Ontario Board of Inquiry Decision under the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, 1981, S.O. 1981, c. 53
Suzanne Dufour, Jacques Charron and Diane Demers Complainants
v.
J. Roger Deschamps Comptable Agréé, Ses Serviteurs et Agents, et Denise Deschamps Respondents
Before: Bernard Adell
Comm. Decision No.: 356
Appearances by: M. Martha Coady, Counsel for the Ontario Human Rights Commission Hugh Fraser, Counsel for the Respondents
RELIGION AND CREED — harassment in the workplace
Summary: The Board of Inquiry dismisses one complaint and upholds two others alleging harassment in the workplace on the grounds of religion.
Suzanne Dufour, Jacques Charron and Diane Demers were employed by J. Roger Deschamps and Diane Deschamps as secretarial and accounting staff in their accounting firm. In 1982 Mr. and Mrs. Deschamps became members of the Bill Prankerd Evangelistic Association and began attending meetings at the Life Centre. They call themselves "born-again Christians."
The complainants allege that they were subjected to religious harassment in a number of ways by Mr. and Mrs. Deschamps, and particularly Mrs. Deschamps, while they were employed. Many religious posters and stickers were displayed in the office and at employees' work stations. Employees were subjected to constant comments and discussion about religion, including derogatory comments about Catholics, inquiries about personal life, and criticisms of personal conduct. Donations to a fund for children run by the Deschamps' church were solicited from employees, and employees were given Bibles and exhorted to read them and learn from them.
The Board of Inquiry finds that in the cases of Jacques Charron and Diane Demers this conduct on the part of Mr. and Mrs. Deschamps amounted to harassment and they knew or should have known that the conduct was unwelcome.
In the case of Suzanne Dufour, the Board finds that Ms. Dufour's relationship with Mrs. Deschamps was a close one and for a period of time Ms. Dufour welcomed the conversation about religion. When, after a certain time, Ms. Dufour no longer wished to engage in this exchange, the Board finds that there is no evidence that Mrs. Deschamps knew that her conduct had become unwelcome. On these grounds, the Board dismisses Ms. Dufour's complaint.
The Board declines to award compensation for lost wages to Mr. Charron and Ms. Demers, accepting the respondents' evidence that they were both dismissed from their jobs because of poor performance. However the Board orders the Deschamps to pay Mr. Charron and Ms. Demers $1,000 each in compensation for the humiliation and loss of self-respect they suffered because of the harassment.
I. Introduction
1These complaints raise the question of how far an employer may bring religion into the workplace without violating the right of employees under Part I of the Ontario Human Rights Code, 1981, S.O. 1981, c. 53, to be free of religious harassment and religious discrimination.
2According to s. 4(1) of the Code, everyone "has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of . . . creed. . . ." Section 4(2) provides that every employee "has a right to freedom from harassment in the workplace by the employer or agent of the employer or by another employee because of . . . creed . . ." or religion. "Harassment" is defined in s. 9(f) as "engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known