Christian Horizons Ontario Superior Court judgement rendered

I missed this.

On Friday the Ontario Superior Court released it’s decision on Heintz v. Christian Horizons.

In 2001 a Mennonite woman, Christine Heinz filed an employment discrimination suit with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal against Christian Horizons, a  community living provider in Ontario which receives 75 million dollars a year from the province. The organization is faith based and required employees to sign statements of faith. Heinz went to work for Christian Horizons in 1995. By 1999 she began questioning her sexuality and talked to co-workers. After stress leave and a recommendation she go into ‘reparative therapy’ she left her employment and filed suit. Christian Horizons was ordered by the OHRT to pay back wages of 23 thousand dollars,revise their Lifestyle and Morality Statement employees are required to sign, and take human rights training. The background is here.

2 years ago Christian Horizons, which serves 1400 disabled individuals in the province decided to appeal the decision. As well as The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, The Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops also intervened for Christian Horizons in the court case.  The OHRT decision 2008.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada which appeared before the judges in the Ontario Superior Court on behalf of Christian Horizons have released a pr. I can’t find the court decision, nor has this  decision appeared in traditional media as yet. This is what the EFC has:

“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.”

I’ll put the court decision up when I find it.