The Legal Duty to Accommodate Faith and Religion in Ontario's Public Schools

365 Pages·2017·2.56 MB·English

The Legal Duty to Accommodate Faith and Religion in
Ontario’s Public Schools: An Exploratory Case Study

By

Wendy A. Dunlop

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
University of Toronto

©Copyright by Wendy A. Dunlop 2017
The Legal Duty to Accommodate Faith and Religion in
Ontario’s Public Schools: An Exploratory Case Study

Wendy A. Dunlop
Doctor of Philosophy, 2017
Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
University of Toronto

2017

Abstract

Ontario public schools have become a focal point—and contested sites—where the dichotomy of
a proclaimed secular stance must be reconciled with the legal duty to accommodate diverse faiths
and religions.

This exploratory case study examines the experiences of principals in addressing the challenge of
ensuring the public school is positioned as secular, while simultaneously accommodating the
faiths and religions of Ontario’s increasingly diverse, multi-cultural society. When competing
rights under the Canadian Charter or Human Rights Code come into conflict it can present a
complex challenge.

To provide context for this exploratory case study jurisprudence, legislation and school policy,
developed post-Charter, are reviewed. With this legal framework data from interviews with
twelve elementary and secondary principals from five Ontario public boards are examined to
learn how the principals enact, integrate, and mobilize the duty to accommodate faith and
II
religion in their ‘secular’ schools. What is the impact on how schools function? How is conflict
managed when religious tenets conflict with other equal but competing rights, such as sex equity,
same sex relationships, or freedom of speech? Is there a tipping point—a point of ‘undue
hardship’—where a principal must declare a religion-based request as deleterious to the rights of
others, and thus impossible to accommodate?

The study demonstrates the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion in Ontario’s
bourgeoning multi-faith society adds to the complexity of the principal’s role in ensuring the
religious diversity of students and staff is recognized, included and integrated into the fabric of
our public schools. The study also demonstrates the successful accommodation of faith and
religion is facilitated through the principal’s mindset of inclusivity, respect for difference,
engagement with the community—including religious leaders—and knowledge of the law. The
growing influence of Muslims and Islam in our schools and their accommodation needs are also
recognized.

Principals particularly acknowledge the new health education curriculum which has created
discord with Christians and non-Christians. Opposition to content on same-sex relationships
places principals in an untenable position between accommodating religious beliefs and
safeguarding the rights of the LGBTQ communities. Principals are greatly challenged by the
dilemma.

III
Acknowledgments
There is a part of my nature that compels me to undertake challenges that are all-consuming. It
upsets the other part of me that enjoys peace and contentment. The pursuit of a doctorate would
be a case in point of the former. For me, the road to earning a Ph.D. was not only challenging,
winding and seemingly infinite, but truncated—several times—by life events.
Initially, I engaged in this academic process several decades ago. Regrettably, I had to abandon
my inchoate goal. In the intervening time, however, I worked with teachers and administrators
in Nepal, India, Australia, and Kuwait. I then morphed professionally from an educator to a
lawyer. In turn, all those experiences drew me back to OISE with a renewed interest in the quest
of a doctorate in education, after a twenty-five years’ absence. I am most grateful for the second
opportunity which has allowed me to combine my academic interests in both law and education.
I am also grateful for the guidance of Professor John Portelli as my thesis supervisor. Professor
Portelli has shown great interest and engagement in the topic of my research since I first
discussed it with him, seemingly a lifetime ago. I thank Professor Portelli for his continued
assistance and insight, and for enduring whatever frustration I was experiencing or expressing
along the way, with great patience. The role of thesis supervisor is definitely not for the weak of
heart.
Equally, I would like to express my appreciation for my committee members Justice Marvin
Zuker and Professor Joseph Flessa who both contributed greatly to this academic pursuit and
process. Their time and constructive input—Justice Zuker’s from a legal perspective and
Professor Flessa’s from an educative one—served to ameliorate and to focus my academic work.
Thank you too to Professors Bishop and Stewart who provided valuable and supportive
commentary as part of the FOE committee, and to Professor Mitchell who served as Chair. You
made the FOE a positive experience.
I would also like to thank and to acknowledge the public school principals who generously
volunteered to take part in my exploratory case study. I appreciate the time they gave to speak to
me and the insight and expertise they shared—in spite of their oversubscribed and hectic
schedules. These twelve individuals are truly outstanding professionals. Anyone that may
question the strength of the public school system need only read this study and reflect upon the
dedication to the well-being of children which is evidenced in the principals’ words. I stand in
awe.
Finally, thank you to my family and friends that lend encouragement whenever I engage in
challenges that they (or I) cannot quite fathom. Thank you for simply shrugging your shoulders
and getting behind whatever I am pursuing. Thank you for always being there. —Wendy

