By Josiah Neufeld

Hundreds of Christian organizations in Ontario are following a landmark case before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the outcome of which could affect the way they are permitted to express their Christian identity.

In December Christian Horizons, an evangelical Christian organization that runs group homes for disabled people in the Waterloo area, appeared before a three-judge panel to appeal the decision of a human rights tribunal.

In April 2008 the tribunal ruled that Christian Horizons created a poisoned work environment for Connie Heintz and discriminated against her because she is a lesbian.

Heintz identifies as an evangelical Christian. She says she came to an understanding of her sexual orientation while working as a support worker for Christian Horizons in the late 1990s. She also entered a same-sex relationship—something prohibited by the lifestyle and morality code Christian Horizons requires all its employees to sign. In the fall of 2000 Christian Horizons asked her to leave.

Heintz later launched a human rights complaint against Christian Horizons.

The tribunal told Christian Horizons to pay Heintz $23,000 in damages, provide human rights training for all its employees and get rid of its lifestyle and morality statement.

Far-reaching effects

The decision of the Ontario divisional court—which isn't expected for at least six months—could impact about 1,200 evangelical organizations in Ontario, says Don Hutchinson, legal counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC).

The Human Rights Code contains a special provision that allows religious organizations to enforce morality standards for their employees. But in 2008 the tribunal ruled that Christian Horizons doesn't qualify for the exemption because it doesn't primarily serve people of Christian faith.

Therein lies the rub. If the Ontario court upholds the tribunal's ruling, faith-based organizations that shelter the homeless, distribute food or serve disabled people may have to rewrite their hiring standards and codes of conduct.

"The potential impact of this decision is that the Christian nature of organizations would be lost if they can establish a statement of faith but cannot require adherence to it or to lifestyle policies or determine their own standards for membership," says Hutchinson.

Representatives from the EFC, along with the Canadian Council of Christian Charities (CCCC) and the Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario presented arguments at the December hearings.

"We argued that you assess whether an organization is Christian by looking at the principles and the people within the organization, not the recipients," says Hutchinson.

John Pellowe, CEO of the CCCC, says he felt positive about the way lawyers argued the case. "We have had as good a hearing as we will have," he says.

Public input

"When the public is providing the funding, to what extent do they have a legitimate say in terms of what values control the workplace?" asks James Read, philosophy and ethics professor at Booth College in Winnipeg.

Christian Horizons is funded almost entirely by the Ontario government.

While the tribunal found the source of funding to be irrelevant to the legality of the case, Read says it's not beside the point from an ethical standpoint.

Publicly funded organizations—even faith-based ones—are accountable to their donors, he says. That means it's up to the organization to prove to the funder that it is serving the public well enough to be trusted with details like whom it chooses to hire.