Transcript Brillinger vs. Brockie - Mr. Bergman 2014/15

Brillinger vs. Brockie
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Ontario Human Rights Code
Citation
• Brillinger v. Brockie
Ontario Board of Inquiry (Human Rights Code) File No.: BI0179-98
Date of Decision: September 29, 1999
Date of Issue: February 24, 2000
Key Terms
• This case focussed on the following key terms relative to
Human and Charter Rights:
•
•
•
•
•
•
freedom of religion;
freedom of conscience;
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation;
Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
human rights codes;
rank ordering of conflicting claims of rights (are some rights
more important than others)
Summary of Facts
• The complainant Ray Brillinger, as president of the Canadian Lesbian
and Gay Archives approached the respondents Scott Brockie and his
printing company Imaging Excellence Inc. for a quote for the printing
of letterhead, envelopes, and business cards for the Archives.
• The Archives stated purpose is to "promote [lesbian's and gay
men's] acceptance in society" by "providing public access to
information, records and artifacts, by and about lesbians and gay
men in Canada."
• Brockie, who describes himself as "a born-again Christian," refused
to provide a quote for the printing job after he was shown the
proofs and learned the identity of Brillinger's organization.
Summary of Facts Continued
• Brockie's evidence was that to provide the printing service to
the Archives would be to act against his religious convictions.
• Brillinger and the Archives complained to the Ontario Human
Rights Commission that Brockie and his company
discriminated against them contrary to Ontario Human Rights
Code by refusing to provide a service on the grounds of sexual
orientation.
• Brockie argued that any order compelling him to provide the
printing service to the Archives would cause him to act against
his religious convictions, and would therefore breach his right
to freedom of religion guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms
Significant Issue
• What is the scope of freedom of religion? How far does this
freedom go?
• When should one person's legal right not to be discriminated
against take priority over another person's right to act
according to his or her bona fide religious convictions?
• What do you think based on the initial facts?
Decision
• Ms. MacNaughton, the adjudicator for the Ontario Board of
Inquiry, decided that Brockie and Imaging Excellence Inc.
breached the Ontario Human Rights Code by discriminating
against Brillinger and the Archives on the grounds of sexual
orientation.
• As a remedy, she ordered that Brockie and Imaging Excellence
perform printing services requested by lesbian and gay
organizations and individuals, and that they pay $5,000 in
damages to the complainants.
• Ms. MacNaughton further declared that while the order
violates Brockie's freedom of religion, the violation is
nevertheless justified.
Decision continued
• Brillinger v. Brockie, a decision of the Ontario Board of Inquiry under
the Ontario Human Rights Code, raises the challenging question of
how to approach competing claims of sexual orientation
discrimination and violation of freedom of religion.
• The adjudicator held that she was in fact justified in infringing
Brockie's religious freedom by the importance of eradicating the
harm of discrimination based on sexual orientation. The denial of
the printing services, she held, caused harm not just to Brillinger and
the Archives, but to the wider population of lesbians and gay men.
• Brockie's refusal harmed Brillinger psychologically. It harms the
wider gay and lesbian community by contributing to prevalent
discriminatory practices which, if left unchecked, would create a
"ripple effect" whereby increasingly fewer services and
opportunities would remain available for lesbians and gay men..
Decision continued
• Compared to the harm caused to lesbians and gay men by
discrimination, the adjudicator found the effects of the violation of
the fundamental right of freedom of religion to be slight.
• Brockie remains free, she explained, to hold his beliefs and to
practice them in his own home and with other members of his
Christian community.
• He also remains free to express his views politically. He must,
however, provide printing services for gays and lesbians and
organizations serving them, on the same basis that he provides for
others.
• This order, she says, does not really impact his religious freedom
because, in part, the act of printing is not a public endorsement of
the Archives or its purposes.
Update: Citation
• Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Scott Brockie
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, [2002]
O.J. No. 2375
Date of Decision: June 17, 2002
Date of Comment: November 29, 2002
Summary of Facts of the Appeal
• On appeal, the issues which the Superior Court construed as
being raised before it were:
• a) whether Mr. Brockie discriminated against Mr. Brillinger by
denying him printing services because of sexual orientation
and whether doing so demeaned him and other homosexuals;
• b) whether Mr. Brockie's dignity was demeaned by being
conscripted to support a cause with which he disagrees based
upon an honestly held and sincere religious belief and
whether there ought to be a defence to an allegation of
discrimination based on the bona fide reason for the
discrimination so as to permit a right of dissent;
Significant Issue
• This is an important case for the freedoms of conscience and
religion in Canada: the Superior Court has recognized a public
space for persons to refuse to provide commercial services if
doing so would conflict with the "core elements" of their
religious belief or conscience.
• Basically the issue is whether or not forcing Brockie to print
Gay and Lesbian materials means he is supporting them which
violates his core principles of his faith
Decision
• The appeal court found that Brockie had discriminated against
Brillinger as originally decided in the inquiry case
• The appeal also found that by printing the materials Brockie
was not supporting Gay and Lesbian causes. The printing
requested was only letterhead and business oriented material
for the Archives and therefore was not supportive
• The appeal court found that the precedent is now set that
individuals cannot discriminate in services and can only do so
if they are supporting a cause in some fashion that violates
core principles of their religion
Test Essay
Sample outline for a position paper:
• 1. Introduction
• A. Introduce the topic
• B. Provide background on the topic
• C. Assert the thesis (your view of the issue)
•
•
•
•
2. Your Argument (3 paragraphs)
P1. Assert point #1 of your position
1. Give your opinion
2. Provide support
• P2. Assert point #2 of your position
• 1. Give your opinion
• 2. Provide support
• P3. Assert point #3 of your position
• 1. Give your opinion
• 2. Provide support
Test Essay Continued…
• 3. Conclusion
• A. Restate your argument
• B. Indicate what the result should be
Support
There is no research necessary for this assignment.
You must utilize what you know about the Ontario Human Rights Code and
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
You are choosing a side of this issue:
Yes, the ruling of this case is correct because businesses cannot
discriminate because don sexual orientation and the Charter protects
against unequal treatment…
No, the ruling of this case is incorrect. Freedom of religion is a
fundamental freedom and should be given higher priority than the right to
equal treatment. Any private company should also have the right to deny
or accept any business as they see fit. A person’s conscience cannot be
overruled
Use proof from the case itself and from your own knowledge of right and
freedoms and the OHRC