IV
Table of Contents
Chapter One: Introduction...................................................................................................... 1
1.1. General Focus............................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Historical Background............................................................................................... 2
1.3. Research Problem.................................................................................................….. 5
1.4. Research Question and Subsidiary Questions.......................................................... 7
1.5. Theoretical Framework............................................................................................. 8
1.6. Conceptual Framework.............................................................................................. 14
1.7. Significance of Research............................................................................................. 15
1.8. Profile of Researcher.................................................................................................. 21

Chapter Two: Literature Review............................................................................................. 25
2.1. Introduction................................................................................................................ 25
2.2. The Development and Impact of the Human Rights Code and
Commission in Ontario.............................................................................................. 28
2.3. The Enactment and Impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms.............................................................................................................. 32
2.4. The Evolution of Education Policy........................................................................... 38
2.5. The Role of the Principal in the Accommodation of Faith and Religion.............. 46

Chapter Three: Methodology................................................................................................... 60
3.1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 60
3.2. Selection of Participants............................................................................................. 65
3.3. Ethical Aspects............................................................................................................ 68
3.4. Data Analysis............................................................................................................... 69
3.5. Overview of the Principal Participants and Their Schools..................................... 72

Chapter Four: Findings............................................................................................................. 77
4.1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 77
4.2. The Role of the Principal in the Accommodation of Faith and Religion............... 79

4.2.1. Overview.................................................................................................................... 79
4.2.2. Review of Findings.................................................................................................... 82
4.2.2.1. Students and School........................................................................................................ 82
4.2.2.2. Staff............................................................................................................................. 88
4.2.2.3. Community................................................................................................................... 94
4.2.2.4. Board and Ministry........................................................................................................ 99
4.2.2.5. Personal and Professional Skills/Experience of the Principal................................................103
4.2.3. Summary and Reflections.........................................................................................111

4.3. The Impact of the Accommodation of Faith and Religion on the School............ 118

4.3.1. Overview.................................................................................................................. .118
4.3.2. Review of Findings.................................................................................................. 121
4.3.2.1. Students..................................................................................................................... 121
4.3.2.2. Staff............................................................................................................................124
V
4.3.2.3. School........................................................................................................................ 127
4.3.2.4. Community................................................................................................................. 131
4.3.2.5. Issues Arising.............................................................................................................. 134
4.3.3. Summary and Reflections........................................................................................ 138

4.4. The Management of Conflict Arising and the Realization of
Undue Hardship in the Accommodation of Faith and Religion........................... 142

4.4.1. Overview.................................................................................................................. 142
4.4.2. Review of Findings.................................................................................................. 143
4.4.2.1. Students..................................................................................................................... 143
4.4.2.2. Staff.......................................................................................................................... 145
4.4.2.3. School....................................................................................................................... 146
4.4.2.4. Principal.................................................................................................................... 148
4.4.2.5. Undue Hardship.......................................................................................................... 152
4.4.3. Summary and Reflections........................................................................................ 155

4.5. The Growing Presence of Muslims and Influence of Islam on the Accommodation
of Faith and Religion................................................................................................ 159

4.5.1. Overview.................................................................................................................. 159
4.5.2. Review of Findings.................................................................................................. 161
4.5.2.1. Prayer/Space............................................................................................................... 161
4.5.2.2. Religious Attire............................................................................................................ 166
4.5.2.3. Food/Fasting.............................................................................................................. 169
4.5.2.4. Imams........................................................................................................................ 172
4.5.2.5. School Programming.................................................................................................... 175
4.5.3. Summary and Reflections........................................................................................ 177

