Evidentiary Note: It is irrefutable that the class was held on a Sunday i.e. the day was not changed from Sunday. This is admitted in the revised syllabus [link] and the instructor’s assessment. [link]
Overview: Instructor Advised Flexibility for Changing the Day if anyone disagreed to the post seminar addition to the syllabus to a colloquium on a non-scheduled day
The primary records demonstrate that the instructor communicated explicit flexibility to accommodate scheduling conflicts. However, that flexibility was withdrawn when a known practicing Christian requested the day be changed from Sunday five weeks in advance of the colloquium.
Evidentiary Record: The Student Witness Letter (Contemporaneous Admission)
The following excerpt from the instructor’s supporter (the student-lawyer witness) submitted to the Senate Committee establishes the baseline of institutional capability:
- The Instructor’s Operational Promise: The letter confirms that at the outset of the seminar, the instructor explicitly told the entire student cohort that the date of the colloquium was flexible. If any single student could not agree to the proposed date, the instructor stated it would be changed without issue.
Student Witness Letter Account of Seminar
The class as a whole decided that we were willing to have a colloquium so we would have the opportunity to present our papers and receive feedback. Professor Weir made it clear from the outset that the date of said colloquium had to be unanimously decided upon. I took particular note of this as I have two young children and therefore was extremely concerned about arranging for childcare. In fact, I recall vetoing a date because I would not be able to attend. I have no recollection of Cynthia Maughan stating that she would be unable to attend if the event was taking place on Sunday. If she had I’m sure we would have simply continued looking for another day which was convenient for all. The Sunday date was agreed on and throughout the remainder of the seminar nobody expressed any desire to change it.
- The Selective Denial: The record demonstrates that despite this open administrative promise, when the Appellant formally and politely requested an accommodation five weeks in advance based on her identity as a practicing Christian, the instructor would not change the day from Sunday.
- The student’s sworn testimony under oath [evidence link] was that at the conclusion of the meeting following her final request and relenting that the day would not be changed from Sunday, the instructor stood up and said “it WILL be on Sunday.”
- The instructor said that the practicing Christian student told her, her reason was not based on religion for requesting the day be changed from Sunday and therefore there was no obligation to change the day. [evidence link]
- The trial judge used his discretion to outweigh the student’s evidence that the instructor’s recollection was false and illogical, and gave weight to instructor’s position.
The Amselem Legal Baseline
Under the Supreme Court of Canada standard in Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, court scrutiny is strictly limited to the subjective honesty and sincerity of the student’s belief at the time of the request.
- By proving that the instructor had already established a mechanism for date flexibility, the sudden refusal to deploy that mechanism directly violates the duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship.