Thought this might be of interest to some even though it is off-topic. This is an important decision and hopefully will help curb the powers of the HRTs.
OTTAWA – In December 2009, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) appeared before the Superior Court of Ontario, Divisional Court, in the landmark religious freedom case, Heintz v. Christian Horizons. The court, which heard an appeal of the decision of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (OHRT), released its decision late Friday afternoon.
Christian Horizons, a faith-based ministry, employs over 2,500 people to provide housing, care and support to over 1,400 developmentally disabled individuals, and has done so for more than 40 years. This Christian ministry, which requires its employees to sign a Statement of Faith and a Lifestyle and Morality Policy, was the subject of a human rights complaint when a staff member resigned after she felt she could no longer live according to the commitment she made when she signed the policy.
In the decision being appealed, the OHRT had ruled that Christian Horizon’s efforts were not the ministry of a religious community but rather social work and that it, as well as other faith-based bodies serving public needs on a non-discriminatory basis, could no longer require that employees share their religious beliefs and resulting service commitment. The Divisional Court ruled differently and reversed much of the OHRT’s decision.
“This is significant victory for faith-based charities across Canada. While they must clarify certain governing documents and review certain employment policies, they may largely continue to require employee compliance with both statements of faith and lifestyle and morality policies,” said Don Hutchinson, the EFC’s Vice-President and General Legal Counsel.
“We’re relieved to see the court found that the exemption provision in the Ontario Human Rights Code which permits certain charities, including religious charities, to selectively hire employees who share the same beliefs makes no private/public distinction. This means that Christian charities may continue to serve non co-religionists in society all while maintaining their internal religious ethos and integrity,” continued Hutchinson. “I’m relieved that the court recognized that the exemption exists to guarantee the right to free association in this way. This was of serious concern as the OHRT had found otherwise.”
“Of course, we are also disappointed that the Court found it reasonable for the OHRT to have concluded that Christian Horizons did not meet an objective test for a bona fide occupational requirement for Ms. Heintz’s job, but the Court was instructive as to how that situation may be corrected.”
“What does this mean for Christian charities across Canada? Well, it means that it’s time again for them to clarify their statements of faith, lifestyle policies and job descriptions for all employees in order to clearly demonstrate how compliance with both statement of faith and codes of conduct are necessary for and related to job duties.”
This is important, as a few human rights commissions around the country seem to be trying to exceed their authority at the moment, and their enthusiasm needs to be contained.
If this had been upheld, there would be a danger of Christians withdrawing from a number of ministries that could be seen as containing a social work component rather than compromising their principles.
This information is somewhat different than what I read in the National Post yesterday. I don’t have a copy of the article with me at the moment but as I recall
1) She was fired when she entered into a same-sex relationship.
2) The Christian group did have the right to have Life Style / Moral policies
3) They did not have the right to fire her
4) The moral policies should primarily only pertain to the ‘higher ups’ as the driving force of the organization. In this cae, the woman in question’s job was to do things like change sheets, dump bed pans etc. Her roll was not to evangelise therefore her personal beleifs had no bearing on the job for which she was hired.
So first off the truth please – was she fired, or did she resign?
Second, The moral policies pertain to every employee who was hired on the bases of their signed agreement to said policies. In other words if this employee had been honest from the beginning she would not have been hired in the first place. Rights and Freedoms indeed….The inmates are running the asylum.
Hello Stuck in Toronto (3)
You nailed it right on the head. The moral policies were perfectly fine with this person when she agreed to them in order to take the employment. Why then would anyone say that it is now ok for her to not comply with her obligations of an agreement which she freely entered into. This is like an episode of Star Wars, in which Darth Vadar makes an agreement with someone, only later to unilaterally change the agreement and demand the other party to go along with the changes. This was of course portrayed as “evil” in the movies. Why than is it considered ok when these unilateral changes are imposed on a Christian organization?
This article makes it clear that the court decision was not entirely good news:
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/holy-post/archive/2010/05/20/heintz-v-christian-horizons-solomon-would-not-approve.aspx
Joy, I just read the article that you linked. It seems to be the writer makes a valid conclusion. If the decision is that Christian Horizons has a right to maintain the christian part regarding it’s employee’s, then they can’t decide that the women in question should keep her job. Either the employer can or can not require employees to conform to a standard of thought and behaviour. If they can, then the employer ought to be able to remove anyone in violation of that standard. Otherwise, they are not really allowed to maintain the standard. It seems (as the author points out) the court was trying to be wise, but did not quite reach the quality of Solomon.
Brian DeVisser
The courts could not rule in favour of the rediculous ruling by the inmates of the OHRT. If they had done so it would effect everything from soup kitchens to street missions, From our beloved Salvation Army to major organizations like World Vision. The ruling they did make shows where their sympathies lie. Christian organizations do certain works because they are Christian. To hire people who do do not ascribe to Christian ethics, and to not have a modacum of control is just plain stupid. I have great fear that it will come eventually, but then, so to our Lord.
Brian #6 – surely “thought” is not included?