2017]
RIGHTS INFLATION
207
the substantive issues of the case, as it was later dropped. 68 This Article now turns to a review of that case. B. Hall v. Powers Marc Hall was a Roman Catholic, grade 12 student at a Roman Catholic high school in Oshawa, Ontario. 69 He sought permission to bring his boyfriend to the school prom and the principal denied his request because of the school’s religious teaching against homosexuality. 70 The school board refused Mr. Hall’s appeal of the principal’s decision. 71 Hall then commenced legal action against the principal and the school board, alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 72 Because a trial date would occur after the prom, he applied for an injunction to restrain the school from preventing him to attend the prom with his boyfriend. 73 Justice MacKinnon, in granting the injunction, 74 noted that the Catholic school was a government actor (in part because it received government funding) and therefore subject to the Charter. 75 The court was not convinced that the Catholic Church was clear in its doctrine with respect to the morality of homosexual behavior. Justice MacKinnon stated: The Board’s decision was taken by those informed by Catholic principles and, it was argued, was well within the sphere of denominational decision-making protected by s. 93 [of the Constitution Act, 1867]. The Bishop’s affidavit asserted that it was “an authentically Catholic position”. But the evidence before me indicates it is not the only Catholic position, nor is there any evidence that it is the majority position. Nevertheless, where such a decision is made
68 John R. Kennedy, 10 Years Later, Marc Hall is Much More than ‘The Prom Guy’, GLOBAL NEWS (last updated Dec. 27, 2013, 10:37 AM), http://globalnews.ca/news/290335/ 10-years-later-marc-hall-is-much-more-than-the-prom-guy/. 69 Hall v. Powers (2002), 59 O.R. 3d 423, para. 2 (Can. Ont. C.A.). 70 Id. at para. 4. 71 Id. 72 Id. at para. 13. 73 Id. at para. 1. 74 To be successful in an application for an interlocutory injunction, the applicant must establish: a) there is a serious issue to be tried; b) they will suffer irreparable harm if the interlocutory injunction is not granted; c) the balance of convenience favors the granting of the relief sought—i.e., there will be more harm to the applicant if not granted than to the respondent if granted. Id. at paras. 11, 14. 75 He said: “The proper approach is to look at the rights as they existed in 1867 but then to apply 2002 common sense. In 2002, a School Board’s legal authority (whether public or separate) is part of our provincial public educational system which is publicly funded by tax dollars and publicly regulated by the province. . . . [T]he defendant Board is, in law, a religious government actor.” Id. at para. 43.