Civil Rights in Public Education www.CRIPEweb.org

Dear Mr. Patterson:

RE: Funding of Roman Catholic Schools in Ontario

Thank you for your letter to Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall, received December 29, 2005, in which you inquired about the relationship between the Ontario Human Rights Code (the "Code") and the public funding of Roman Catholic schools in Ontario. Chief Commissioner Hall has requested that I respond to you on her behalf.

Creed is a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code, however, under section 19(1) of the Code, separate school rights are preserved:

19. (1) This Act shall not be construed to adversely affect any right or privilege respecting separate schools enjoyed by separate school boards or their supporters under the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Education Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 19(1).

This means that the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the "Commission") is prevented from addressing a complaint regarding the funding of Catholic schools.

This said, please note that although the information I have given you is based on the Code, it is not an approved policy statement and should not be viewed as legal advice. The Commission does not give opinion on any specific situation and its compliance with the law. I therefore can not provide an answer to your broader questions as to whether other provincial legislation may provide a means to address the issue, or whether it is solely a matter of federal jurisdiction.

The Commission can not amend the Code, which falls under the mandate of the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General. If you have questions regarding changes to the Code, you may wish to direct your concerns to the Ministry of the Attorney General.

RE:  Funding of Roman Catholic Schools in Ontario

            Thank you for your response of January 18th to my letter to Barbara Hall on December 22nd, 2005.  However, you misinterpreted my inquiry because your first paragraph states that I: “...inquired about the relationship between the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”) and the public funding of Roman Catholic schools in Ontario.”  This was not the point of my letter.  In my letter to Ms. Hall, I stated:  “My reading of the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Ontario Human Rights Commission website is that Roman Catholic schools in Ontario have special constitutional rights and that these rights are not affected by the Code.”  The Code is very clear, and I understand it.

            The point of my letter was to ask if the former Minister of External Affairs, Pierre Pettigrew, was correct or incorrect in stating to me that there exists provincial human rights legislation to give effect to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  In the absence of a clear answer to my question, I am forced to make assumptions about the issue of government-mandated religious discrimination in the Ontario school system. 

            Assumption #1.  Because you tell me that you cannot provide an answer to my broader questions as to whether other provincial legislation may provide a means to address the issue, I assume that you could not advise Mr. Pettigrew’s office either.

            Assumption #2.  Because you (presumably) could not advise Mr. Pettigrew’s office of the existence of provincial legislation which may provide a means to address the issue, I assume that Mr. Pettigrew (or his writers) made a deliberate attempt to divert responsibility for the issue from his office.

            Assumption #3.  I also assume that you or your office know very well that there is no provincial human rights legislation to address the issue, but that you refuse to tell me because you don’t wish to be a provincial office that tells a federal office that it is giving out incorrect information.

            A later paragraph indicates that the Commission cannot amend the Code.  I note, however, that  section 29 states that: “It is the function of the Commission, (e) to examine and review any statute or regulation, and any program or policy made by or under a statute and make recommendations on any provision, program or policy, that in its opinion is inconsistent with the intent of this Act.” 

            My questions to you, then, are: 

1)  Considering that a function of the Commission is to make recommendations about a government policy which, in its opinion, “...is inconsistent with the intent of this Act.”  and since the Education Act is rife with religious discrimination, has the Commission ever provided recommendations to the Ministry of the Attorney General to eliminate the religious discrimination?

2)  If the answer to question (1) is “yes”, please advise me of the text of the recommendations made, when they were made, and the response from the Ministry of the Attorney General to the recommendations.

3)  If the answer to question (1) is “no”, please advise the reason that no recommendation was made to eliminate the government-sponsored religious discrimination which exists in the province of Ontario.

4)  Further, if the answer to question (1) is “no”, am I then to believe that “the intent of this Act” is to preserve religious discrimination in the province of Ontario?

Page 3 of 8

<Previous Page - Next Page>