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

late in 1999. She testified that when she began to gain an understanding of hersexuality and sexual orientation, it was a “complete dichotomy shift” and “a completestruggle.”[253] While Ms. Heintz’s agreement to the Lifestyle and Morality Statement is not adefence to a finding of liability against Christian Horizons, it is a factor which must betaken into account in assessing the appropriate level of damages for the violation of herrights. Ms. Heintz grew up with similar faith beliefs as those adopted by ChristianHorizons. She believed that homosexuality was wrong. Part of the reason she soughtemployment with Christian Horizons was that its religious and spiritual values wereconsistent with her own at the time. It is clear that part of her vulnerability andquestioning of her self-respect in the spring of 2000 arose from her own internal spiritualstruggles, independent of the imposition of the discriminatory policy. I have consideredthese factors in assessing the appropriate level of general damages.2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)[254] I have determined that an award for mental anguish is not appropriate inrelation to the imposition of the Lifestyle and Morality Statement. The Commissionargues that the Lifestyle and Morality Statement was adopted “wilfully.” This is true in asense, but the facts of this case are unique and have a particular history. The issue ofwhether Christian Horizons was entitled to require all employees adhere to its faithbeliefs was dealt with in Parks, supra, where a Board of Inquiry gave directions to theorganization on how it could meet the special employment exemption in the future.Notwithstanding the Divisional Court did not endorse those “directions”, in my view theactions of Christian Horizons in adopting the Lifestyle and Morality Statement are not ofthe kind which justify an award of damages for acting wilfully and recklessly.[255] In regards to the violation of Ms. Heintz’s rights because Christian Horizonscreated or permitted a poisoned work environment and failed to properly ensure thatshe did not have to endure discrimination based on her sexual orientation, I award$10,000.00 in general damages for the violation of her right to be free fromdiscrimination, and $5000.00 for mental anguish caused by actions that were wilful andreckless.77