ÿWPC  êŠÇ@Ž»½f©•qTƒc¾ j (É㎸_;¶)Ãiç_ÙíBÓ„ÑŠ¸CJ¾æêñà")J°Ešçò&HÏ<ÉDœÓ5ŽèM®Ý6ß Ø~HRkž_9«Ô¾Æj»ï0Œ{¶«—4N`‹bØ3ýÕªâ΃ëxÜ\rºÀM—¾X»:ºS½êñfË:’®_MŒ¿á9w‘˺üOFgœ¢Ã÷ ü ©ÄÌ‘¼‹1‘15Ðpq_³Ú#U×w€íÿ¸Ï.Q:²8fw1É„¢(ÿÅU"È ;[2ko¦“B¼wö¾–«¾¯^xc>GäŒ[fø¶‡PÐ0Éàõìç(ߪ6bAôt ÓLÐj›ê¸é …GËc>§œÊ®}×”«¦=¦nK×GèW—S•ˆóº¯óò}ì|Ø€x ¤ê„9Çã÷·g+”Šu¶FVÚj¶uX½¬6Ä)[ï‹]–bif›´øE²8û¥¡¹Œ”ŠË–Täé Ok“Vøé»hž•úb4h.>êÄïEÂfž/Ü®åbšï]¦·&¯ô Í/54ä"Ǭk4Ÿ‹:¯áU3’ý¤Ì®du*<™¯õ»lÄûn å”½=×s¨o9mèâ~U>BÌ€ 0nL 0iº 0Y# 0_| 0&ÛU6  7 0ÆG #Á UNÎ % M" (& NN ^ P w\ 4` t mv ô\  `‹&Times New Roman' United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Jurisprudence - 4nt - Jurisprudence - "Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   <ÿÿ:Default ParaÔ€ôôôÔÔ€XXXÔ< ÿÿ:Normal (Web)Ô S ÔÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓ6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô<qyÿÿ:HTML TypewriÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔÔS€ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÔ  Ô<þ6X9`(‹Courier New#|x(žů$¡¡ÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ XnÐXX XÔÔ€XnÐXX XnÐÔÔÔ˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,ä,,,,,ä0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular X|ô* Äpì*TEST3`ØŸ ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ ů!ÝÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ Xm¸XX XÔÔ€Xm¸XX Xm¸ÔÔÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòÔ_ÔTadmanÔ_Ô€et€al€v.€CanadaóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€Nðð€816/1998Ð H˜ ÐÌ29€October€1999Ð  d ÐÌÔ_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/67/D/816/1998€Ð à 0 ÐÌÌADMISSIBILITYó óÐ ’â  ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€Grant€Ô_ÔTadmanÔ_Ô€et€al€(represented€by€Mr.€Brian€Forbes€from€Forbes€SingerÐ D”  ÐSmith€Ô_ÔShouldiceÔ_Ô,€a€Ô_ÔlawfirmÔ_Ô€in€Ottawa,€Ontario).€Ð *z  ÐÌòòAlleged€victimóó:€The€authors€Ð öF ÐÌòòState€partyóó:€Canada€Ð  ÐÌòòDate€of€communicationóó:€11€April€1997óó€Ð ŽÞ ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committeeóó,€established€under€article€28€of€the€International€CovenantÐ @ Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€Ð &v ÐÌòòMeeting€onóó€29€October€1999€Ð òB ÐÌòòAdopts€the€followingóó:Ð ¾ ÐÌÌÓéÓòòò òDecision€on€admissibilityó óóóÐ p!À  ÐÓÓÌÌ1.1€The€authors€of€the€communication€are€Grant€Ô_ÔTadmanÔ_Ô,€Sandra€Ô_ÔJohnstoneÔ_Ô,€NickÐ "$r# ÐÔ_ÔKrstanovicÔ_Ô€and€Henry€Ô_ÔBeisselÔ_Ô,€all€Canadian€citizens€residing€in€the€province€of€Ontario.Ð %X $ ÐThey€claim€to€be€victims€of€a€violation€of€articles€26,€and€articles€2(1)(2)€and€(3)€and€50€ofÐ î%>!% Ðthe€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€They€are€represented€by€Mr.€BrianÐ Ô&$"& ÐForbes€from€Forbes€Singer€Smith€Ô_ÔShouldiceÔ_Ô,€a€law€firm€in€Ottawa,€Ontario.€Ð º' #' ÐÌ1.2€In€the€province€of€Ontario€Roman€Catholic€schools€are€the€only€non„secular€schoolsÐ †)Ö$) Ðreceiving€full€and€direct€public€funding.€The€authors,€however,€belong€to€different€religiousÐ l*¼%* Ðdenominations,€i.e.€United€Church€of€Canada,€Lutheran€Church,€Serbian€Orthodox€ChurchÐ R+¢&+ Ðand€Humanist.€They€all€have€children€in€the€school€going€age€and€their€children€are€beingÐ 8,ˆ', Ðeducated€in€the€public€school€system.€Ð -n(- ЇòòThe€factsóó€Ð ° ÐÌ2.1€The€Ontario€public€school€system€offers€a€free€education€to€all€Ontario€residents€withoutÐ |Ì Ðdiscrimination€on€the€basis€of€religion€or€on€any€other€ground.€Public€schools€may€notÐ b² Ðengage€in€any€religious€indoctrination.€Individuals€enjoy€the€freedom€to€establish€privateÐ H˜ Ðschools€and€to€send€their€children€to€these€schools€instead€of€the€public€schools.