|
Human Rights (Ont) - Creed. Oulds v. Attorney General of Ontario, et al.
In Oulds v. Attorney General of Ontario, et al. (Div Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR, this against HRTO decisions that "dismissed the complaint on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction as Oulds had failed to establish that her choice not to be [SS: COVID] vaccinated was based on 'creed'":[56] The adjudicator reviewed and considered the applicable case law: Jazairi v Ontario (Human Rights Commission), 1997 ONSC 12455 and Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem, 2004 SCC 47 (“Amselem”).
[57] Noting that the Code does not define creed, in accordance with s.45.5 of the Code, the adjudicator adopted the policy enacted by the Ontario Human Rights Commission which, having adopted the test in Amselem, states the following characteristics to be relevant when determining if a belief system is a creed:A creed:. Is sincerely, freely and deeply held
. Is integrally linked to a person’s self-definition and spiritual fulfilment
. Is a particular, comprehensive and overarching system of belief that governs one’s conduct and practices
. Addresses ultimate questions of human existence, including ideas about life, purpose, death, and the existence or non-existence of a creator and/or a higher or different order of existence
. Has some “nexus” or connection to an organization or community that professes a shared system of belief. [58] There is nothing unreasonable about the adjudicator applying its own policy, which incorporates Anselem, a case followed by the Tribunal in other decisions.
[59] In my view, the Decision meets the Vavilov standard of “justification, intelligibility and transparency”: the adjudicator accepted that “Oulds’ belief may be sincerely, freely, and deeply held and accepting that it may even be linked to Oulds’ identity and self-definition” but that it lacked an “overarching systemic component” and, applied the HRTO policy in concluding that Oulds had failed to establish that her refusal to accept the Covid-19 vaccine was creed-based.
[60] The adjudicator’s conclusion that Oulds’ submissions were “focused on a singular belief around the lack of efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccine and some perception that the vaccine could alter DNA, and the need for autonomy to make this specific vaccine choice” was supported by the evidence. As submitted by Bluewater, the HRTO has repeatedly found that a “singular belief”, such as opposing the Covid-19 vaccination, has not met the threshold for the definition of creed: see, for example, Zammit v. Georgian Radiology, 2025 HRTO 371 (CanLII). . Alexander v. Renfrew County Catholic District School Board ['faithism']
In Alexander v. Renfrew County Catholic District School Board (Div Court, 2024) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a JR, here of "a decision of the Suspension and Exclusion Appeals Committee of the Renfrew County Catholic District School Board which denied four appeals by the applicant ... from suspension and exclusion orders".
Here the court considers practical limits of Charter s.2(a) religious freedoms, and similar HRC creed rights:[63] The Committee expressly recognized both the applicant’s freedom of belief but also his ability to express those beliefs and it gave examples of how he could do that. However, it also recognized that there are limits on freedoms. While it may not have expressed itself in the way that the Supreme Court of Canada did in Amselem [SS: Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47], the Committee’s reasons as a whole show that it amply applied the principles expressed in Amselem at para. 61:In this respect, it should be emphasized that not every action will become summarily unassailable and receive automatic protection under the banner of freedom of religion. No right, including freedom of religion, is absolute: see, e.g., Big M, supra; P. (D.) v. S. (C.), 1993 CanLII 35 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 141, at p. 182; B. (R.) v. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, 1995 CanLII 115 (SCC), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315, at para. 226; Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 772, 2001 SCC 31, at para. 29. This is so because we live in a society of individuals in which we must always take the rights of others into account. In the words of John Stuart Mill: “The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it”: On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government (1946), at p. 11. In the real world, oftentimes the fundamental rights of individuals will conflict or compete with one another. [63] This distinction was recently confirmed in a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario which quoted Volpe v. Wong-Tam, 2023 ONCA 680, 487 D.L.R. (4th) 158, leave to appeal refused, [2024] S.C.C.A. No. 41041, at para. 42 as follows:The problem with the appellants’ articles was not that they took a position adverse to that of LGBTQ2S+ advocates with respect to Roman Catholic doctrine and education about sexuality. The problem was that they “used derogatory and prejudicial language” to do so, using stereotypes of “predation, pedophilia, and socially destructive behaviour.” This was the aspect of the appellants’ speech that exposed them to the complaint that they expressed discriminatory statements.
Del Grande v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2024 ONCA 769 at para.40.
|
