- Details
- Written by Charlotte Taillon
- Category: Blog
As we pray for the repose of the soul of Monsignor John (Jack) Hamilton, we also take time to celebrate his remarkable legacy; a lifetime dedicated to Catholic education, pastoral care, and the unwavering service of his community. Fr. Jack received an Honorary Life Member Award from the Alberta Catholic School Trustees’ Association (ACSTA) in 2022. His service spanned over 60 years, leaving a profound impact on countless students, families, and educators across Alberta.
A Lifetime of Service
Born in Montreal, Fr. Jack pursued his calling to priesthood through studies at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia and St. Joseph’s Seminary in Edmonton. He was ordained as a priest of the Catholic Archdiocese of Edmonton in 1963. Not long after, he earned a degree in education from the University of Alberta and began teaching junior high at St. Nicholas School.
Throughout his ministry, Fr. Jack embraced every opportunity to serve, holding positions as teacher, religious education consultant, parish priest, diocesan vicar, and even editor of the diocesan newsletter. He continually adapted to the needs of his community, embodying humility, dedication, and an unwavering belief in the power of Catholic education to shape lives.
Champion of Catholic Education
Fr. Jack’s passion for Catholic education was evident in every role he undertook. After completing graduate studies at Corpus Christi College in London in 1971, he returned to Edmonton Catholic Schools as a high school religious education consultant, guiding curriculum development and supporting teachers.
Wherever his ministry took him—whether Edmonton, Red Deer, or Sherwood Park—Fr. Jack prioritized Catholic schools and their mission. His 17 years as pastor of Our Lady of Perpetual Help (OLPH) Parish in Sherwood Park were marked by his active involvement with Elk Island Catholic Schools, where he served as a mentor, spiritual guide, and friend.
From officiating at school openings and graduations to celebrating sacraments with students and families, Fr. Jack’s presence enriched the faith and educational journeys of those he encountered. His commitment to Catholic education was not just professional—it was deeply personal. He lived as a witness to Christ’s teachings, inspiring those around him to do the same.
Recognized Excellence
In 2022, Elk Island Catholic Schools proudly nominated Fr. Jack for the Honourary Life Membership Award from the ACSTA. This recognition celebrated his extraordinary contributions as a teacher, administrator, priest, and advocate for Catholic education.
During the award presentation, his colleagues highlighted his unparalleled dedication:
"The primary means of catechesis and religious education is witness, and for a generation of parishioners in Sherwood Park, Fr. Jack epitomized what it means to be a disciple of Christ."
His work extended beyond the classroom and parish. Fr. Jack’s role as Vicar General and his involvement in organizing St. John Paul II’s papal visit to Edmonton in 1984 were testaments to his leadership and devotion to the Catholic community.
A Lasting Legacy
Fr. Jack’s impact resonates in the lives of those he served. His ability to bring faith to life—through joyful celebrations, comforting presence in difficult times, and unwavering support for Catholic education—leaves a legacy that will endure.
As we honor his memory, we remain grateful for his countless contributions and the example he set for educators, trustees, and parishioners alike. Fr. Jack Hamilton truly embodied the heart of Catholic education and ministry, and his legacy will continue to inspire generations to come.
Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord,
and let perpetual light shine upon him.
May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed,
through the mercy of God, rest in peace.
- Details
- Written by Charlotte Taillon
- Category: Blog
[Left to right: Cristina Wendel, Partner at Dentons Canada LLP; Madison Fleck, Award recipient & Student at St. Joseph's College, University of Edmonton; Kelly Whalen, President, ACSTA]
The Alberta Catholic School Trustees’ Association (ACSTA) was honored to recognize Madison Fleck, the St. Joseph’s College recipient of the 2024 Justice Kevin Feehan Award, during our Annual General Meeting and Convention. This prestigious award celebrates students who exemplify faith, service, and leadership while promoting and living the values of Catholic education in Alberta.
The Justice Kevin Feehan Award is given annually to two full-time students, one each from St. Joseph’s College in Edmonton and St. Mary’s University in Calgary, who demonstrate a steadfast commitment to Catholic education. Named in honor of Justice Kevin P. Feehan, a passionate advocate for faith-based learning and a long-time supporter of ACSTA, this $1,500 award reflects his enduring legacy of championing Catholic education and its role in shaping compassionate, faith-filled leaders.
To qualify, recipients must maintain strong academic standing with a GPA of 2.5 or higher on a 4.0 scale. Preference is given to those enrolled in or who have completed the St. Joseph’s College Certificate in Catholic Education, a program designed to foster a deep understanding of Catholic education’s principles and values.
This year, Madison received the award from Cristina Wendel, Partner at Dentons Canada LLP, and ACSTA President Kelly Whalen, who presented it on behalf of Justice Kevin P. Feehan.
