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

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