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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

attacks on their dignity and self-respect. In Hinds, supra, the Canadian Human RightsTribunal framed the obligation of an employer this way:(,,,) there is a duty upon an employer to take prompt and effectualaction when it knows or should know of co-employees' conduct in theworkplace amounting to racial harassment ... To satisfy the burdenupon it, the employer's response should bear some relationship to theseriousness of the incident itself ... To avoid liability, the employer isobliged to take reasonable steps to alleviate, as best it can, the distressarising within the work environment and to reassure those concernedthat it is committed to the maintenance of a workplace free of racialharassment. A response that is both timely and corrective is called forand its degree must turn upon the circumstances of the harassment ineach case. (para. 41611)2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)[238] Christian Horizons had a responsibility to respond to the rumours andallegations which were clearly tied to Ms. Heintz’s sexual orientation. It had anobligation to investigate, to inquire, and to take steps to put an end to the effects of theattitudes that were poisoning the workplace and having a detrimental impact on Ms.Heintz. Christian Horizons says, and Ms. Heintz agreed, there were a number of eventsand issues that where causing stress in the workplace in the spring and summer of2000. But it is clear, and should have been clear to Christian Horizons, that thenegative and discriminatory attitudes towards gays and lesbians that were being playedout in a real and active way, was a central factor in the discord at Waterloo 6.[239] Ms. Heintz testified that during the period after she came out as a lesbian, shefelt the organization just wanted her to leave. The evidence demonstrated that she wascorrect. Certain individuals, like Dorothy Girling and some of Ms. Heintz’s co-workers,were clearly conflicted. However, as an organization, Christian Horizons was totally illequippedto deal properly with the circumstances of a staff member who came out asbeing gay. Given the nature of the faith beliefs of the organization, I fully appreciate thatthis presented a dilemma. But it was a dilemma Christian Horizons was required tosolve. Ms. Heintz should not have been required to endure the humiliation, attacks andmistreatment because Christian Horizons had not developed an understanding of the72
obligations placed on all employers by the Code, whether or not they are entitled to asection 24(1)(a) exemption.[240] In Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 710 theSupreme Court said:When we ask people to be tolerant of others, we do not ask themto abandon their personal convictions. We merely ask them torespect the rights, values and ways of being of those who maynot share those convictions. The belief that others are entitled toequal respect depends, not on the belief that their values areright, but on the belief that they have a claim to equal respectregardless of whether they are right. (para. 66)2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)REMEDY[241] The Tribunal’s remedial powers are set out in section 41 of the Code:41(1) Where the Tribunal, after a hearing, finds that a right ofthe complainant under Part I has been infringed and that theinfringement is a contravention of section 9 by a party to theproceeding, the Tribunal may, by order,(a) direct the party to do anything that, in the opinion of theTribunal, the party ought to do to achieve compliance with thisAct, both in respect of the complaint and in respect of futurepractices; and(b) direct the party to make restitution, including monetarycompensation, for loss arising out of the infringement, and,where the infringement has been engaged in wilfully orrecklessly, monetary compensation may include an award, notexceeding $10,000, for mental anguish.[242] It is well established that the purpose of the Code is remedial, not punitive.Orders should provide fair and effective remedies for the victims of discrimination. Inaddition, the Code has as a purpose to eradicate discrimination and removediscriminatory barriers and policies. In this regard remedies should be crafted in a wayto best ensure the discrimination will not reoccur and the underlying policies orbehaviour that resulted in the discrimination are removed. Human rights remedies canalso have an important educational value, both for the parties to a complaint, and for the73
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 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: we're committed to as God's way in
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?