[Cristina Wendel, Partner at Dentons Canada LLP introduces Madison at the ACSTA AGM]
“I am incredibly thankful to the St. Joseph’s College community, as well as Justice Kevin Feehan, for making these opportunities possible" Madison stated, "Thank you to the ACSTA for the continuing support of young educators like myself. I am truly excited to one day be among you all as a colleague.”
Madison’s achievements highlight the transformative power of Catholic education to foster both academic and spiritual growth while nurturing leaders committed to service, justice, and the common good. Her dedication is a powerful testament to the mission of faith-centered education.
Looking to the future, Madison remarked:
“When I graduate from the University of Alberta, I intend to work in a Catholic school. The classes at St. Joseph’s College provide the foundations for becoming a knowledgeable Catholic teacher, and I am excited to bring my experiences from these courses into my own classroom and pedagogy.”
We extend our heartfelt congratulations to Madison on this well-deserved honor and offer prayers for her continued success. May God bless Madison and all who champion Catholic education as we work together to build a brighter future rooted in faith, service, and community.
- Details
- Written by Charlotte Taillon
- Category: Articles
In February 2024, the Alberta Catholic School Trustees' Association (ACSTA) hosted a Catholic Education Symposium at Corpus Christi Parish in Edmonton, Alberta.
Over 130 members of the Catholic Education community gathered, including trustees, superintendents, principals, teachers, school chaplains, clergy, and university students. Together, they engaged in a crucial conversation around a vital question:
How can we best support the formation of teachers in our schools so they can serve as faithful Catholic witnesses and models for our students?
Following the symposium Dr. Dean Sarnecki, Trustee for Elk Island Catholic Schools, organized and analyzed the data collected during the event. He complied the finding into a comprehensive report for the Catholic Education community.
ACSTA is proud to share this valuable resource:
- Executive Summary
- Teachers as Missionary Disciples: Forming Witnesses for Catholic Schools; by Dr. Dean Sarnecki
- Details
- Written by Charlotte Taillon
- Category: Blog
ACSTA Executives, Directors, and staff attended the Canadian Catholic School Trustees’ Association (CCSTA) AGM and Convention in Calgary last week, along with members from over 90 school boards who represent more than 850,000 students.
Attendees prayed and worshiped together, heard from a variety of keynote and
breakout speakers, discussed national resolutions, and broke bread over the course of their three and a half days together.
Hosted by the Calgary Catholic School District, the event spanned three days of discussions, keynote speeches, and fellowship. It began
with an inspiring address by Father Cristino Bouvette titled “Reconciliation is Possible: The Contribution of Catholic Education towards Reconciliation with our Indigenous People,” highlighting the role of Catholic education in fostering reconciliation.
On Friday, attendees were treated to thought-provoking sessions by Ian McCormack and Dr. Bob Murray. McCormack’s presentation, “Who’s Driving the School Bus,” explored leadership dynamics in educational settings, while Dr. Murray’s talk, “Maintaining the Gift of Catholic Education in an Era of Political Polarization,” addressed the challenges and resilience of Catholic schools amid contemporary political tensions.
That afternoon, attendees could choose from a range of topics presented by notable speakers, including Janelle Reinhard, Dr. Peter Baltutis, Kevin Warriner, Father Paul Moret, Dr. Bryan Szumlas & Cynthia Launière, and Dr. Caroline Maillet-Rao.
The day's activities concluded with a social event at Calgary’s Heritage Park. This evening of dining and networking reinforced the sense of fellowship and shared purpose that defines the CCSTA.
Saturday’s program featured Kate Mallon from Grateful Advocates for Catholic Education (GrACE), who delivered a compelling keynote on “The Courage to Lead” in Catholic education. In addition to reviewing the current state and history of Catholic Education in Alberta, Mallon emphasized the importance of strong leadership in navigating the challenges facing Catholic schools and highlighted GrACE's role in advocating for the system. Her talk was followed by the formal AGM, where members voted on key resolutions and discussed pivotal issues impacting Catholic education. The meeting concluded with a Mass and procession at St. Mary’s Cathedral celebrating the feast of Corpus Christi, during which the CCSTA Board of Directors received a blessing from Bishop William McGrattan of Calgary. 
With this year’s event in Calgary over, attendees are already looking forward to the 2025 convention in Halifax, Nova Scotia, promising another opportunity to celebrate and strengthen the bonds within the Catholic educational community across Canada.
ACSTA is represented on the CCSTA Board of Directors by our President, Kelly Whalen and also by ACSTA’s Past President, Harry Salm, who is currently serving as CCSTA’s Vice President.
- Details
- Written by Charlotte Taillon
- Category: Blog
Each year, the Alberta Catholic School Trustees’ Association (ACSTA) has the privilege of hosting two distinct spiritual retreats, designed specifically for the
Catholic education community.
These retreats, anchored by a thoughtfully chosen theme, offer participants a meaningful journey of spiritual growth and reflection. This year's theme was “Rooted in Faith.”
