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

[19] The length of the hearing and the protracted pre-hearing litigation is notsurprising. As noted above, the issues in this case are both difficult and are of criticalimportance to the parties. Although there were times during the proceedings in whichtensions and tempers were heated, the Tribunal is grateful to the parties and counsel fortheir assistance in ensuring all relevant facts and arguments were elicited and putbefore the Tribunal for consideration.[20] Finally, the complaint was originally filed against both Christian Horizons as acorporate respondent and Ms. Dorothy Girling as a personal respondent. Ms. Girling isa program manager at Christian Horizons and was Ms. Heintz’s immediate supervisor in2000. At the conclusion of the evidence on April 12, 2007, the Commission and thecomplainant withdrew all allegations that Ms. Girling had violated the Code, and theparties agreed to have Ms. Girling removed as a respondent. As a result, the Tribunalorders that Ms. Girling be removed as a respondent in these proceedings and her nameshall not appear in the style of cause.2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)III)FACTUAL BACKGROUND[21] Most of the relevant evidence in this case is not in dispute, though thecharacterization and the legal implications of the evidence are hotly contested. In thissection of the decision I set out the background facts and identify disputes on relevantfacts. Credibility findings necessary to the determination of the complaint are made inPart IV of the decision.Connie Heintz[22] Connie Heintz is a 39 year old woman who was born into a devout ChristianMennonite family in southwest Ontario. She is the youngest of six children. Her familyoperated a dairy farm outside Palmerston.[23] Growing up, Ms. Heintz’s family was a member of the local Mennonite churchand Ms. Heintz participated in church and community activities. She attended SundaySchool and summer Bible school, and later as a youth, taught at both. She described5