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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

What I was going through was a complete dichotomy shift fromwhat I was taught for 30 some years and what I truly believed,and at that point I had to reintegrate this new understanding ofwho I am. It was a complete struggle to come to this point andat that time I was experiencing a crisis of faith where I wastrying to reintegrate this new belief which resulted from prettymuch taking my whole core being and shaking it.[209] I have no doubt that Christian Horizons’ intention in providing spiritualcounselling to employees generally, is to support individuals it considers members of itsreligious community. In this context, counselling is offered in a caring andcompassionate way. But the attempt of “restoration” for persons who are gay or lesbianis profoundly disrespectful and oppressive. Notwithstanding that Christian Horizonssincerely believes that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral, homosexuality isneither a crime nor an illness. Gays and lesbians are entitled to be treated by theiremployers, even where those employers may be religious organizations, with respectand dignity, and not be offered counselling to cure them of their sexuality.2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)[210] The Commission argues that Christian Horizons infringed Ms. Heintz’s rights bycreating, or permitting a poisoned work environment. Apart from the Christiancounselling, it points to the allegation of resident and personal abuse made by Ms.Heintz’s co-worker, Sophie Odhiambo, and how Christian Horizons dealt with thoseallegations. It also relies on the reduction of Ms. Heintz’s work hours, the issuing ofdiscipline, and Ms. Heintz’s final performance appraisal.[211] I do not accept that the reduction in Ms. Heintz’s working hours in the spring of2000 was related to her sexual orientation. The evidence of Ms. Girling was that theorganization needed to lower costs and she was instructed to reduce staff hours. Shetestified that she decided to implement the directive by reducing temporary hours fromstaff. Ms. Heintz was one of the staff whose hours were cut. There is no evidence thatthe decision was related to Ms. Heintz being gay. In respect of the other issues raisedby the Commission, I find that they were either tainted by a discriminatory motive, orwere not properly handled by the employer, such that human rights liability is triggered.In my view, the evidence demonstrates a clear animus against Ms. Heintz by Christian64
Horizons’ management from the point at which the organization discovered she waslesbian, and in a same-sex relationship.[212] Ms. Odhiambo’s June 23, 2000 written occurrence report alleged that on May24, 2000, Ms. Heintz had struck a resident. It also alleged that Ms. Odhiambo had beenthe victim of harassment and abuse at the hands of Ms. Heintz.[213] Christian Horizons did not call Ms. Odhiambo as a witness. It offered noexplanation as to why Ms. Odhiambo had waited a month before making the residentabuse allegation. It offered no real explanation of why it had not investigated theallegations of personal harassment and abuse by Ms. Heintz against Ms. Odhiambo. Itcalled no other evidence to support Ms. Odhiambo’s allegations of personalharassment. It called no evidence of whether Ms. Odhiambo was forced to take time offwork because of the negative health symptoms she allegedly experienced. It did notexplain why it did not call Ms. Odhiambo as a witness. Ms. Heintz denied ever hitting aresident. She also denied ever harassing Ms. Odhiambo. I draw an adverse inferencefrom the fact that Christian Horizons did not call Ms. Odhiambo. I find that it is likely Ms.Odhiambo’s testimony would have shown inconsistencies in her allegations andrevealed that she was an unreliable witness. Further the occurrence report appears onits face to be tainted by homophobia. The failure to call Ms. Odhiambo to explain thereport leads me to find that the allegations were in fact tainted by a discriminatoryanimus.2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)[214] As a result of Ms. Odhiambo’s allegations, Mr. Alemu held interviews with theWaterloo 6 staff. He testified he did not consider Ms. Heintz’s sexual orientationrelevant to his investigation, and told staff this when they raised the issue during theinterviews. However, his notes of the interviews indicate he both recognized the issuewas causing conflict within the team, and recorded staff’s concerns about Ms. Heintz’ssexual orientation.[215] Mr. Alemu’s notes also confirm Ms. Odhiambo and Ms. Ward raised the issue ofMs. Heintz’s sexual orientation, and that Ms. Odhiambo also alleged Ms. Heintz was65
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 67: discriminatory views of managers or
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?