€The€onlyÐ . ~ Ðstatutory€requirement€for€opening€a€private€school€in€Ontario€is€the€submission€of€a€"noticeÐ  d Ðof€intention€to€operate€a€private€school".€Ontario€private€schools€are€neither€licensed€nor€doÐ ú J Ðthey€require€any€prior€Government€approval.€As€of€30€September€1989,€there€were€64,699Ð à 0 Ðstudents€attending€494€private€schools€in€Ontario.€Enrolment€in€private€schools€representsÐ Æ   Ð3.3€percent€of€the€total€day€school€enrolment€in€Ontario.€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌ2.2€The€province€of€Ontario's€system€of€separate€school€funding€originates€with€provisionsÐ xÈ  Ðin€Canada's€1867€constitution.€In€1867€Catholics€represented€17%€of€the€population€ofÐ ^®  ÐOntario,€while€Protestants€represented€82%.€All€other€religions€combined€represented€.2%Ð D”  Ðof€the€population.€At€the€time€of€Confederation€it€was€a€matter€of€concern€that€the€newÐ *z  Ðprovince€of€Ontario€would€be€controlled€by€a€Protestant€majority€that€might€exercise€itsÐ ` Ðpower€over€education€to€take€away€the€rights€of€its€Roman€Catholic€minority.€The€solutionÐ öF Ðwas€to€guarantee€their€rights€to€denominational€education,€and€to€define€those€rights€byÐ Ü, Ðreferring€to€the€state€of€the€law€at€the€time€of€Confederation.€Ð  ÐÌ2.3€As€a€consequence,€the€1867€Canadian€constitution€contains€explicit€guarantees€ofÐ ŽÞ Ðdenominational€school€rights€in€section€93.€Section€93€of€the€Constitution€Act,€1867€grantsÐ tÄ Ðeach€province€in€Canada€exclusive€jurisdiction€to€enact€laws€regarding€education,€limitedÐ Zª Ðonly€by€the€denominational€school€rights€granted€in€1867.€In€Ontario,€the€section€93€powerÐ @ Ðis€exercised€through€the€Education€Act.€Under€the€Education€Act€every€separate€school€isÐ &v Ðentitled€to€full€public€funding.€Separate€schools€are€defined€as€Roman€Catholic€schools.€TheÐ  \ ÐEducation€Act€states:€"1.€(1)€"separate€school€board"€means€a€board€that€operates€a€schoolÐ òB Ðboard€for€Roman€Catholics;...122.€(1)€Every€separate€school€shall€share€in€the€legislativeÐ Ø( Ðgrants€in€like€manner€as€a€public€school".€As€a€result,€Roman€Catholic€schools€are€the€onlyÐ ¾ Ðreligious€schools€entitled€to€the€same€public€funding€as€the€public€secular€schools.€Ð ¤ô ÐÌ2.4€The€Roman€Catholic€separate€school€system€is€not€a€private€school€system.€Like€theÐ p!À  Ðpublic€school€system€it€is€funded€through€a€publicly€accountable,€democratically€electedÐ V"¦! Ðboard€of€education.€Separate€School€Boards€are€elected€by€Roman€Catholic€ratepayers,€andÐ <#Œ" Ðthese€school€boards€have€the€right€to€manage€the€denominational€aspects€of€the€separateÐ "$r# Ðschools.€Unlike€private€schools,€Roman€Catholic€separate€schools€are€subject€to€all€MinistryÐ %X $ Ðguidelines€and€regulations.€According€to€counsel,€the€additional€costs€to€maintain€theÐ î%>!% Ðseparate€system€next€to€the€public€school€system€have€been€calculated€as€amounting€to€$€200Ð Ô&$"& Ðmillion€a€year€for€secondary€schools€alone.€Neither€s.93€of€the€Constitution€Act€1867€nor€theÐ º' #' ÐEducation€Act€provide€for€public€funding€to€Roman€Catholic€private/independent€schools.Ð  (ð#( ÐTen€private/independent€Roman€Catholic€schools€operate€in€Ontario€and€these€schoolsÐ †)Ö$) Ðreceive€no€direct€public€financial€support.€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌ2.5€Private€religious€schools€in€Ontario€receive€financial€aid€in€the€form€of€(1)€exemptionÐ 8,ˆ', Ðfrom€property€taxes€on€non„profit€private€schools;€(2)€income€tax€deductions€for€tuitionÐ -n(- Ðattributable€to€religious€instruction;€and€(3)€income€tax€deductions€for€charitable€purposes.Ð ° ÐA€1985€report€concluded€that€the€level€of€public€aid€to€Ontario€private€schools€amounted€toÐ –æ Ðabout€one„sixth€of€the€average€total€in€cost€per€pupil€enrolled€in€a€private€school.