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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the residents, they were not able to benefit from “Christian” education. Without decidingwhether residents could understand or benefit from Christian education or counselling,the evidence clearly shows that Christian Horizons does not have as its purpose toproselytize or to convert the residents, or to require the residents to be educated in, orconform to the faith beliefs of the organization. While the homes are run as “Christianhomes”, residents are free to express non-Christian religious beliefs.[144] In this regard, the evidence demonstrated some inconsistency between the selfidentityof the organization on the one hand, and its stated objectives and purpose onthe other. Christian Horizons identifies as an Evangelical Christian ministry. YetChristian Horizons’ witnesses were clear that it does not attempt to proselytize orengage in the religious indoctrination of residents. Unlike the schools in Caldwell andGarrod, Christian Horizons is not a religious institution whose purpose is to “form thehearts and minds” of its residents in the ways of faith of the organization.2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)[145] Both the Commission and Christian Horizons called a number of familymembers to testify, in part to establish their respective faith beliefs, and also as towhether they had an interest in having Christian Horizons provide spiritual support andreligious education. The family members called as witnesses were all Christian, thoughnot all self-identified as Evangelical Christians. Some were members of ChristianHorizons. Some were not. Some said they would be comfortable with signing theDoctrinal Statement. Some said they would not. Some family members said theyexpressly sought to have their loved ones placed at Christian Horizons because itidentified as an Evangelical Christian organization. Some said they were pleased that itwas a Christian organization, but that was not the reason for choosing ChristianHorizons. Most said they would not have any difficulty having their loved ones cared forby a gay or lesbian support worker. All said that Christian Horizons provided excellentcare for their children and siblings.[146] Christian Horizons does not keep statistics on the cultural, religious or faithbackgrounds of the individuals it serves. However, Mr. Michael Alemu, Vice Presidentof Operations testified that between 1991 and 1997, while he held the position of42
Administrator of Program Development and Training, he visited all of the group homesoperated by Christian Horizons. He estimated 70 per cent of the residents came fromChristian families. Between 1999 and 2001, while Administrator of District Services,West District, he met 60 per cent of the families and, of those, he estimated 60 per centwere Christian. In 2000, all of the 12 individuals accepted in the Waterloo and Windsorprograms came from Christian families. He did not say the Christian families selfidentified as Evangelical Christians.[147] Ms. Jennifer Ward, the Systems Manager for Christian Horizons, receives callsfrom family members inquiring about service for their children or siblings.Approximately 50 per cent of the calls were from people looking for a Christian serviceprovider.2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)[148] There was no evidence before the Tribunal to establish whether this anecdotalevidence of the percentage of families served by Christian Horizons who identified asChristian, was the same or different than the percentage of Christian families in theparticular communities served.[149] There was a dispute between the parties as to whether evidence from familymembers who had children or siblings in residences, other than Waterloo 6, wasrelevant to the issues to be determined in this case. I determined that the evidenceshould not be restricted to Waterloo 6. The complaint of discrimination was not filedagainst the Waterloo 6 program and, given the current corporate and organizationalstructure of Christian Horizons, the section 24(1)(a) defence is one that can only attachto Christian Horizons as a whole. At the same time, differences between the programs,including differences in job duties and requirements, and differences in the servicesprovided to residents, may be relevant to the determination of whether qualificationsimposed by Christian Horizons were reasonable and bona fide under the final elementof the section 24(1)(a) test.[150] I observed, however, that calling an endless number of family members by theparties would not be particularly helpful. The evidence clearly established, as I have43
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 42 and 43: Christian Horizon urges me to adopt
Page 44 and 45: persons, individuals identified by
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

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?