Source: https://www.consciencelaws.org/ethics/ethics078-005.aspx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 06:56:32+00:00

Document:
Ruth A.M. Ross, B.A., LL.B.
As there is no basis in the law or in the established policies of the OHRC, CMA, or CPSO for the draft policy, we respectfully request that the policy be rejected. If the CPSO desires a more detailed legal analysis of these issues, we would be willing to submit further information.
The recently proposed draft policy entitled "Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code"1 has come to the attention of the Christian legal community, whom by this letter wish to express disapproval with the policy's terms and to encourage its rejection by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).
The freedoms of religion and conscience are paramount to a functioning and stable society. As a result, these freedoms are protected by both international and national laws at the highest level.2 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that religious and conscience rights are absolute unless limited in a manner that "can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."3 The CPSO's proposed draft policy unreasonably interferes with these freedoms and lacks an adequate justification; therefore, it should not be implemented.
The recent submissions made by the OHRC to the CPSO seem to mark a change in interpretation of the law, and, unfortunately, the new interpretation is based on arguments that are circular, inconsistent, and contrary to the current rule of law.12 For instance, the submission claims it is "seeking to create a climate where the dignity of every person is recognized" and where "all persons can fully participate in society"13, yet the OHRC itself limits people, namely physicians, from fully participating in society by supporting a policy that restricts their freedoms of religion and conscience. Moreover, by refusing to define terms such as "dignity", the OHRC is limiting the discretion of both the CPSO and its doctors in formulating professional decisions.
2. See Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 18, G.A. res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810 at 71 (1948); Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s.2, CANADA ACT 1982 [U.K.] c.11; Ontario Human Rights Code, STATUTES OF ONTARIO, Ch. H19 (1990); Joint Statement on Preventing and Resolving Ethical Conflicts Involving Health Care Providers and Persons Receiving Care, CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (1998) [hereinafter Joint Statement].
3. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, supra note 2 at s. 1-2.
4. See Ontario Human Rights Code, supra note 2; Joint Statement, supra note 2; Policy on Creed and the Accommodation of Religious Observances, ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, [hereinafter Policy on Creed].
6. See Submission, infra note 12; Brillinger v. Brockie, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court,  O.J. No. 2375 where the Ontario Superior Court overturns a key aspect of the Human Rights Board of Inquiry Decision and recognizes 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. The court makes clear that "this order shall not require Mr. Brockie or Imaging Excellence to print material of a nature which could reasonably be considered to be in direct conflict with the core elements of his religious beliefs or creed."; British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU,  3 S.C.R. 3; Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers, 2001 SCC 31,  1 S.C.R. 772. Note: Further study and a full analysis should be provided on the Trinity Western decision, as the Ontario Human Rights Commission's Submission of February 14, 2008 is misleading in its interpretation. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the college was wrong in rejecting Trinity Western on the basis of discrimination for including a code of biblical conduct and, moreover, that "the concern that graduates of TWU will act in a detrimental fashion in the classroom is not supported by any evidence."
7. Policy on Creed, supra note 4 at p. 16.
8. Danielle Wong, Docs fear consciences ignored in draft policy, WINDSOR STAR (August 27, 2008).
10. Policy on Creed, supra note 4 at pp. 5-8.
12. See Submission of the Ontario Human Rights Commission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Regarding the draft policy, "Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code", ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (September 10, 2008); Submission of the Ontario Human Rights Commission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario regarding the draft policies relating to establishing and ending physician-patient relationships, ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (February 14, 2008) available at [hereinafter Submission]; Edward Tingley, Two Things to Know, Christian Medical and Dental Society; Brillinger v. Brockie, supra note 6; R. v. Big M Drug Mart (1985) 1 S.C.R. 295.
13. Submission, supra note 12.

References: art. 18
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.