€There€isÐ |Ì Ðno€province€in€Canada€in€which€private€schools€receive€funding€on€an€equal€basis€to€publicÐ b² Ðschools.€Direct€funding€of€private€schools€ranges€from€0%€(Newfoundland,€New€Brunswick,Ð H˜ ÐOntario)€to€75%€(Alberta).€Ð . ~ ÐÌ2.6€The€issue€of€public€funding€for€non„Catholic€religious€schools€in€Ontario€has€been€theÐ ú J Ðsubject€of€domestic€litigation€since€1978.€The€first€case,€brought€8€February€1978,€soughtÐ à 0 Ðto€make€religious€instruction€mandatory€in€specific€schools,€thereby€integrating€existingÐ Æ   ÐHebrew€schools€into€public€schools.€On€3€April€1978,€affirmed€9€April€1979,€Ontario€courtsÐ ¬ ü  Ðfound€that€mandatory€religious€instruction€in€public€schools€was€not€permitted.€Ð ’â  ÐÌ2.7€In€1982€Canada's€constitution€was€amended€to€include€a€Charter€of€Rights€and€FreedomsÐ ^®  Ðwhich€contained€an€equality€rights€provision.€In€1985€the€Ontario€government€decided€toÐ D”  Ðamend€the€Education€Act€to€extend€public€funding€of€Roman€Catholic€schools€to€includeÐ *z  Ðgrades€11€to€13.€Roman€Catholic€schools€had€been€fully€funded€from€kindergarten€to€gradeÐ ` Ð10€since€the€mid€1800's.€The€issue€of€the€constitutionality€of€this€law€(Bill€30)€in€view€of€theÐ öF ÐCanadian€Charter€of€Rights€and€Freedoms,€was€referred€by€the€Ontario€government€to€theÐ Ü, ÐOntario€Court€of€Appeal€in€1985.€Ð  ÐÌ2.8€On€25€June€1987€in€the€òòBill€30óó€case€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€upheld€theÐ ŽÞ Ðconstitutionality€of€the€legislation€which€extended€full€funding€to€Roman€Catholic€schools.Ð tÄ ÐThe€majority€opinion€reasoned€that€section€93€of€the€Constitution€Act€1867€and€all€the€rightsÐ Zª Ðand€privileges€it€afforded€were€immune€from€Charter€scrutiny.€Madam€Justice€Wilson,Ð @ Ðwriting€the€majority€opinion,€stated:€"It€was€never€intended€...€that€the€Charter€could€be€usedÐ &v Ðto€invalidate€other€provisions€of€the€constitution,€particularly€a€provision€such€as€s.93€whichÐ  \ Ðrepresented€a€fundamental€part€of€the€Confederation€compromise."€Ð òB ÐÌ2.9€At€the€same€time€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada,€in€the€majority€opinion€of€Wilson,€J.Ð ¾ Ðaffirmed:€"These€educational€rights,€granted€specifically€to€...€Roman€Catholics€in€Ontario,Ð ¤ô Ðmake€it€impossible€to€treat€all€Canadians€equally.€The€country€was€founded€upon€theÐ Š Ú Ðrecognition€of€special€or€unequal€educational€rights€for€specific€religious€groups€in€OntarioÐ p!À  Ð..."€In€a€concurring€opinion€in€the€Supreme€Court,€Ô_ÔEsteyÔ_Ô€J.€conceded:€"It€is€axiomatic€(andÐ V"¦! Ðmany€counsel€before€this€court€conceded€the€point)€that€if€the€Charter€has€any€applicationÐ <#Œ" Ðto€Bill€30,€this€Bill€would€be€found€discriminatory€and€in€violation€of€ss.€2(a)€and€15€of€theÐ "$r# ÐCharter€of€Rights."€Ð %X $ ÐÌ2.10€In€a€further€case,€òòAdler€v.€Ontarioóó,€individuals€from€the€Calvinistic€or€ReformedÐ Ô&$"& ÐChristian€tradition,€and€members€of€the€Sikh,€Hindu,€Muslim,€and€Jewish€faiths€challengedÐ º' #' Ðthe€constitutionality€of€Ontario's€Education€Act,€claiming€a€violation€of€the€Charter'sÐ  (ð#( Ðprovisions€on€freedom€of€religion€and€equality.€They€argued€that€the€Education€Act,€byÐ †)Ö$) Ðrequiring€attendance€at€school,€discriminated€against€those€whose€conscience€or€beliefsÐ l*¼%* Ðprevented€them€from€sending€their€children€to€either€the€publicly€funded€secular€or€publiclyÐ R+¢&+ Ðfunded€Roman€Catholic€schools,€because€of€the€high€costs€associated€with€their€children'sÐ 8,ˆ', Ðreligious€education.€A€declaration€was€also€sought€stating€that€the€applicants€were€entitledÐ -n(- Ðto€funding€equivalent€to€that€of€public€and€Roman€Catholic€schools.