The SPICE (“Sharing Purpose in Catholic Education”) retreat brings together Catholic school educators from across the province to prayerfully explore current issues in Catholic education.
SPICE 2024 was led by speaker Dr. Brett Salkeld, author, father, theologian and former teacher.
Dr. Salkeld’s talks covered a range of topics, from identifying the purpose of education (from a Catholic vs. secular perspective), to how one integrates a Catholic worldview across each and every subject.
Through his engaging talks, he highlighted practical strategies for educators to infuse their teachings with Catholic principles, ensuring that students receive a holistic education that nurtures both their intellectual and spiritual growth.
While similar to SPICE, the ACSTA Blueprints retreat is tailored to Catholic school administrators and trustees.
This year’s speaker was Dr. Bob McCarty, former Executive Director of the National Federation for Catholic Youth Minister in Washington, DC., as well as lecturer at the University of Dallas and the Catholic University of the Americas.
His talks explored contemporary cultural challenges facing the Church in relation to young people, maintaining a spiritual lens, living a grace-filled life, and nourishing one’s faith journey in connection with others
.
Both retreats were opportunities not only for faith formation and professional development, but also celebration and fellowship.
Daily Masses, group prayer liturgies, and music were integral parts of the retreats.
Formal banquets were held to recognize and celebrate the CCSSA Excellence in Catholic Education award recipients, many of whom attended as participants.
Overall, the ACSTA hosted over 300 participants at the SPICE and Blueprints retreats, bringing together individuals from all corners of Alberta’s publicly funded Catholic education system.
We look forward to seeing everyone again at SPICE and Blueprints 2025!
- Details
- Written by ACSTA
- Category: Blog
ACSTA was pleased to welcome over 30 MLAs and 50 trustees from 13 Catholic school divisions to the 2024 MLA
reception on April 15, 2024.
The evening commenced with a prayer led by ACSTA's Bishop liaison, Archbishop Richard Smith. Following a land acknowledgment by Trustee Donna Duda (Holy Family Catholic Regional Division), ACSTA Kelly Whalen delivered welcome remarks emphasizing the unifying force of our Catholic faith and the distinctive approach to education embraced within our schools.
"In our schools every student is cherished as a child of God, their inherent dignity celebrated and honored." He underscored the remarkable achievements of Catholic school divisions, including their strong performance on the Alberta Education Results Reports (AERR), not only in terms of academic results, but also in 
facilitating Welcoming, Caring, Respectful, and Safe Learning Environments as well as a high degree of parental involvement.
Following President Whalen’s remarks, Premier Danielle Smith conveyed her appreciation for the dedication of educators, parents, and students in ensuring an exceptional education within our systems.
"Our government remains committed to collaborating with you to deliver an outstanding education aligned with your values," she assured attendees, going on to outline initiatives aimed at expanding parental and student choice, modernizing schools to alleviate enrollment pressures, and investing in classroom supports – particularly in addressing complex needs and mental health challenges.
NDP Opposition Critic for Education Amanda Chapman started her remarks by recounting a story about her first encounter with ACSTA Director Mary Martin (CCSD). Chapman commended Martin's warmth and professionalism, expressing admiration for her dedication to service. She emphasized the NDP's steadfast support for public education, citing its inclusivity and the many choices it offers Alberta families.
“It is not just me who believes in the role of Catholic Education in Alberta, my colleagues here tonight, my party leader, Rachel Notley,
and the entire NDP team stands in support of public education because public education is about accepting all children regardless of their abilities or disabilities and public education is able to offer so much choice for Alberta families.” Chapman stated, “We will continue to advocate for public education and for better funding of all of our public education projects. The work that you do is so valuable and I want to thank you for doing it. For your faith, for your schools, for your teachers, and most of all for your students.”
The ACSTA MLA Reception is an annual event that 
provides an opportunity for Catholic Education trustees to foster new relationships, as well as to engage in open dialogue and build support for Alberta’s publicly funded Catholic Education System.
ACSTA is a non-partisan advocacy organization, representing 24 Catholic school trustees to the governments of Alberta, Yukon, and the Northwest Territories. Our mission is to celebrate, preserve, promote, and enhance Catholic education, fostering collaboration and advocacy for the benefit of our students and communities.
- Details
- Written by Kevin P. Feehan
- Category: Legal
This article was originally published in the Fall 2014 issue of The Catholic Dimension, and is re-posted here for public reference.
Introduction
Any young Canadian girl or boy who has attended a National Hockey League game in Canada has sung the words “God keep our land” as part of the National Anthem.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms opens with the words:
“Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize a supremacy of God and the Rule of Law”,
and that Charter contains the basic guarantee of religious freedom in section 2 (a):
“Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) Freedom of conscience and religion . . .”
In Canada, there is no official constitutional separation of church and state. The Supreme Court of Canada said in Big M Drug Mart [1985]:
“A truly free society is one which can accommodate a wide variety of beliefs, diversity of tastes and pursuits, customs and codes of conduct.”
