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

[153] Indeed, Christian Horizons does not really identify as an organization that wasformed to benefit the interests of its members. To the contrary, the deeply heldconviction of its members, and its central mission, is one of selfless service to thevulnerable, the marginalized and the needy. This is precisely why Christian Horizonsurges me to find that section 24(1)(a) must be read in a way which would permitreligious organizations, whose primary mission is to do works of charity and mercy inthe broader community, be permitted to give preference in employment to adherents ofits faith. Otherwise, it says, religious organizations which sought to give preference to,or hire only its adherents, would be restricted to serving its small community of coreligionists.2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)[154] Christian Horizons argues, relying on Brossard, that the purpose of section 24 isto permit persons of common faith or creed to come together to pursue activities infurtherance of their faith. It is a section, it submits, which protects freedom of religion,and the right of religious organizations to employ co-religionists to pursue their faithbasedactivities.[155] I cannot accept this argument. Such an interpretation would ignore the plainmeaning of the statutory language and the policy choice adopted by the Legislature inbalancing the competing rights of persons to be free from discrimination in employment,and of persons of common faith to come together to pursue certain activities. Incontrast with section 20 of the Quebec Charter, section 24(1)(a) does not relate thedistinction, restriction or qualification to the nature of the organization. It provides thatthe distinction, restriction or qualification must be related to the persons whose interestsare primarily served by the organization.[156] The Legislature could have made a different policy choice in drafting the specialemployment section, or have provided a general “reasonable and bona fide” defence. Itdid not. The Legislature could have provided that an organization, found to be areligious organization, is permitted to restrict hiring to co-religionists, regardless of itsactivity or purpose. It did not. The Tribunal cannot, and should not, override the policychoice of the Legislature. The legislation allows a distinction in employment, which45