€The€Ontario€Court€ofÐ ° ÐAppeal€determined€that€the€crux€of€òòAdleróó€was€an€attempt€to€revisit€the€issue€which€theÐ –æ ÐSupreme€Court€of€Canada€had€already€disposed€of€in€the€òòBill€30óó€case.€Chief€Justice€Ô_ÔDubinÔ_ÔÐ |Ì Ðstated€that€the€Bill€30€case€was€"really€quite€decisive€of€the€discrimination€issue€in€theseÐ b² Ðappeals."€They€also€rejected€the€argument€based€on€freedom€of€religion.€Ð H˜ ÐÌ2.11€On€appeal,€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€by€judgement€of€21€November€1996,Ð  d Ðconfirmed€that€its€decision€in€the€òòBill€30óó€case€was€determinative€in€the€òòAdleróó€litigation,€andÐ ú J Ðfound€that€the€funding€of€Roman€Catholic€separate€schools€could€not€give€rise€to€anÐ à 0 Ðinfringement€of€the€Charter€because€the€province€of€Ontario€was€constitutionally€obligatedÐ Æ   Ðto€provide€such€funding.€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌòòThe€complaintóó€Ð xÈ  ÐÌ3.1€The€authors€argue€that€the€fact€that€no€religious€denomination€other€than€Roman€CatholicÐ D”  Ðhas€the€right€to€government€funding€in€the€province€of€Ontario€for€the€purposes€of€educationÐ *z  Ðconstitutes€a€form€of€discrimination€with€reference€to€all€other€religious€denominations,Ð ` Ðwhich€are€precluded€from€such€specific€government€funding.€In€this€context,€counsel€arguesÐ öF Ðthat€the€Human€Rights€Committee€is€not€bound€by€the€Canadian€constitutional€intricaciesÐ Ü, Ðwhich€led€to€the€Supreme€Court's€conclusions.€Ð  ÐÌ3.2€Counsel€further€claims€that€the€consequence€of€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€judgmentsÐ ŽÞ Ðis€that€specific€religious€denominations€have€been€deprived€of€a€remedy€in€addressing€theÐ tÄ Ðdiscriminatory€and€unequal€provisions€of€the€current€Ontario€Education€Act.€Ð Zª ÐÌ3.3€According€to€counsel,€two€alternative€solutions€can€be€found€to€the€existingÐ &v Ðdiscrimination.€One,€the€Province€of€Ontario€could€extend€government€funding,€on€an€equalÐ  \ Ðbasis,€to€all€those€religious/denominational€groups€with€a€substantial€presence€in€Ontario.Ð òB ÐHowever,€counsel€considers€that€such€a€scheme€would€not€be€financially€viable€and€wouldÐ Ø( Ðbe€socially€divisive.€He€therefore€proposes€a€second€solution,€that€the€province€create€aÐ ¾ Ðsingular€public€system,€open€to€all€and€without€distinction,€thereby€eliminating€the€presentÐ ¤ô Ðinequality.€In€this€connection,€he€argues€that€a€singular€public€system€would€be€highlyÐ Š Ú Ðbeneficial€to€Ontario's€pluralistic€and€diverse€society.€Ð p!À  ÐÌÔ_ÔòòStateÔ_Ô€party's€observationsóó€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ4.1€By€submission€of€22€February€1999,€the€State€party€addresses€both€the€admissibility€andÐ %X $ Ðthe€merits€of€the€authors'€claim.€Ð î%>!% ÐÌ4.2€First,€the€State€party€argues€that€the€communication€is€inadmissible€because€the€authorsÐ º' #' Ðare€no€victims€of€a€violation€of€the€Covenant.€According€to€the€State€party€this€is€illustratedÐ  (ð#( Ðby€the€remedy€they€are€seeking:€removal€of€public€funding€for€Roman€Catholic€separateÐ †)Ö$) Ðschools.€In€this€context,€the€State€party€also€notes€that€the€authors€have€failed€to€provideÐ l*¼%* Ðspecific€information€about€their€children,€and€how€the€current€system€violates€their€rights.Ð R+¢&+ ÐMoreover,€the€authors'€children€already€have€access€to€the€publicly€funded€school€system,Ð 8,ˆ', Ðwhich€is€what€they€seek€as€a€remedy.€There€is€no€evidence€that€they€cannot€beÐ -n(- Ðaccommodated€within€the€existing€system,€and€it€has€not€been€shown€how€they€areÐ ° Ðvictimized€or€personally€affected€by€Ontario's€constitutional€obligation€to€provide€fundingÐ –æ Ðto€Roman€Catholic€separate€schools.