Canadian constitutional law therefore promotes the active engagement of a diversity in religious views, the promotion and respect of all religious views in relationship to one another; it promotes a religious pluralism, not the absence of religion in state matters, but the encouragement of a diversity in religious views, practices, beliefs and observances as part of a Canadian state.
Religious Pluralism
When one speaks of religious pluralism, in the context of constitutional law, one envisions not merely diversity of religion or faiths but the active engagement, not merely tolerance, of such diversity, the active seeking of understanding of religious differences “not in isolation, but in relationship to one another”.
In this context, religious pluralism is neither relativism, or normative pluralism, the philosophy of Quebec’s “secular revolution”, the belief that every spirituality is equal and no faith gives access to absolute truth, nor syncretism, the amalgamation of faiths, creeds and spiritualties, blended together as a shopping cart of spiritual understandings. Religious pluralism means allowing each believer their own religious identity, and their own religious commitment, but provides for the encounter of those commitments, holding religious differences not in isolation but in relationship. It is based on encounter, understanding and dialogue, examination and self-examination.
Chris Beneke in Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism, 2006, says that religious pluralism goes beyond toleration, because toleration is only the absence of religious persecution, and does not necessarily preclude discrimination; it is defined as “respecting the otherness of others: and accepting the given uniqueness endowed to each one of us” (Beneke, 2006). Mark Silk in Defining Religious Pluralism in America: A Religious Analysis (2007) says that “it is a cultural construct that embodies some shared conception of how a country’s various religious communities relate to each other and to the larger national whole”, and involves dialogue between persons of different faiths, denominations and experiences for the goal of reducing conflict and achieving mutually agreed upon ends. Such pluralism entails “not competition but cooperation”, both inter and intra religious groups.
The Canadian constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canadian case law attempts, not always successfully, to achieve a goal of religious pluralism, allowing each Canadian, individually, to practice their spirituality and faith, while recognizing, respecting and encouraging others to do the same, even though differently, as a different interpretation or path to the same end. This concept attempts to allow each individual to hold their own personal beliefs sacrosanct, while appreciating and respecting those of others.
A significant example of this religiously plural intent in the Canadian constitution is found in section 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867:
“In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following provisions:-
(1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union”.
It is generally agreed that Confederation would not have been achieved in Canada without the protections accorded to denominational or separate schools that were forged largely by D’Arcy McGee in 1864 and Alexander Galt in 1866. The most often quoted excerpt to this effect is the speech in the House of Commons of Prime Minister Sir Charles Tupper in 1896:
“...I say it within the knowledge of all these gentlemen ... that but for the consent to the proposal of the Hon. Sir Alexander Galt, who represented especially the Protestants of the Great Province of Quebec on that occasion, but for the assent of that conference to the proposal of Sir Alexander Galt, that in the Confederation Act should be embodied a clause which would protect the rights of minorities, whether Catholic or Protestant, in this Country, there would have been no Confederation .... I say, therefore, it is important, it is significant that without this clause, without this guarantee for the rights of minorities being embodied in that new constitution, we should have been unable to obtain any confederation whatever” (Debates of the House of Commons, March 3, 1896, col. 2719-2724).
That provision which applies in Ontario, was modified for Manitoba by the Manitoba Act, 1870, for Alberta by the Alberta Act, 1905 and for Saskatchewan by the Saskatchewan Act, 1905. It applied in Quebec until 2000 when it was removed by constitutional amendment. A similar provision as set out in Newfoundland’s Terms of Union applied until 1998, when also removed by constitutional amendment. It remains protected in section 29 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
“Nothing in this Charter abrogates or derogates from any rights or privileges guaranteed by or under the Constitution of Canada in respect of denominational, separate or dissentient schools.”
Distinction from the American Approach
The American Constitution, as it addresses fundamental rights, is based interpretively on the words in the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuant of happiness.”
Life, liberty and the pursuant of happiness are all individualistic rights, granted to persons, enforceable by persons on an individual basis.
On the other hand, the animating words, describing the powers of the Canadian federal government in section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, are:
“It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order and Good Government of Canada...”.
Peace, order and good government are collective rights, possessed by all of the peoples of Canada, commonly in a federal system.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the “separation of Church and state” pronouncement, reads in part as follows:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”.
The United States Supreme Court in Thomas v. Indiana Employment Review Board, 450 US 707 (USSC, 1981) in interpreting these American constitutional provisions adopted a subjective, personal and deferential definition of freedom of religion, centered upon sincerity of belief:
“The guarantee of free exercise is not limited to beliefs which are shared by all of the members of a religious sect ....Courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation” ( quoted in Syndicit Northcrest c. Amselem, para. 45).
A similar conclusion was reached in Frazee v. Illinois Dept of Employment Security, 489 US 829 (US Ill. S.C., 1989).
