Conscience, Creed and the Code: Forthcoming Changes to the Ontario Human Rights Commission's Policy on Creed

Abstract

More than 15 years have passed since the Ontario Human Rights Commission last updated its Policy on Creed and the Accommodation of Religious Observances. The policy interprets the word in the Ontario Human Rights Code to mean or and specifically excludes non-religious or political beliefs. However, the spectrum of religious belief has broadened since 1996, and secular, moral or ethical beliefs have come increasingly to the fore. Belief has become more individualized, culminating in the Supreme Court’s definition of religion in Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, which emphasizes sincerity and is largely subjective.With a greater emphasis on the individualized and subjective nature of religion, the communal aspects of religious belief have decreased in importance – at least in legal analysis – and creed has become more of an issue of individual conscience. The lines between religion and have blurred to the extent that there is virtually no principled difference between the two, with little justification for restricting human rights protections to religious beliefs alone. Recent consultations held by the OHRC elicited strong support for broadening the definition of in the Policy, or for including conscience as an additional prohibited ground. If conscientious beliefs are included in an updated Creed Policy, how will this development affect employers, unions, service providers and other institutions? What practical steps can they take to address workplace discrimination and harassment based on creed and conscience? This paper assesses the current state of the law on creed, the indications that the definition of creed in Ontario human rights law is being expanded, and the practical implications for those with responsibilities under the Code.