€If€the€authors€claim€that€the€separate€school€system€isÐ |Ì Ðunnecessary€costly€and€that€by€eliminating€it€more€funds€would€become€available€forÐ b² Ðstudents€in€the€public€system,€the€State€party€argues€that€this€is€by€no€means€certain€and€thatÐ H˜ Ðin€any€event,€an€absence€of€possible€additional€funds€being€invested€generally€in€the€publicÐ . ~ Ðsystem€is€not€in€itself€sufficient€to€make€the€authors,€or€their€children,€victims€of€a€violationÐ  d Ðas€defined€under€the€Optional€Protocol.€Ð ú J ÐÌ4.3€As€to€the€authors'€allegation€under€article€2€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€recalls€thatÐ Æ   Ðarticle€2€does€not€establish€an€independent€right€but€is€a€general€undertaking€by€States€andÐ ¬ ü  Ðcannot€be€invoked€by€individuals€under€the€Optional€Protocol€without€reference€to€otherÐ ’â  Ðspecific€articles€of€the€Covenant.€Ð xÈ  ÐÌ4.4€Alternatively,€the€State€party€rejects€a€violation€of€article€2€because€a€differentiationÐ D”  Ðbased€on€reasonable€and€objective€criteria€does€not€amount€to€a€distinction€or€discriminationÐ *z  Ðwithin€the€meaning€of€article€2€of€the€Covenant.€For€substantive€arguments€concerning€theÐ ` Ðissue€of€discrimination,€it€refers€to€its€arguments€relating€to€the€alleged€violation€of€articleÐ öF Ð26€(see€below).€Ð Ü, ÐÌ4.5€With€regard€to€the€alleged€violation€of€article€26,€the€State€party€contends€theÐ ¨ø Ðcommunication€is€inadmissible€Ô_ÔrationeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔmateriaeÔ_Ô,€or,€in€the€alternative,€does€not€constituteÐ ŽÞ Ða€violation.€The€State€party€recalls€that€a€differentiation€in€treatment€based€on€reasonable€andÐ tÄ Ðobjective€criteria€does€not€amount€to€prohibited€discrimination€within€the€meaning€of€articleÐ Zª Ð26.€The€State€party€notes€that€the€authors€themselves€argue€that€the€extension€of€publicÐ @ Ðfunding€to€more€denominational€schools€would€not€be€a€proper€solution,€because€of€budgetÐ &v Ðconstraints€and€because€such€a€scheme€would€be€socially€divisive.€In€the€State€party'sÐ  \ Ðopinion,€the€authors'€Ô_ÔacknowledgementÔ_Ô€of€a€fiscal€and€social€justification€serves€toÐ òB Ðunderscore€some€of€the€reasonable€grounds€for€concluding€that€the€absence€of€full€and€directÐ Ø( Ðfunding€to€all€religious€groups€does€not€violate€article€26.€Ð ¾ ÐÌ4.6€According€to€the€State€party,€the€establishment€of€secular€public€institutions€is€consistentÐ Š Ú Ðwith€the€values€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€Secular€institutions€do€not€discriminate€againstÐ p!À  Ðreligion,€they€are€a€legitimate€form€of€Government€neutrality.€According€to€the€State€party,Ð V"¦! Ða€secular€system€is€a€tool€which€assists€in€preventing€discrimination€among€citizens€on€theÐ <#Œ" Ðbasis€of€their€religious€faiths.€Public€schools€build€social€cohesion,€tolerance€andÐ "$r# Ðunderstanding,€and€the€extension€of€public€funding€to€all€denominational€schools€wouldÐ %X $ Ðundermine€this€ability.€The€State€party€makes€no€distinctions€among€different€religiousÐ î%>!% Ðgroups€in€its€public€education€and€does€not€limit€any€religious€group's€ability€to€establishÐ Ô&$"& Ðprivate€schools.€Ð º' #' ÐÌ4.7€The€State€party€submits€that€there€are€reasonable€and€objective€grounds€for€notÐ †)Ö$) Ðeliminating€funding€to€Roman€Catholic€separate€schools€in€Ontario.€The€elimination€wouldÐ l*¼%* Ðbe€perceived€as€undoing€the€bargain€made€at€Confederation€to€protect€the€interests€of€aÐ R+¢&+ Ðvulnerable€minority€in€the€province€and€would€be€met€with€outrage€and€resistance€by€theÐ 8,ˆ', ÐRoman€Catholic€community.€It€would€also€result€in€a€certain€degree€of€economic€turmoil,Ð -n(- Ðincluding€claims€for€compensation€of€facilities€or€lands€provided€for€Roman€CatholicÐ ° Ðschools.