Canadian Religious Pluralism is different than the American Separation of Church and State
As a result, the Supreme Court of Canada has indicated in Big M Drug Mart Ltd. [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, that “recourse to categories from the American jurisprudence is not particularly helpful in defining the meaning of freedom of conscience and religion” in Canada (para. 105).
The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the distinction between the American constitutional protection in the area of conscience and religion and that given by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. (“Edwards Books”), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713 where it acknowledged: “the difference between the Canadian and American constitution is not just in respect of the wording of the provisions relating to religion, but also regarding the absence of a provision such as s. 1 of the Canadian Charter in the American instrument” (para. 86). It acknowledged that when strictly read, the American Constitution asserted “that First Amendment rights were absolute, that is, not subject to the sort of balancing which is undeniably required in Canada under s. 1 of the Charter “ (para. 93), even though in addressing freedom of religion arguments in the United States, the Supreme Court there “was engaged in the balancing process which, under a constitution like Canada’s, would properly be dealt with under a justificatory provision such as s. 1” (para. 94).
The importation of American, individualistic fundamental freedoms which are absolutist in nature, do not have a “justification” exception, and are based upon an express separation of church and state, are therefore difficult to transport into a Canadian understanding, which is traditionally collective in nature, subject, however, to a degree of individualization expressed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but modified by a justification for breach of rights in section 1 of the Charter, without an express provision of separation of church and state, and based upon an historic religiously plural experience and intent.
Conclusion
Canadian society, informed by the Canadian constitution, is one which values tolerance, multiculturalism, respect for minorities and respect for both collective and individual rights. Canadian emphasis on religious pluralism, encouraging and respecting a diversity of religions or faiths and active engagement in understanding of religious differences is reinforced by the constitutional text and case law interpretations. Religious pluralism entails cooperation and understanding between religious denominational groups, respect for and encouragement of beliefs, and the holding of those religious differences in relationship. Religious rights in Canada are a product of Canadian legal sociology, the addition of individual rights and protections in sections 2 through 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as modified and balanced by the “justification” section, section 1, and the attempt of the courts in this country to respect "sincere belief” without engaging the secular courts in the quagmire of “validity” of religious beliefs. That is the quintessential Canadian way.
- Details
- Written by Kevin P. Feehan
- Category: Legal
This article was originally published in the Fall 2004 issue of The Catholic Dimension, and is re-posted here for public reference.
Catholic separate school rights are constitutionally protected by virtue of s. 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867, section 17(1) of the Alberta Act, 1905 and section 29 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The provisions of the School Ordinance, 1901, make it clear that at the time Alberta entered Confederation, Catholic separate ratepayers, now electors, had the right to establish Catholic separate school districts, and that once established, the trustees of that district had all of the "rights, powers, privileges and... liabilities" as set out with respect to public school districts, including the right to: engage and dismiss teachers; impose duties and obligations upon teachers; ensure that the schools operated according to the provisions of the School Ordinances, including those provisions protecting denominational education.
In order for a constitutional right to preferential hiring, promotion and denominational dismissal for cause to be protected, it must have been a right enjoyed by Catholic separate ratepayers by law at the time Alberta entered Confederation, and that right must relate to denominational education, or non-denominational aspects necessary to delivery of the denominational aspects of education. See PSBAA v. Alberta [2000], OECTA v. Ontario [2001], A.G. of Quebec [1991], and Ottawa Separate School Trustees v. Mackell [1917].
If these criteria are met, denominational education rights will be a defence to the enforcement of the provisions of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act and ss. 2(a) and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as against a Catholic board.
Courts in Canada have unanimously agreed in Brophy v. A.G. of Manitoba [1895], Tiny Separate School Trustees v. The King [1927], Caldwell v. Stuart [1984], Daly v. Ontario A.G. [1997], and Hall v. Powers [2002], that Catholic education has a distinct Catholic denominational philosophy which fundamentally recognizes the duty of the Catholic Church to focus upon the formation of the whole person, according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, attempting to achieve a synthesis of faith and culture fully permeated with the spirit and meaning of the gospel. The purpose and mission of a Catholic separate school is the inculcation of Catholicism in every aspect of the school, not simply in religion class, and the Catholic school that does not provide such a denominationally-focused education may be deprived of its separate school status. See Jacobi v. Aqueduct RCSSD No. 374 [1994].
Given this very distinct role of Catholic education, it is not surprising that the role of the teacher in the Catholic school is to emulate by personal example and modeling the teachings of the Catholic Church. In the Catholic philosophy of education, the teacher is required to live in "imitation of Christ" and to be a constant example of the teachings of the Church, not only in their words but in their conduct. They are required to be the "highest model of Christian behaviour" and to transmit the Catholic faith to their students through their personal example, beliefs, values, attitudes and lifestyle. It is this expectation which is incorporated in the contractual relationship between the teacher and the Catholic board, requiring that the teacher follow, both in and out of school, a lifestyle and deportment in harmony with Catholic teachings and principles. See Caldwell, supra, and Daly, supra.
