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

If individuals in Canada were permitted to simply assert thattheir religious beliefs require them to discriminate againsthomosexuals without objective scrutiny, there would be noprotection at all from discrimination for gays and lesbians inCanada because everyone who wished to discriminate againstthem could make that assertion. (para. 31)[185] The evidence of Rev. Churchman and others established that, after the Parksdecision, Christian Horizons took a series of steps to address what the Board of Inquirysaw as Christian Horizons’ failure in justifying a special employment exemption underthe Code. At paragraph 57 of Parks, the Board wrote:(…) for Christian Horizons to avoid future liability in this area itmust be consistent in the application of its policies concerninglifestyle requirements, if they satisfy the objective part of theEtobicoke test, from the very beginning of the employmentperiod. Such lifestyle requirements must be clearly indicated orreferred to in the employment contracts, and if at all possible,confirmed in the applicable and interview process leading toemployment. Finally, to ensure insulation from liability in thefuture, Christian Horizons would be well-advised in newemployee job orientation programs and updating sessions toconfirm the necessity of such lifestyle requirements.2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)[186] There is no evidence Christian Horizons, rather than its employees, turned itsmind to whether any of the particular provisions of the Lifestyle Statement werereasonably necessary, in an objective sense, given the objects of the organization, thenature of the services being provided, and the duties of the particular positions.Christian Horizons appeared to rely on the high degree of consensus amongst itsemployees about what they felt was important.[187] This process, like Rev. Reese’s assertion that Evangelical Christians mustfollow religious law, does not satisfy the requirements of the objective branch of theEtobicoke test to show that the qualification is “reasonably necessary”, or “appropriate”,particularly where the qualification infringes on the fundamental rights of individuals.There was, in fact, no objective consideration of the necessity of the qualification.There was only a process whereby employees, who were aware that their employment56