€Further,€the€protection€of€minority€rights,€including€minority€religion€and€educationÐ –æ Ðrights,€is€a€principle€underlying€the€Canadian€constitutional€order€and€militates€againstÐ |Ì Ðelimination€of€funding€for€the€Roman€Catholic€separate€schools.€Elimination€of€funding€forÐ b² Ðseparate€schools€in€Ontario€would€further€lead€to€pressure€on€other€Canadian€provinces€toÐ H˜ Ðeliminate€their€protections€for€minorities€within€their€border.€Ð . ~ ÐÌÔ_ÔòòCounsel'sÔ_Ô€commentsóó€Ð ú J ÐÌ5.1€In€his€comments€on€the€State€party's€submission,€counsel€submits€that€the€State€party€hasÐ Æ   Ðadmitted€the€discrimination,€which€it€justifies€only€on€the€basis€of€its€constitution.€CounselÐ ¬ ü  Ðsubmits€that€the€Human€Rights€Committee€is€not€bound€by€the€constitution€of€Canada,€andÐ ’â  Ðthat€the€public€funding€of€only€Roman€Catholic€schools,€to€the€exclusion€of€all€otherÐ xÈ  Ðdenominational€schools,€constitutes€a€violation€of€article€26.€In€this€context,€counsel€statesÐ ^®  Ðthat€the€Ô_ÔmulticulturalÔ_Ô€fabric€of€current€Canadian€society€strongly€suggests€that€no€longer€anyÐ D”  Ðrationale€exists€for€the€form€of€flagrant€discrimination€in€the€educational€laws€of€theÐ *z  ÐProvince€of€Ontario€vis€€vis€one€religious€denomination€over€all€other€denominations.€Ð ` ÐÌ5.2€Counsel€refers€to€recent€constitutional€changes€in€Quebec€and€Newfoundland€concerningÐ Ü, Ðeducational€laws.€Especially,€with€regard€to€Quebec,€counsel€argues€that€its€constitutionalÐ Â Ðrevision€opens€the€way€for€constitutional€change€in€Ontario€as€well.€Counsel€notes€that€theÐ ¨ø Ðchanges€in€Quebec€did€not€create€social€tension€and€discord.€With€regard€to€the€use€byÐ ŽÞ ÐQuebec€of€the€notwithstanding€clause€in€the€Charter€in€order€to€continue€limitedÐ tÄ Ðdenominational€schooling,€counsel€submits€that€this€implicitly€recognizes€that€any€form€ofÐ Zª Ðdenominational€schooling€is€effectively€discriminatory.€Counsel€rejects€the€State€party'sÐ @ Ðclaim€of€possible€social€disruption€as€a€consequence€of€removing€public€funding€for€RomanÐ &v ÐCatholic€separate€schools,€as€unsubstantiated,€based€on€Canada's€history€as€a€civilized€nation.Ð  \ ÐMoreover,€counsel€argues€that€economic€and€social€factors€are€irrelevant€for€theÐ òB Ðdetermination€of€discrimination.€Ð Ø( ÐÌ5.3€With€regard€to€the€State€party's€argument€that€the€authors€are€no€victims€within€theÐ ¤ô Ðmeaning€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€counsel€recalls€that€the€authors€represent€individuals€whoÐ Š Ú Ðare€members€of€specific€religious€denominations€who€receive€no€government€funding€fromÐ p!À  Ðthe€Province€of€Ontario€to€educate€their€children€in€accordance€with€their€religious€beliefs.Ð V"¦! ÐCounsel€rejects€the€State€party's€suggestion€that€they€are€no€victims€because€they€seek€asÐ <#Œ" Ðremedy€a€singular€public€system€open€to€all€without€discrimination.€He€recalls€that€in€theÐ "$r# Ðcommunication€two€solutions€were€proposed,€one€being€the€extension€of€funding€to€allÐ %X $ Ðdenominations,€the€other€being€the€elimination€of€the€present€inequality€by€creating€aÐ î%>!% Ðsingular€public€system.€Even€though€the€authors€prefer€the€second€solution,€counsel€pointsÐ Ô&$"& Ðout€that€it€is€within€the€jurisdiction€of€the€Human€Rights€Committee€to€determine€the€remedyÐ º' #' Ðfor€the€discrimination.€The€authors€of€the€communication€are€victims€because€they€are€beingÐ  (ð#( Ðdenied€parallel€government€funding€to€educate€their€children€in€accordance€with€theirÐ †)Ö$) Ðreligious€beliefs.€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌ5.4€Counsel€states€that€the€figures€of€the€financial€implications€of€separate€schooling,€toÐ 8,ˆ', Ðwhich€he€referred€in€his€communication,€originate€from€public€reports€of€the€Ministry€ofÐ -n(- ÐEducation,€and€that€there€can€be€no€doubt€about€it€that€the€separate€system€creates€an€extraÐ ° Ðfinancial€burden.