It has been clear since the earliest days of Confederation that Catholic separate schools are entitled to preferential hiring; that is, the preference to hire Catholic teachers over others and the preference to require all teachers to live as examples of the Catholic faith. The Courts have found that such a preferential hiring right was in existence at the time of Confederation and has been legally recognized throughout history. More recently, the Courts have recognized the right of Catholic separate schools to terminate the employment of teachers for "denominational cause," including marrying in a civil rather than a Church ceremony, marrying a divorced person, or engaging in pre-marital sexual intercourse, as evidenced by requests for maternity leave. In addition, the Courts have recently recognized the right to preferential promotion of teachers to the positions of principal, vice-principal or departmental heads, on the basis of Catholic preference, if the promotion policy was a specific religious requirement necessary to maintain the denominational character of the school. See Re Essex RCSSB and Porter et al [1978], Caldwell, supra, Re Daly, supra, OECTA v.Dufferin-Peel RCSSB [1999], and Re Casagrande and Hinton RCSSD No. 155 [1987].
The standard to which a teacher in a Catholic school will be held is an elevated standard of Christian behaviour and requires attentive compliance in all aspects with Catholic teachings and principles. We live in a society in which others may behave in ways not always in strict communion with Catholic theology and doctrine. Teachers in Catholic schools are not expected to permit such relaxations of standards. They are held to a higher standard, not necessarily fair by societal comparison, but fundamental to the permeation of Catholic teaching in the Catholic school.
Where there has been a direct conflict between the provisions of human rights legislation, or sections 2(a) and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with denominational education rights preserved by section 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and section 17(1) of the Alberta Act, 1905, the Courts have resolved that conflict in favour of upholding denominational education rights, relying on section 29 of the Charter and the "special treatment guaranteed by the Constitution to denominational, separate or dissentient schools" even where those rights currently fit uncomfortably with other Charter guarantees. See Re Casagrande, supra, Mahe v. Alberta [1990] and An Act to Amend the Education Act (Bill 30) [1987].
Finally, the Courts have held that the constitutional rights enjoyed by separate Catholic schools are not frozen "as at 1905," but as educational modes and methods evolve, so do such rights. As a result, the recent phenomenon of reliance upon teacher assistants and other non-teachers in the classrooms, as an extension of mode or method of instruction in the classrooms, attracts the constitutional protections relevant to teachers as they existed in 1905. See Ottawa Separate School Trustees v. City of Ottawa [1915], Hirsch v. Protestant School Commission of Montreal [1928], Jacobi, supra, Ontario Home Builders' Assoc. v. York Region Board of Education [1996], OECTA v. Ontario, supra, and Bill 30, supra.
- Details
- Written by Kevin P. Feehan
- Category: Legal
This article was originally published in the Spring 2005 issue of The Catholic Dimension, and is re-posted here for public reference.
The first formal European education to reach what is now Alberta arrived with the Catholic missionaries. In 1838, Fathers Blanchet and Demers arrived at Fort Edmonton, in 1842, Father Thibault founded the first Catholic mission at Lac St. Anne and was joined in 1844 by Father Bourassa, who later founded missions at Lesser Slave Lake and Grande Prairie. In 1845, Father de Smet resided in Edmonton while he acted as "peace maker" between the Blackfoot and the Flatheads. These Oblate fathers were joined in 1853 by Father Remas and each were involved in the introduction of Catholic education in what is now Central and Northern Alberta. However, the first missionary to introduce formal schooling was Father Albert Lacombe who arrived at Lac St. Anne in 1852 and immediately began instructing both adults and children.
In 1857, Bishop Tache founded a native school at Lac la Biche, under the control of three Grey Nuns-Sisters Grienette, Daunais and Trisseur. By 1859, three other Grey Nuns, Sisters Leblanc-Emery, Lamy and Jacques-Alphonse, had arrived at Lac St. Anne and the first boarding school, with 42 students, was opened. That allowed Father Lacombe and Father TachŽ to establish a mission in St. Albert in 1861.
The first regular school west of the Red River Colony was established at Fort Edmonton in 1862 by Brother Scollen, soon followed by the normal schools in St. Albert in 1863, under the tutelage of Father Grouard, Brother Alexis and a number of teaching sisters from Lac St. Anne, and in Fort McLeod in 1863.
In the 1860s, the separate school question was a prominent issue in the political debate leading to confederation, which could not have been achieved without the protections granted to separate schools in Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Section 93 conferred on the provinces the exclusive power to make laws in relation to education. However, it was the D'Arcy McGee amendment of 1864 and the Alexander Galt amendment of 1866, embodied in subsections 1 through 3 of Sections 93, which was recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference re: Bill 30 as the political compromise, the "solemn pact," "which made confederation possible." As Sir Charles Tupper said in the House of Commons:
" ... without this clause, without this guarantee for the rights of minorities being embodied in that new constitution, we should have been unable to obtain any Confederation whatever ... "
On June 23, 1870, Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories became part of the Dominion of Canada and shortly thereafter the Northwest Territories Act, 1870 was passed.
