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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6. At least 30 days prior to the submission of its proposal to theTribunal the respondent, Christian Horizons, shall provide itsproposal to the Commission and Ms. Heintz.7. The Commission and Ms. Heintz are entitled to make submissionsto the Tribunal on the respondent’s proposal. The submissionswill be provided to the Tribunal within 30 days of receipt of therespondent’s proposal.[287] Following receipt of the proposal and submissions, the Tribunal will providedirections for a process to finalize the award in this case. I remain seized.[288] In respect of all other matters I remain seized for a period of 12 months fromthe date of this decision to deal with issues or disputes related to the application of thisaward.2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)Dated at Toronto, this 15 th day of April, 2008.“Signed by”___________________________________Michael GottheilChair88
ADDENDUM TO FINAL DECISION[1] This Addendum provides brief reasons for an interim “bottom line” decision issuedNovember 3, 2005, on a motion brought by Christian Horizons. The request was for apreliminary order that the Commission be prevented from challenging that ChristianHorizons is a “religious organization”, and is “primarily engaged in serving the interestsof persons identified by their creed” within the meaning of section 24(1)(a) of the Code.Christian Horizons argued that it was entitled to an order either by operation of thedoctrine of issue estoppel, or because of an abuse of process. It relied on the decisionof the Board of Inquiry in Parks, supra.2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)[2] I denied the motion on two bases. First, the test for issue estoppel is not met inthis case. Second, the application of issue estoppel and the granting of relief for anabuse of process is discretionary. The purpose of both doctrines is to ensure fairnessand prevent injustice. In the circumstances, fairness and justice do not support therespondent’s request.[3] In Parks, the Board was dealing with two complaints by former Christian Horizonsemployees who were terminated because they were in common-law relationships.Christian Horizons relied on section 23(1)(a), now 24(1)(a), to justify its policy that allemployees must strictly adhere to its faith beliefs, which included a prohibition oncommon-law relationships. The Board, in analyzing the elements in section 23(1)(a),determined that Christian Horizons was a “religious organization” and was (in part)primarily engaged in serving the interests of persons identified by their creed. TheBoard found that Christian Horizons failed to establish that the qualification wasreasonable and bona fide given the nature of the employment. As a result, the Boarddetermined that Christian Horizons had failed to meet the terms of Section 24(1)(a), andthe complaints were sustained.89
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 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: 1. the respondent, Christian Horizo
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?