€Ð –æ ÐÌ5.5€Counsel€takes€issue€with€the€State€party€referring€to€the€Roman€Catholic€community€asÐ b² Ða€minority.€He€points€out€that€the€Catholic€religious€group€is€the€largest€in€the€Province€ofÐ H˜ ÐOntario,€being€approximately€two€and€a€half€times€larger€than€the€next€faith,€the€UnitedÐ . ~ ÐChurch€of€Canada.€In€this€context,€counsel€recalls€that€there€is€no€Protestant€Church€orÐ  d Ðorganization€to€parallel€the€Roman€Catholic€structure,€since€the€denomination€generallyÐ ú J Ðcalled€Protestant€consists€of€many€small€denominations€which€each€have€their€own€structure.Ð à 0 ÐCounsel€submits€therefore€that€the€publicly€funded€separate€schools€for€Roman€CatholicÐ Æ   Ðcitizens€in€Ontario€represent€in€real€terms€a€privilege€to€the€largest€religious€organization€inÐ ¬ ü  ÐOntario.€Ð ’â  ÐÌ5.6€As€regards€the€freedom€to€establish€a€private€religious€school,€counsel€argues€that€thisÐ ^®  Ðis€a€hollow€right€unless€one€is€comparatively€wealthy€and€is€prepared€to€pay€taxes€under€theÐ D”  Ðeducational€levy€while€at€the€same€time€paying€for€one's€own€children€from€one's€ownÐ *z  Ðpocket.€In€practical€terms,€it€is€also€often€impossible€to€attend€a€private€school,€since€otherÐ ` Ðfaith€groups€are€far€fewer€in€number€than€Roman€Catholics€and€have€their€private€schoolsÐ öF Ðonly€in€large€cities€where€there€are€sufficient€students.€Ð Ü, ÐÌ5.7€With€regard€to€the€claim€under€article€2€of€the€Covenant,€counsel€submits€that€the€authorsÐ ¨ø Ðhave€claimed€a€violation€of€this€article€together€with€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€He€reiteratesÐ ŽÞ Ðhis€position€that€the€State€party€has€failed€to€satisfy€the€legal€obligations€under€article€2€toÐ tÄ Ðremove€the€discrimination.€In€this€context,€he€underlines€that€pursuant€to€article€2(2)€theÐ Zª ÐCovenant€contemplates€that€'constitutional€processes'€may€be€undertaken€in€order€to€giveÐ @ Ðeffect€to€the€rights€recognized€in€the€Covenant€and€in€remedying€the€violation€in€question.€Ð &v ÐÌ5.8€Counsel€contests€the€State€party's€argument€that€the€differentiation€in€treatment€betweenÐ òB ÐRoman€Catholic€schools€and€other€denominational€schools€is€based€on€reasonable€andÐ Ø( Ðobjective€grounds.€He€reiterates€that€the€current€demographic€and€ethno„cultural€makeup€ofÐ ¾ ÐOntario€does€not€support€the€discriminatory€treatment€of€all€other€religious€denominations,Ð ¤ô Ðsave€and€except€the€Roman€Catholic€denomination.€What€may€have€been€a€reasonable€andÐ Š Ú Ðobjective€ground€in€1867€is€no€longer€applicable€in€current€society.€Ð p!À  ÐÌÔ_ÔòòIssuesÔ_Ô€and€proceedings€before€the€Committeeóó€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ6.1€Before€considering€any€claim€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€RightsÐ %X $ ÐCommittee€must,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€rules€of€procedure,€decide€whether€or€notÐ î%>!% Ðit€is€admissible€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.€Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌ6.2€The€State€party€has€challenged€the€admissibility€of€the€communication€on€the€basis€thatÐ  (ð#( Ðthe€authors€cannot€claim€to€be€victims€of€a€violation€of€the€Covenant.€In€this€context,€theÐ †)Ö$) ÐCommittee€notes€that€the€authors€while€claiming€to€be€victims€of€discrimination,€do€not€seekÐ l*¼%* Ðpublicly€funded€religious€schools€for€their€children,€but€on€the€contrary€seek€the€removal€ofÐ R+¢&+ Ðthe€public€funding€to€Roman€Catholic€separate€schools.€Thus,€if€this€were€to€happen,€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðauthors'€personal€situation€in€respect€of€funding€for€religious€education€would€not€beÐ -n(- Ðimproved.