Upon addition of Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories to the Dominion of Canada, a report was prepared on education in the new area by Bishops Tache and Grandin. They reported that by June 1871, there were five elementary schools in full-time operation, and 15 missionary priests and nuns providing education in those schools.
In 1875, the second Northwest Territories Act established formal state-sponsored education in the area that is now Alberta. It provided that the majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the Northwest Territories could establish a public school and that the minority of ratepayers, whether Protestant or Catholic, could establish separate schools in the same area. The 1875 Act specifically provided that the ratepayers establishing the Protestant or Roman Catholic Separate Schools would be liable only to such taxation as they imposed upon themselves and would not be liable for taxation with respect to public schools.
The first year that the Government allocated money for education in the Northwest Territories was 1878 and the total financial allocation in that year for all schools in the territories was $2,000.
Although there had been an attempt to establish a public school at Fort Edmonton in 1874 and 1875, the first formal public school with any permanent status was founded in 1880 and the first public school grant in the area that is now Alberta was made in 1881, 30 years after the foundation of the first formal Catholic schooling in the area by Father Lacombe.
The first permanent Catholic school building was constructed in Edmonton in 1882 as an appendage to St. Joachim's Church. By 1882, Catholic boys and girls schools in St. Albert had an enrollment of between 60 and 70 pupils daily. In 1883, Frank Oliver, the founder of the Edmonton Bulletin and a member of the Northwest Territories Assembly, introduced the first Schools Ordinance to provide for the formation of school districts in the Northwest Territories as had been contemplated by the Northwest Territories Act, 1875. In 1884 Catholic public school districts numbers one through seven were formed in what was to become Alberta and Saskatchewan. By 1884, the St. Albert school had founded three satellite schools in the surrounding areas. In 1885, Fort Saskatchewan Roman Catholic Public School District No. 2 and St. Albert Roman Catholic Public School District No. 3 were officially organized.
These were the years of the first Riel Rebellion in the Northwest Territories and they were also the years that the Sisters of the Faithful Companions of Jesus (F.C.J.) arrived in Alberta to take over many of the responsibilities of Catholic education in the province.
In 1885, the F.C.J. had been serving both the forces of Riel and the government in the central theatres of the war-Prince Albert, St. Lawrence, St. Anthony's and Batoche. In July 1885 they were moved by Bishop Grandin to the relative safety of Fort Calgary and opened a school for 20 Metis children on September 1. The Lacombe (now Calgary) Roman Catholic Separate School District No. 1 was established under the directorship of Mother Grieve on December 18, 1885.
In 1888, the mission school of St. John the Evangelist was opened in Stony Plain and on October 4, 1888, St. Joachim (now Edmonton) Separate School District No. 7 was formed. In April 1889, St. Aloysius Catholic School in Lethbridge was established and in 1890 the F.C.J. arrived there as well to take charge of its 57 students.
In 1889 the mission school in Hobbema was opened, in 1892 the Thibault Roman Catholic Public School District No. 35 in Morinville was officially organized, and the native school at Saddle Lake was established with Father Grandin as its first principal. In 1894, St. Anthony's Separate School District No. 12 was formed to provide Catholic education in the Village of Strathcona in what is now south Edmonton. By 1894, the school at Edmonton taught 137 pupils and had a staff of three teaching sisters.
The earliest existing Territories curriculum dates from the year 1894. In that year the public curriculum covered reading, writing, arithmetic, spelling, grammar, geography and history. The Catholic schools taught those subjects and added French, ethics, calisthenics, literature, composition, drawing, object lessons, bookkeeping, needlework, music, and kindergarten, and, of course, religious education.
In 1896, the Vegreville Roman Catholic Public School District No. 44 was established. By 1901, school exhibitions and contests had become popular in the Northwest Territories. That year, 13 of the 18 prizes awarded in the Northwest Territories, for free-hand mapdrawing and writing, were received by Catholic school students, nine by students attending St. Joachim Catholic Separate School in Edmonton and four by students attending St. Albert Public Catholic School. In 1903, St. Joachim's took first prizes in every area of competition-mapmaking, object and crayon drawing, writing, collection of wild flowers and noxious weeds.
In 1904 and 1905, the Country, and particularly the Northwest Territories, was consumed by the move to create provinces out of the areas that are now Alberta and Saskatchewan. Crucial to that political process was determining the rights of separate schools in the Northwest Territories and those rights were specifically addressed in s. 17 of the Alberta Act and the Saskatchewan Act, 1905.
