Waldman v. Canada
Encyclopedia
Waldman v. Canada was a case decided by the UN Human Rights Committee
in 1999.
every separate school was entitled to full public funding. Separate schools were defined as Roman Catholic schools
. The Education Act stated: "1. (1) "separate school board" means a board that operates a school board for Roman Catholics;...122. (1) Every separate school shall share in the legislative grants in like manner as a public school". As a result, Roman Catholic schools were the only religious schools entitled to the same public funding as the public secular schools. The Supreme Court of Canada
confirmed the law in two cases, including Adler v. Ontario
.
Mr. Waldman wished to provide his children with a Jewish education
, and he faced therefore a financial hardship, which was not experienced by a Roman Catholic parent. He contended that the Education Act violated Articles 2, 18, 26, 27 of the Covenant.
) in the case. The Committee decided that in view of its conclusions in regard to article 26, no additional issue arises for its consideration under articles 18, 27 and 2.
Committee's member Martin Scheinin
filed a concurring opinion, noting that Providing for publicly funded education in minority languages for those who wish to receive such education is not as such discriminatory, although care must of course be taken that possible distinctions between different minority languages are based on objective and reasonable grounds. The same rule applies in relation to religious education in minority religions. In order to avoid discrimination in funding religious (or linguistic) education for some but not all minorities States may legitimately base themselves on whether there is a constant demand for such education.
Human Rights Committee
The United Nations Human Rights Committee is a United Nations body of 18 experts that meets three times a year for four-week sessions to consider the five-yearly reports submitted by 162 UN member states on their compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,...
in 1999.
Facts
Under the Education Act of OntarioOntario
Ontario is a province of Canada, located in east-central Canada. It is Canada's most populous province and second largest in total area. It is home to the nation's most populous city, Toronto, and the nation's capital, Ottawa....
every separate school was entitled to full public funding. Separate schools were defined as Roman Catholic schools
Catholic schools in Canada
The existence of Catholic schools in Canada can be retraced to the year 1620, when the first school was founded Catholic Recollet Order in Quebec. The first school in Alberta was also a Catholic one, at Lac Ste.-Anne in 1842...
. The Education Act stated: "1. (1) "separate school board" means a board that operates a school board for Roman Catholics;...122. (1) Every separate school shall share in the legislative grants in like manner as a public school". As a result, Roman Catholic schools were the only religious schools entitled to the same public funding as the public secular schools. The Supreme Court of Canada
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
confirmed the law in two cases, including Adler v. Ontario
Adler v. Ontario
Adler v. Ontario, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 609 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutional obligation to fund private denominational education...
.
Mr. Waldman wished to provide his children with a Jewish education
Jewish education
Jewish education is the transmission of the tenets, principles and religious laws of Judaism. Due to its emphasis on Torah study, many have commented that Judaism is characterised by "lifelong learning" that extends to adults as much as it does to children.-History:The tradition of Jewish...
, and he faced therefore a financial hardship, which was not experienced by a Roman Catholic parent. He contended that the Education Act violated Articles 2, 18, 26, 27 of the Covenant.
HRC views
The Committee held that the Covenant does not oblige States parties to fund schools which are established on a religious basis. However, if a State party chooses to provide public funding to religious schools, it should make this funding available without discrimination. This means that providing funding for the schools of one religious group and not for another must be based on reasonable and objective criteria. In the instant case, the Committee concludes that the material before it does not show that the differential treatment between the Roman Catholic faith and the author's religious denomination is based on such criteria Therefore, it has found violation of Article 26 (prohibition of discriminationDiscrimination
Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category. It involves the actual behaviors towards groups such as excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to another group. The term began to be...
) in the case. The Committee decided that in view of its conclusions in regard to article 26, no additional issue arises for its consideration under articles 18, 27 and 2.
Committee's member Martin Scheinin
Martin Scheinin
Martin Scheinin is the first United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism. He was selected for this position after serving for eight years as member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the independent expert body monitoring states' compliance with the...
filed a concurring opinion, noting that Providing for publicly funded education in minority languages for those who wish to receive such education is not as such discriminatory, although care must of course be taken that possible distinctions between different minority languages are based on objective and reasonable grounds. The same rule applies in relation to religious education in minority religions. In order to avoid discrimination in funding religious (or linguistic) education for some but not all minorities States may legitimately base themselves on whether there is a constant demand for such education.
Relation with other case law
A day before Waldman decision, HRC rejected a similar complaint from several Canadians as inadmissible, pointing that "the authors while claiming to be victims of discrimination, do not seek publicly funded religious schools for their children, but on the contrary seek the removal of the public funding to Roman Catholic separate schools. Thus, if this were to happen, the authors' personal situation in respect of funding for religious education would not be improved. The authors have not sufficiently substantiated how the public funding given to the Roman Catholic separate schools at present causes them any disadvantage". Four HRC members, however, submitted a separate opinion, considering the case to be admissible and drawing parallel with Waldman v. Canada.Subsequent actions
In November 2005, HRC repeated that Canada should adopt steps in order to "eliminate discrimination on the basis of religion in the funding of schools in Ontario." This was later published in their concluding observations about Canada on April 20, 2006.External links
- Views of the Human Rights Committee
- CCPR/C/67/D/694/1996 Same document, but for general distribution
- CCPR/C/CAN/CO/5 Item #21 in downloadable document indicates Canada's non-compliance as of 2006.