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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
was dependent upon agreeing with the subjective morality beliefs of their employer,came up with a list of morality and lifestyle qualifications.[188] In my view, in imposing an onus on an employer to show that a proposedqualification is reasonably necessary, section 24(1)(a) requires evidence that theemployer put its mind to the issue in a meaningful way, with a recognition that there isan obligation to consider the fundamental rights of others. In this case the evidenceshows that Christian Horizons took the dicta of Professor Mendes in Parks andembarked on an exercise designed to ensure that it would meet the section 24(1)(a)exemption if a challenge was raised in the future.2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)[189] Is it reasonably necessary for a support worker employed in an organizationsuch as Christian Horizons to comply with a Lifestyle and Morality Statement, whichprohibits homosexual relationships and discriminates against gay and lesbianindividuals? The evidence before the Tribunal is equivocal on this point.[190] Christian Horizons is unique as an organization and as a provider of animportant service to a population with very particular and complex needs. The job ofbeing a support worker to individuals with developmental disabilities can be amongstthe most challenging in the social and health care services sectors. Seen from theperspective of being members of a religious ministry, Christian Horizons’ staff arerequired to exemplify Christ, and show Christian love in all they do and in all theirinteractions with the residents. Religious commitment is seen by the organization ascritical to both its approach to service delivery and to the carrying out of the jobresponsibilities. The evidence shows that this deep religious commitment is displayedin excellent service and loving care provided to the residents, as well as support for theirfamilies.[191] But unlike the circumstances in Garrod, Caldwell and Trinity Western, ChristianHorizons’ purpose, and the service it provides, is not religious education andindoctrination. The primary role of a support worker is not to help all residents to adopta Christian way of life, or to carry out a mission of salvation, or to convert residents to57
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 58 and 59: a rational connection between the q
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?