€The€authors€have€not€sufficiently€substantiated€how€the€public€funding€given€toÐ ° Ðthe€Roman€Catholic€separate€schools€at€present€causes€them€any€disadvantage€or€affectsÐ –æ Ðthem€adversely.€In€the€circumstances,€the€Committee€considers€that€they€cannot€claim€to€beÐ |Ì Ðvictims€of€the€alleged€discrimination,€within€the€meaning€of€article€1€of€the€OptionalÐ b² ÐProtocol.€Ð H˜ ÐÌ7.€Accordingly,€the€Human€Rights€Committee€decides:€Ð  d ÐÌa)€that€the€communication€is€inadmissible€under€article€1€of€the€Optional€Protocol;€Ð à 0 ÐÌb)€that€this€decision€shall€be€communicated€to€the€State€party,€the€authors€and€their€counsel.€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌ_________________€Ð xÈ  ÐÌ*The€following€members€of€the€Committee€participated€in€the€examination€of€the€presentÐ D”  Ðcommunication:€Mr.€Ô_ÔAbdelfattahÔ_Ô€Amor,€Mr.€Ô_ÔNisukeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔAndoÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Ô_ÔPrafullachandraÔ_Ô€N.Ð *z  ÐÔ_ÔBhagwatiÔ_Ô,€Ms.€Christine€Ô_ÔChanetÔ_Ô,€Lord€Ô_ÔColvilleÔ_Ô,€Ms.€Elizabeth€Ô_ÔEvattÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Louis€Ô_ÔHenkinÔ_Ô,€Mr.Ð ` ÐÔ_ÔEckartÔ_Ô€Klein,€Mr.€David€Ô_ÔKretzmerÔ_Ô,€Ms.€Cecilia€Medina€Ô_ÔQuirogaÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Martin€Ô_ÔScheininÔ_Ô,€andÐ öF ÐMr.€Ô_ÔAbdallahÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔZakhiaÔ_Ô.€Pursuant€to€rule€85€of€the€Committee's€rules€of€procedure,€Mr.€M.Ð Ü, ÐÔ_ÔYaldenÔ_Ô€did€not€participate€in€the€examination€of€the€case.€Ð  ÐÌ**The€text€of€one€individual€opinion€signed€by€four€Committee€members€is€appended€to€theÐ ŽÞ Ðpresent€document.€Ð tÄ ÐÌ[Adopted€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€English€text€being€the€original€version.Ð @ ÐSubsequently€to€be€issued€also€in€Arabic,€Chinese€and€Russian€as€part€of€the€Committee'sÐ &v Ðannual€report€to€the€General€Assembly.]€Ð  \ ÐÌÌÓKÓÓ  ÓÐ ÐòòAppendixóóÐ ¤ô ÐÌÐ ÐòòIndividual€opinion€of€Committee€members€P.€Bhagwati,€E.€Evatt,óóÐ V"¦! ÐÐ ÐòòL.€Henkin€and€C.€Medina€Quirogaóó€Ð "$r# ÐÓ‡vÓÓÓÌI€am€unable€to€agree€with€the€view€of€the€Committee€that€this€case€is€inadmissible.€TheÐ î%>!% Ðsituation€is€that€the€Province€of€Ontario€provides€a€benefit€to€the€Catholic€community€byÐ Ô&$"& Ðincorporating€their€religious€schools€into€the€public€school€system€and€funding€them€in€full.Ð º' #' ÐThis€benefit€is€discriminatory€in€nature€as€it€prefers€one€group€in€the€community€on€theÐ  (ð#( Ðground€of€religion.€Those€whose€religious€schools€are€not€funded€in€this€way€are€clearlyÐ †)Ö$) Ðvictims€of€this€discrimination€(as€in€the€òòÔ_ÔWaldmanÔ_Ô€caseóó).€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌBut€that€does€not€exhaust€the€scope€of€those€who€may€claim€to€be€victims.€Parents€whoÐ 8,ˆ', Ðdesire€religious€education€for€their€children€and€are€not€provided€with€it€within€the€schoolÐ -n(- Ðsystem€and€who€have€to€meet€the€cost€of€such€education€themselves€may€also€be€consideredÐ ° Ðas€victims.€The€applicants€in€this€case€include€such€persons,€and€the€claims€of€at€least€thoseÐ –æ Ðpersons€should,€in€my€view,€be€considered€admissible.€Ð |Ì ÐÌP.€Ô_ÔBhagwatiÔ_Ô€(signed)€E.€Ô_ÔEvattÔ_Ô€(signed)€Ð H˜ ÐÌL.€Ô_ÔHenkinÔ_Ô€(signed)€C.€Medina€Ô_ÔQuirogaÔ_Ô€(signed)€Ð  d ÐÌ[Adopted€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€English€text€being€the€original€version.Ð à 0 ÐSubsequently€to€be€issued€also€in€Arabic,€Chinese€and€Russian€as€part€of€the€Committee'sÐ Æ   Ðannual€report€to€the€General€Assembly.]€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÓ…wÓ