Facility Rentals: B.C. Knights of Columbus and the Human Rights Complaint
December 8, 2005
Last week, on November 29, 2005, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (the "Tribunal")issued their decision on the human rights complaint made by Tracey Smith and Deborah Chymyshyn (the "Complainants") against the Knights of Columbus, when the Knights of Columbus refused to rent their facilities to the Complainants for a reception celebrating their same-sex marriage. This is a particularly important decision as it is the first human rights tribunal decision relating to the rental of religious facilities. The Tribunal determined that the Knights had not acted contrary to the Human Rights Code in refusing to rent their facilities to them. However in the context of doing so after a contract had been entered into, the Tribunal held that the Knights did discriminate against the complainants by not 'accommodating' or assisting them after deciding to terminate the rental contract.
In examining the spectrum of situations where facilities are available for rent, the Tribunal accepted that, "if the complainants had wanted to be married in the Parish Church, the Catholic Church would have been within its constitutionally protected right to refuse to perform that marriage" [par 108] and "that if the complainants had wanted to have their wedding reception in the Parish Church, then the Catholic Church would not have been required to rent the Parish Church for this purpose, as compelling it to do so would have required it to provide its religious space for an activity contrary to its core religious beliefs"[par 109]. The Tribunal went on to say that "On the other end of the spectrum is the situation where the complainants seek access to rented commercial space, which was available for rent to the public and which had no religious affiliation, the Panel would have had no difficulty finding that the complainants would have been entitled to rent the space for the solemnization and celebration of their marriage" [par 110].
In determining that the Knights were nearer on the spectrum to the Parish than a commercial space, the Tribunal stated that:
This was a Hall available to the public, regardless of religion; but it was also a Hall that could not be used for an event that was contrary to core Catholic beliefs [par 112]... The Panel accepts that a person, with a sincerely held religious belief, cannot be compelled to act in a manner that conflict with that belief, even if that act is in the public domain...the Knights are entitled to this constitutional protection and therefore cannot be compelled to act in a manner that is contrary to their core religious beliefs...renting the Hall for the celebration of the marriage would have required them to indirectly condone the celebration of a same sex-marriage, an act that is contrary to their core religious beliefs [par 113].
In making these statements the Tribunal is basically stating that the Knights did not act contrary to the Human Rights Code and that their refusal to rent to the complainants in itself, did not constitute discrimination.
The Knights had initially agreed to rent the facilities to the complainants, and then cancelled the contract upon learning that it would be used for the celebration of a same-sex marriage. In light of this fact, the Tribunal did find that the Knights had discriminated against the complainants by not having accommodated them to the point of undue hardship. The Tribunal stated:
They were required to consider the effect on the complainants and any possible steps they could have taken before calling the complainants and advising them that the Hall was no longer available [par 33]...the Knights could have taken steps such as meeting with the complainants to explain the situation, formally apologizing, immediately offering to reimburse the complainants for any expenses they had incurred and, perhaps offering assistance in finding another solution[par124]...in denying access to the Hall and then failing to consider other alternatives before communicating this decision, the respondents failed to consider the rights of the complainants and which resulted in undermining the complainants' right to access a public service [par 127].
As a result the Tribunal declared that the Knights had discriminated contrary to the Human Rights Code, that they were to refrain from committing the same or similar contravention again, that they pay $444.59 to the complainants for expenses incurred (cost of wedding invitations and postage), and that the complainants each be paid $1,000 for injury to their dignity, feelings and self-respect.
This decision confirms the position of CCCC, that charities need to be upfront about their religious character and what activities they will permit their facilities to be used for.
See the complete decision at: http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2005/pdf/Smith_and_Chymyshyn_v
_Knights_of_Columbus_and_others_2005_BCHRT_544.pdf
