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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Did Christian Horizons create, or permit a poisoned work environment, or otherwisediscriminate against Ms. Heintz, such that her right to be free from discrimination wasinfringed?[203] I have found that Christian Horizons has not established that it is entitled to theexemption under section 24(1)(a). Therefore, the requirement that Ms. Heintz complywith the Lifestyle and Morality Statement as a condition of employment violated her rightto be free from discrimination in employment. It was not seriously argued by ChristianHorizons that it avoids liability on the basis that Ms. Heintz accepted the restrictiveemployment conditions when she was hired, or because she resigned, rather thanhaving been terminated. It is clear that the discriminatory qualification played a centralrole in Ms. Heintz leaving her employment. Mr. Alemu told Ms. Girling that Ms. Heintzshould look for other employment and that Ms. Heintz would be given until Septemberto “effect changes.” Mr. Alemu also testified that had Ms. Heintz not resigned andremained in non-compliance with the Lifestyle and Morality Statement, he would haveterminated her employment. It is also well established that employees and employersare not entitled to contract out of the Human Rights Code.2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)[204] Independent of whether Christian Horizons has met the conditions for theexemption under section 24(1)(a), I find that Christian Horizons has infringed Ms.Heintz’s rights under the Code as a result of the work environment and how she wastreated once her sexual orientation came to light. Section 24(1)(a) provides anemployer the right to impose restrictions, or give preferences in employment in certainspecified circumstances. It does not exempt an employer from the application of theCode altogether. The Code places a range of obligations on an employer. Forexample, it has been found that an employer has an obligation to ensure that anemployee is able to work in an environment free from harassment and discrimination(See for example Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252; Robichaud v.Canada (Treasury Board), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 84), that an employer is required to takesteps to properly investigate incidents of harassment, and respond in an effective andtimely way (Hines v. Canada (C.E.I.C.) (1988), 10 C.H.R.R. D/5683 (Can.Trib.), Uzoabav. Canada (Correctional Service) (1994), 26 C.H.R.R. D/361 (Can.Trib.) , and that anemployer is not permitted to base performance appraisals or issue discipline on the62
discriminatory views of managers or fellow employees (See for example Toth v. SassyCuts Inc. (1987), 8 C.H.R.R. D/4376 (BC HRC ).[205] Had I determined that Christian Horizons had met the conditions for theexemption under section 24(1)(a), it would not have infringed the Code by telling Ms.Heintz that she was in violation of a term and condition of employment, and thatcontinued non-compliance would lead to termination. But Christian Horizons did violatethe Code by:a. Suggesting Ms. Heintz seek counselling in order to effect“restoration”;2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)b. Creating or permitting a poisoned work environment in whichrumours and discriminatory attitudes were allowed topervade the workplace, and taking no steps to remedy theharmful effects on Ms. Heintz;c. Acting on discriminatory views in matters of humanresources.[206] As noted above, after Ms. Heintz was confronted about her same sexrelationship, she was offered Christian counselling. Christian Horizons offers allemployees pastoral counselling as part of the support for what it sees as theemployee’s work in Christian ministry. The pastors who provide the counselling foremployees come from churches which identify as Evangelical Christian.[207] Mr. Alemu testified that the purpose of the spiritual counselling offered to Ms.Heintz was to effect “restoration.” He explained the goal of restoration was to have theindividual return to the state of being in compliance with the articles of faith of theorganization.[208] The suggestion of spiritual counselling of the kind offered by Christian Horizonsupset Ms. Heintz. She indicated to Ms. Girling she was not interested. She wasundergoing a crisis of faith and was attempting to understand who she was, within thecontext of her Christian faith. She explained:63
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 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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?