4.6. The Impact of the New Health Education Curriculum on the
Accommodation of Faith and Religion................................................................... 180

4.6.1. Overview.................................................................................................................. 180
4.6.2. Review of Findings.................................................................................................. 182
4.6.2.1. Discussions with the Religious Communities..................................................................... 182
4.6.2.2. Student Withdrawal from School..................................................................................... 185
4.6.2.3. Other Actions Taken by the Religious Communities............................................................ 188
4.6.2.4. Board and Ministry Actions........................................................................................... 190
4.6.2.5. Concerns of the Religious Communities............................................................................ 193
4.6.3. Summary and Reflections........................................................................................ 195

Chapter Five: Critical Analysis and Discussion................................................................... 198
5.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 198
5.2 The Role of the Principal in the Accommodation of Faith and Religion............. 198
5.3 The Impact of the Accommodation of Faith and Religion on the School............ 218
VI
5.4 The Management of Conflict Arising and the Realization of
Undue Hardship in the Accommodation of Faith and Religion........................... 224
5.5 The Growing Presence of Muslims and Influence of Islam on the
Accommodation of Faith and Religion................................................................... 227
5.5.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 227
5.5.2 The Growing Presence of Muslims and Islam in Ontario and Canada................ 228
5.5.3 The Accommodation of Muslims and Islam by the Principal Research
Participants........................................................................................................... 233
5.6 The Impact of the New Health Education Curriculum on the
Accommodation of Faith and Religion................................................................... 244
5.7. Summary and Reflections........................................................................................ 248

Chapter Six: Conclusion......................................................................................................... 267
6.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 267
6.2 Practical Implications............................................................................................. 280
6.3 Significance of Thesis.............................................................................................. 284
6.4 Limitations and Future Research.......................................................................... 287
6.5 Personal Reflections and Conclusion..................................................................... 290

References................................................................................................................................. 298
(i) Act/Regulations............................................................................................................. 298
(ii) Books/Texts................................................................................................................... 299
(iii) Court/Tribunal Decisions............................................................................................ 304
(iv) Documents/Reports...................................................................................................... 307
(v) Journal Articles............................................................................................................ 311
(vi) Newspaper and Magazine Articles............................................................................. 317
(vii) Policy Documents......................................................................................................... 324
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Religious Accommodation Guideline…………….......................................... 328
Appendix B: Interview Protocol…………………………………......................................... 338
Appendix C: Letter of Informed Consent………………………......................................... 341
Appendix D: Ethics Approval................................................................................................ 344
Appendix E: The Role of the Principal in the Accommodation of Faith and
Religion.............................................................................................................. 345
Appendix F: The Impact of the Accommodation of Faith and Religion on the
School................................................................................................................. 349
Appendix G: The Management of Conflict Arising and the Realization of Undue
Hardship........................................................................................................... 352
Appendix H: The Growing Presence of Muslims and the Influence of Islam on the
Accommodation of Faith and Religion.......................................................... 354
Appendix I: The Impact of the New Health Education Curriculum on the
Accommodation of Faith and Religion........................................................... 357
VII
Chapter one: Introduction and Overview

1.1. General Focus
The Ontario public school classroom has become a focal point—and at times a heated forum—
where the dichotomy of a proclaimed secular stance1 must be reconciled with the legal duty to
accommodate faith and religion. Further to this, it is in the school context that ‘some of the
fiercest and most perplexing challenges in the governance and accommodation of religious
difference’ has been made.2

My research reviews and examines the jurisprudence, legislation, and school policy that have
contributed to the development of the concept of ‘faith and religious accommodation’ in our
schools over time. Most importantly, it examines qualitative data gathered through interviews
with elementary and secondary principals in public boards to learn how they address and balance
the policy of secularism with the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion. Succinctly stated:
What are the experiences of the principals in addressing the challenges of this Hydra of
dichotomous mandates; challenges on which politicians, boards of education, or the justices of
the Supreme Court of Canada rarely have consensus?

