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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

a rational connection between the qualification and a subjectively defined impression ofthe “nature of the employment.” Without consideration of whether the actual activity ofthe organization, the services it provides, and the job functions in the provision of thoseservices, necessitates the imposition of the discriminatory qualification, the objectiveelement is completely robbed of any meaning.[182] Rev. Reese was asked a number of questions in cross-examination about thebasis for the prohibitions contained in the Lifestyle and Morality Statement. Referring toan earlier version of a Lifestyle Statement:Q. And in 1976, if you recall, was there a discussion about thecontent of the lifestyle document complying with the law at thetime?A. We recognized that everything that Christian Horizons didneeded to conform to first of all the laws of God, and secondly,as much as is possible, to the laws of man.Q. I'm talking about the employment laws of Ontario. Wheredo they fit?A. We sought to fit those -- those regulations.Q. So the morality standards of 1976 that you imposed on thestaff, you're saying they complied with the employment laws ofOntario at 1976?A. As I understand it, they did, but with the recognition that as aprivate interchurch Evangelical Christian organization, we hadbuilt into that document more detail than would be seen in thedocuments that would have been provincially used.Q. I don't understand what you're saying.A. Let me try to help you.Q. Yes.A. We recognized that in a pluralistic society, organizations thatare seeking to serve pluralistically are limited in how far theycan go in the detail of a lifestyle statement. But as a Christianorganization, we did not feel that limitation; rather we sensedthe responsibility to reflect clearly what the Bible instructs onlifestyle.Q. Okay. So if I get you, you're saying that we make up ourown rules based on what we believe?A. I would prefer not to say we make up our own rules, but weseek to determine what God's rules are and obey them.Q. And that's your first responsibility, to the rules establishedby God?A. As Peter said in Acts chapter 5 to the leaders of his day, hesaid, "We ought to obey God rather than man," and when --2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)54
God's rules supersede man's rules. And it's on that basis thatEvangelical Christians are to live. However, we are to obey thelaws of the land in every way that we possibly can, and wealways sought to do that in Christian Horizons.Q. Unless they are in conflict with God's law.A. What we see to be God's law.[183] Later, in response to a series of question about a 1989 version of the Lifestyleand Morality Statement, and why it continued to prohibit homosexual relationships eventhough homosexuality was no longer a criminal offence and sexual orientation was bythen listed as a proscribed ground of discrimination in the Code, Rev. Reese said:First of all, Christian Horizons and I personally recognize that inthis pluralistic society we must recognize the rights of thepeople as they pertain to society. But when it comes to placingpeople in positions of responsibility in Christian Horizons, werecognize that we desire to continue to maintain what we see tobe the laws of God, and thus that statement.2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)[184] I accept Christian Horizons is a religious organization, and does identify as aChristian ministry, but it is also an employer of over 2500 individuals across Ontario. Itstarted its residential program in 1976 with one home, with funds privately donated, andin response to requests from Christian families who sought a Christian homeenvironment for their children. It is now the largest provider of community livingservices in the province. It receives $75 million annually from the province to providecare and support to individuals with developmental disabilities, without discriminationbased on creed or cultural background. It establishes its residences as Christianhomes, but does not serve only, or primarily, the community of co-religionists. It is fullyengaged in, to use Rev. Reese’s words, “pluralistic society.” Even assuming that itcould be found that Christian Horizons primarily served the interests of persons whoadopt its faith beliefs, by providing opportunities to live out a Christian calling, ChristianHorizons does not satisfy the objective requirement of the reasonable and bona fide testunder section 24(1)(a) the Ontario Human Rights Code by simply asserting that it isobliged to follow religious law and by saying that those who do not live by its MoralityStatement can choose to work elsewhere. As the Court in Hall said:55
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 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 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?