plan of deinstitutionalizingthe care of the handicapped in Ontario. TheChristian Horizons group homes are a vital part of the "mosaic"of options open to parents and guardians that wish to placetheir children in a non-institutional setting that combines a highquality of care within a Christian, if not an overtly EvangelicalChristian, environment. In the days of evidence when counselfor the respondents attempted to establish the EvangelicalChristian nature of the entire operations of Christian Horizons,one thing started becoming clear [;] [a]s regards its foundingpersonnel and its present policy-making and executive functionsand offices, Christian Horizons is definitely EvangelicalChristian in orientation. It also attempts to recruit primarily anEvangelical Christian membership as evidenced by themembership application pamphlet which, by its missionstatement, objectives, doctrinal statement and its clearreference to "Evangelical Fellowship" and "TransdenominationalEvangelical Ministry," clearly seek to attract a38
fellowship of Evangelical Christians. This organization,essentially Evangelical Christian in its orientation, policy-makingand membership, then goes out into the community to establishgroup homes for residents and parents and guardians, notlimited by creed, and employs staff for such homes who areagain not necessarily Evangelical Christians. With such acharacterization this Board concludes that Christian Horizons isprimarily serving two sets of interests. The first is theEvangelical Christian interests of its founding and presentexecutive personnel and membership. Second, ChristianHorizons is also primarily serving the interests of the residentsof the group homes and their parents or guardians, whom theevidence suggests largely belong to a broad range of Christiandenominations and include some non-Christians. For thesereasons Christian Horizons passes the second element of the s.23(1)(a) exemption. Like the Board in the Garrod decision citedabove, I have little difficulty equating the Evangelical Christiantenets of Christian Horizons as a "creed" for the purposes ofthis second element of the s. 23(1)(a) exemption.2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)[136] With the greatest of respect to the Board in Parks, I have considerable difficultywith the rationale presented for concluding that Christian Horizons is primarily engagedin serving two sets of interests. As I mentioned above, the Tribunal must decide thecase based on the facts and the law. The Legislature has enacted a provision thatseeks to strike a balance between competing rights, and a framework for determininghow those rights should be balanced in a particular case. It appears that in Parks, as inthe present case, Christian Horizons asserted it would cease to exist if not granted thesection 24(1)(a) exemption. Such a result would be unfortunate. But it cannot be therationale for finding that Christian Horizons falls within the section 24(1)(a) exemption.Were human rights tribunals to base their decisions on fears that a respondent wouldclose down, move away, or cease to exist if unsuccessful, the protection of humanrights would be entirely undermined. Legislation should be interpreted purposively, butnot on the basis that what is otherwise the appropriate interpretation leads to a resultthat is unpalatable for one or other (or both) of the parties.[137] Further, I have difficulty accepting that an organization can be “primarilyengaged” in serving the interests of a group of persons who are identified by their creed,and at the same time, “primarily engaged” in serving the interests of a different group of39
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 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 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?