1 Berger (2014) at page 105 notes the following: “The law of religious freedom led to the secularization of public
education with Christian symbols and practices draining from public schools”. His use of the verb “draining” is
unfortunate. The fact remains, however, that after the introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
in 1982, various court challenges served to re-calibrate the historic influence of the Christian religion in Ontario’s
public schools in recognition of our pluralistic society.
2 Berger (2014), p. 105.
1
1.2. Historical Background
To provide context for and understanding of the current legal and ministerial expectations of
principals in Ontario’s public schools, a brief overview of religion’s historical place in our nation
and in our province is required.

On February 10, 1763, the Treaty of Paris3 marked the end of the Seven Years' War between
Britain and France. The Treaty affected all lands in dispute between the countries, including
those which encompassed the future-named lands of Upper and Lower Canada. Although
defeated, the French were guaranteed the right to maintain their Catholic faith. In essence, this
pact served as the inchoate demarcation of Canada’s legal stance on religious freedom. From the
Treaty of Paris forward, as Justice Rand notes in Saumur v. Québec (City) [1953] 2 S.C.R:
…[R]eligious freedom has, in our legal system, been recognized as a principle of
fundamental character; and although we have nothing in the nature of an established
church, that the untrammelled affirmations of religious belief and its propagation,
personal or institutional, remain as of the greatest constitutional significance throughout
the Dominion is unquestionable...

Subsequently, the Québec Act (1774)4 strengthened the compromise between the French and
English inhabitants of the emergent country of Canada, providing assurance that Roman
Catholicism would be accommodated and tolerated in the new nation.5 It was, however, section
93 of the British North America Act (1867) [“the BNA Act”],6 the founding document of
Canada’s nationhood, which enshrined the guaranteed right to publicly funded Roman Catholic

3 The Treaty of Paris is formally entitled the Definitive Treaty of Peace, 10 February 1783, 42 Cons TS 279. Spain
was also a signatory.
4 Québec Act, 1774 (UK), 14 GEO 111, c83.
5 Berger (2014), p.104.
6 Constitution Act, 1867 (UK), 30 & 31 Vict, c 3, reprinted in RSC 1985, APP II, No 5 (formerly British North
America Act, 1867).
2
education beyond the borders of the Province of Québec and Protestant education within
Québec.7

Over time, catastrophic events such as World Wars I and II led to a re-focus and re-consideration
of the treatment of ‘the other’.8 Subsequently, there were several iterations of human rights
policies in Canada and in the provinces.9 It is in section 1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code 10
where Canada’s fundamental tenet of freedom of religious belief is further enshrined and
declares that‘[e]very person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods, and
facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic, origin,
citizenship, creed…’.11

7 S.93 of the BNA Act (Constitution Act, 1867) was incorporated into the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms [“The Charter”]. It is the basis upon which the funding and existence of the Roman Catholic separate
school system in Ontario is perpetuated. S.93 serves as a flashpoint for members of religious minorities seeking
accommodation of their faith through government funding to build their own religion-based schools. As this study
focusses on the accommodation of religion in Ontario’s public schools, addressing the subtext of the special
accommodation of the Roman Catholic religion is beyond its scope. (See the SCC decision in Adler v. Ontario
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 609 where members of religious groups challenged the constitutionality of funding for the Roman
Catholic separate school system, and failed.)
8 The Charter of the United Nations came into force on October 24, 1945. In its Preamble its stated goals are ‘to
reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person’ and ‘to practice tolerance
and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours’. Online:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/preamble.
9 In all of Canada, Ontario is recognized as the province with the most extensive involvement with a human rights
commission, legislation, and the recognition of minority rights. Howe, R. Brian. The Evolution of Human Rights
Policy in Ontario.Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de science politique, Vol. 24, No.4,
(Dec., 1991), p.783.
10 Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, C.H. 19 as amended. Current Code is as of June 19, 2012. [“the Code”]
11 The Preamble to the Code, as well as its content, draws largely from the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, 10 December, 217A(III) [the “UDHC”], an international statement of rights to which many countries are
signatories and which was created largely through the efforts of the Canadian and legal scholar, John Peters
Humphrey . The UDHC is the basis for many of our human rights protections in Ontario, Canada, and throughout
the world. The Preamble crystalizes the nature and intent of the Code’s basic tenet: to establish and nurture a climate
of understanding and respect for all persons, without discrimination.
3