Atheism included in the meaning of 'creed' under the Code

[rug]

Christina Catenacci LLB, Editor, HRinfodesk, published by First Reference, October 2014

In R.C. v District School Board of Niagara, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal recently had to determine if a school board policy discriminated against the applicants on the basis of creed by allowing the distribution of religious materials in a school after school hours. This case may not be about employment law, but employers can learn a lot from this decision.

Facts of the case

When a student, known as S.C., was in grade five at a school in the District School Board of Niagara (a public school board), there was a Board policy that allowed The Gideons International In Canada to distribute their version of the New Testament in the school, if the principal in consultation with the school council agreed. Gideons was the only religious group permitted to do this.

To allow such distribution, parental consent forms were distributed to the class. If the parents agreed, the distribution would take place outside class time.

S.C. brought home this consent form. S.C.'s family identified themselves as atheist (unbelievers). When S.C.'s father, R.C., saw the consent form, he brought a human rights application and alleged that the Board policy discriminated against them with respect to services because of creed, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

To prove his point, R.C. made attempts to be allowed to distribute a book called “Just Pretend: A Freethought Book for Children”, which promoted atheism. It was published by the Freedom from Religion Foundation and stated that God was a myth that some people believed in but that was demonstrably not true. His goal was not to promote atheism to the grade five students, but to make his point that other parents might be upset about being asked to consent to their children receiving these materials in the same way he was offended during the Gideon Bible campaign incident.

http://www.hrinfodesk.com/preview.asp?article=40850&title=Atheism%20included%20in%20the%20meaning%20of%20%27creed%27%20under%20the%20Code#sthash.ati2W1JH.dpuf

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html

[Fumesucker]

1. If my understanding is correct R.C. will achieve his goal

Some theist parents will indeed know how it's upsetting to have their children offered material that they find repugnant.

[rug]

2. Yup, the C. family won this.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2013/2013hrto1382/2013hrto1382.html

The Tribunal orders as follows:

1. Both Applications are allowed.

2. Board policy G-22 as it now reads cannot be relied upon by the Board.

3. Unless it develops a new policy consistent with the Code principles set out in this Decision, the Board shall not permit the distribution of religious publications in its schools.

4. If the Board intends to develop a new policy permitting distribution of creed and religious publications in its schools, it shall finalize the policy within six months, and provide a copy of the new policy to the applicants and intervenors.

5. If any party to this case believes that the new policy or practices under it are inconsistent with the Code, it may write to the Registrar no later than one year from the date of this Decision and request that I decide the issue.

6. I shall remain seized of these Applications for the purpose of dealing with disputes about any new Board policy raised with the Registrar within one year of today’s date.

Essentially it determined that no creedal materials will be distributed unless all literature, including atheist literature, is allowed.

What I find interesting is that this controversy arose in the fifth grade.