By Robert Kuhn

IN 1995, Connie Heintz was about to start working for Christian Horizons, a group home for the disabled. She was first asked to sign a Doctrinal Statement – including a Lifestyle and Morality Statement.  

Like all employees, Heintz committed to a core set of principles that were consistent with the evangelical beliefs of the Christian Horizons groups – and restricted, among other things, participation in homosexual relationships.  

These principles likely would have been familiar to Heintz – who had been raised in a devout Mennonite family, and holds a degree in Religious Education from Emmanuel Bible College.

In fact, Emmanuel requires a similar lifestyle commitment from their students.

After four years of working with Christian Horizons, Heintz decided that she identified herself as a homosexual – and began engaging in a homosexual relationship.  

Human rights complaint

In 2000, her relationship was uncovered, and her position with Christian Horizons was terminated. Heintz then lodged a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.

She argued that she had been wrongfully terminated from her employment because of her sexual orientation; and that the requirement that she and all other employees sign the Lifestyle and Morality Statement was a violation of the Human Rights Code.  

She also alleged that the manner in which she was treated, after she came out as a lesbian, constituted discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

For their part, Christian Horizons argued that they are permitted to restrict hiring on the basis of their articles of faith and corresponding beliefs, under section 24(1)(a) of the Human Rights Code – which justifies their restrictions as a reasonable and bona fide qualification, given the nature of the employment.  

Christian Horizons has contended that they are unique in society because of their core Christian beliefs – and that if they are not able to ensure that everyone who is part of their ministry adheres to the core faith beliefs, then the organization will lose its unique character and will, in fact, cease to exist.

The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal released their decision in 2008, deciding that Christian Horizons could restrict their hiring practices – but only if they also restricted their services to people of the same faith.  

Continue article >>

In other words, these Christians could only help other Christians.  

The tribunal went on to find that the group was not justified, and ordered the group to rescind their morality policy – and awarded Ms. Heintz $23,000 in damages.  

This decision was understandably confusing for a number of religious organizations across Canada, as they grappled with how to interpret this ruling.

Christian Horizons appealed this decision – and on             May 14, the Ontario Divisional Court weighed in. The Court said the tribunal had erred in their decision on a number of fronts.  

Core faith requirements

Perhaps one of the most important rulings was that the court found Christian organizations could maintain a consistent set of core faith requirements, and still provide services to those with different beliefs.  

It went on to defend the right of Christian organizations to maintain lifestyle and morality policies, to ensure commitment to their religious beliefs.

This Court tempered this, however, stating that for the “qualification to be valid, [it] must not just flow automatically from the religious ethos of Christian Horizons. It has to be tied directly and clearly to the execution and performance of the task or job in question.”  

They went on to find that there was not a reasonable connection between Heintz’s job description and the need for her specifically to sign the morality policy.

What does this decision mean for religious groups?

1) Religious organizations are entitled to discriminate in the hiring practices, as long as it meets a bona fide job requirement;

2) Organizations need to carefully scrutinize their job descriptions to determine which workers must share their core beliefs;  

3) Once a decision has been made that a position requires adherence to core principles, organizations need to ensure that they have documented these conclusions well in the job description prior to hiring.

Robert Kuhn is a lawyer with Kuhn & Co, in Abbotsford.

July 2010