HRC v. Peel School Bd., (1991) 47 O.A.C. 234 (DC)
|Judge:||Campbell, Austin and McKeown, JJ.|
|Court:||Ontario Court of Justice|
|Case Date:||April 02, 1991|
|Citations:||(1991), 47 O.A.C. 234 (DC)|
HRC v. Peel School Bd. (1991), 47 O.A.C. 234 (DC)
MLB headnote and full text
Ontario Human Rights Commission and Harbhajan Singh Pandori (complainants/respondents in appeal) v. Peel Board of Education (respondent/appellant in appeal)
Indexed As: Human Rights Commission (Ont.) et al. v. Board of Education of Peel
Ontario Court of Justice
Campbell, Austin and McKeown, JJ.
April 26, 1991.
The Peel school board developed a no-weapons policy for its students and teachers because of an increasing concern about the use of knives and violence in the Peel schools. The policy applied to the presence of kirpans or ceremonial daggers worn by Khalsa Sikhs as required by their religion. Following a complaint a board of inquiry under the Ontario Human Rights Code determined that the policy was discriminatory and contrary to s. 10 of the Code. The school board appealed.
The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.
Civil Rights - Topic 1042
Discrimination - Religion - Schools - General - For safety concerns, a school board developed a no-weapons policy for teachers or students, including the kirpans or ceremonial daggers worn by Khalsa Sikhs as required by their religion - There was no evidence that a kirpan was ever drawn or used as a weapon in any school under the board's jurisdiction - The Ontario Divisional Court affirmed the findings of a board of inquiry under the Human Rights Code that the board's policy was unreasonable and discriminatory, contrary to s. 10 of the Code - The court affirmed that kirpans could be worn, subject to certain safety restrictions and limitations.
Education - Topic 710
Education authorities - School commissions or boards - Protection of students - No-weapons policy - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1042 ].
Education - Topic 730
Education authorities - School commissions or boards - Powers respecting students - Safety precautions - No-weapons policy - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1042 ].
R. v. Hothi,  3 W.W.R. 256; 33 Man.R.(2d) 180 (Q.B.), (1985), 35 Man.R.(2d) 159 (C.A.), leave refused (1986), 70 N.R. 397; 43 Man.R.(2d) 240 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 7].
Board of Education of Peel v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) (1990), 38 O.A.C. 144; 72 O.R.(2d) 593, refd to. [para. 15].
Human Rights Code, S.O. 1980, c. 129, sect. 1, sect. 4(1), sect. 8 [para. 10]; sect. 10 [paras. 9-10]; sect. 10(2) [para. 21].
Marilyn Ginsburg and A.D. Griffin, for the complainant/respondent in appeal, Ontario Human Rights Commission;
H. Pandori, in person;
Robert G. Keel, for the respondent/appellant in appeal.
This appeal was heard before Campbell, Austin and McKeown, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court on April 2, 1991. The decision of the Divisional Court was delivered orally by Campbell, J., and released on April 26, 1991.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP