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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

oader public. (Robichaud, supra, at para. 9; Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v.Simpsons-Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536 at p. 547 “O'Malley”).[243] In order for remedies to be fair and effective, they must be tailored to theparticular facts in a case. The Code provides the Tribunal with considerable discretionin fashioning a remedy and the Courts have upheld remedial orders that are bothexpansive and novel. (See for example Canadian National Railway v. Canada (HumanRights Commission), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114 “Action Travail des Femmes”) But in allcases, the remedy must flow from the violation that has been found and must bedesigned to further the remedial purposes of the Code. (Metcalfe v. Papa Joe’s Pizza &Chicken Inc., 2005 HRTO 46; Pchelkina v. Tomsons (No. 2), 2007 HRTO 42)2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)[244] In the present case I have found that Christian Horizons violated Ms. Heintz’sright to be free from discrimination in two respects. First, by requiring that all employeessign and conform to the Lifestyle and Morality Statement, it imposed a discriminatorycondition of employment on Ms. Heintz, which ultimately resulted in the loss of her job.This violates section 9 of the Code and is not saved by section 24(1)(a). Second,Christian Horizons infringed Ms. Heintz’s right to be free from discrimination inemployment by creating or permitting a poisoned work atmosphere, and by failing totake necessary measures to ensure Ms. Heintz did not have to endure discrimination atwork because of her sexual orientation contrary to section 5. This infringement is notsubject to a section 24(1)(a) exemption even had the exemption been found tootherwise apply. As a result, and because of the particular circumstances of this case, Iwill address the remedies for the violations separately.Personal RemediesGeneral Damages[245] A complainant is typically entitled to an award of general damages tocompensate for the loss of the right to be free from discrimination. There is no ceilingon general damages. These awards should not be so low as to trivialize the violation oramount to a “licence fee” to discriminate. (Shelter Corp. v. Ontario (Human RightsCommission) (2001), 39 C.H.R.R. D/111, paras. 43-44 (Ont. Div. Ct.); Gohm v. Domtar74
Inc. (No. 4) (1990), 12 C.H.R.R. D/161, paras. 126-127 (Ont. Bd. Inq.) Awards shouldfocus on the effect of the discrimination on the complainant. No evidence of malice isrequired although the existence of an intention to discriminate may impact on theseriousness of the violation and the harm suffered by the complainant.[246] In Sanford v. Koop, 2005 HRTO 53 at para. 35, I set out a non-exhaustive listof factors that has been used by the Tribunal in assessing the appropriate quantum ofgeneral damages:• Humiliation experienced by the complainant2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)• Hurt feelings experienced by the complainant• A complainant's loss of self-respect• A complainant's loss of dignity• A complainant's loss of self-esteem• A complainant's loss of confidence• The experience of victimization• Vulnerability of the complainant• The seriousness, frequency and duration of thediscriminatory treatment.[247] The Code also provides for damages to compensate for mental anguish orparticularly severe mental or emotional harm caused by malice or wanton disregard forthe effects of discriminatory behaviour. Here, the intention or reckless behaviour of therespondent is relevant. (Ketola v. Value Propane Inc, [2002] O.H.R.B.I.D. No. 14 (QL) atpara. 9 -10 (Ont. Bd. Inq.).[248] In respect of the violation resulting from the imposition of the Lifestyle andMorality Statement, I award $8000.00 in general damages. I find that the discriminationis both serious and harmful.[249] Christian Horizons’ policy is discriminatory. While some elements of Canadiansociety may continue to debate whether gays and lesbians should be treated equally75
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 and 76: we're committed to as God's way in
Page 77: obligations placed on all employers
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?