The legislative process of settling upon the wording of s. 17 of the Alberta Act was contentious and led to the Northwest Schools Crisis of 1905, which very nearly resulted in the fall of the Laurier government. Justice Minister Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, who later in his role as Chief Justice of Canada, delivered the majority decision on separate school rights in the Gratton case, wrote a number of the 11 drafts of s. 17, assisted by Monsignor Sbaretti and Sir Clifford Sifton. This fundamental constitutional protection established the principles of separate school education that we enjoy today-proportionality in the distribution of public monies in the form of grants, taxes and other public funds, the right of access to the municipal taxation base, non-discrimination, equity and fairness as related to the operation and maintenance of separate schools, and the right of full control and management of the schools as it affects all denominational and necessary non-denominational aspects of the schools, including the right of full permeation of Catholic teachings.
The Alberta Act accomplished those fundamental principles by constitutionalization of the rights and privileges accorded separate school supporters in chapters 29 and 30 of the Ordinances of the Northwest Territories, 1901.
Chapter 29, the School Ordinance, set out as some basic privileges the right to establish a separate school district, to set such mill rates as the ratepayers determined to impose upon themselves and to levy assessments upon the ratepayers of the separate school district, the right not to be liable to assessments levied by any party other than the separate school district; the ability to exercise all rights, powers, privileges and be subject to the same liabilities and methods of government as provided with respect to public school districts and the right to expand the boundaries of the separate school district, by Ministerial Order, provided that it was for the benefit of separate school electors and would not prejudice those involved.
Chapter 30, the School Assessment Ordinance, set out specific mechanisms for the exercise of the right or privilege to levy and collect or requisition and receive taxes upon the properties of separate school ratepayers, to access that proportion of individual taxes as declared with respect to jointly held properties, and to access corporate taxes.
Perhaps the best explanation of the rationale behind early Catholic education in the Province of Alberta is expressed by local historian, Dr. David Hall, and by philosopher, Van Cleve Morris. Dr. Hall said the following about the radically divergent denominational underpinnings of separate and public schools in the Northwest Territories and Alberta during this period:
"The philosophy of Catholic education was not compatible with the philosophy of Protestant education during the period on which my study focused (late 19th - early 20th centuries). For a Catholic, religion was the central concern of life: the prism through which life was to be viewed; or, to use another analogy, the centre around which the right of life properly should revolve. This of course meant religion as interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church, which had been established by God to help mankind to live their lives as preparation for an eternal destiny. The Church must therefore control the education of a Catholic child, so that all aspects of education could be taught within the context of this religion centred perspective. Protestants believed, generally speaking, that religion could be separated from the educational curriculum. Protestants were no less committed to the ideal of a God-centred life, but because of denominational divisions among Protestants, and between Protestants and Catholics, no commonly agreed upon religious view could lie at the centre of education. Hence the Protestant schools preferred to take a "neutral" position on many moral and theological issues because of this diversity of beliefs. (Parenthetically, it should be noted that there was at the time an overwhelming Christian consensus in society; professing non-Christians of any description were a tiny minority. Thus the public schools were, in most cases, in effect Protestant schools.) Such religious education that did take place in the Protestant schools-morning prayers, a brief Bible reading, possibly a half hour of religious instruction at the end of the school day-were substantially separated from the "secular" subjects of study in the school. Most Protestants believed that the proper place for religious education was in the church, the Sunday school and the home. Both Protestants and Catholics viewed the publicly-funded schools as important instruments for socializing children. The notion that religious truth was subject to individual or denominational interpretation was implicit in the Protestant system, which made that system anathema to Catholics and the notion that the Catholic Church had a monopoly on the interpretation of truth was equally anathema to Protestants."
Van Cleve Morris underlined the theory of denominational permeation of the Catholic education of the day when he said that the teaching of morality in these schools:
"... appears, for example, in the affairs of the playground, in the kind of sports that are favoured and opposed, and in the code of sportsmanship by which the young are taught to govern their behaviours. It appears in the school's definition of the delinquent and in its mode of dealing with him ... It appears in the department of science: in the methods the young are expected to adopt in conducting their experiments ... It appears in the department of social studies: in the problems that are chosen ... in the manner in which they are discussed ... It appears in the department of literature: in the novels, in the poems, the dramas that are chosen for study, in what is considered good and what is considered bad ... It appears in the organization and the government of the school ... It appears in the program for the general assemblies of the schools: in the various leaders from the community ... It appears in the way the community organizes to conduct its schools: in the provision it makes in its school grounds, buildings, and equipment, in the kind of people it chooses to serve on the school board, and in the relation of the members of the board to the ... teaching staff."
In retrospect, one century later, it is this history and this philosophy of education, which has fashioned, formed and informed Catholic education today. It is upon this foundation that we forge the Catholic education of the next century.
- Details
- Written by Kevin P. Feehan
- Category: Legal
This article was originally published in the Spring 2014 issue of The Catholic Dimension, and is re-posted here for public reference.
In the Legally Speaking article published in the fall edition of the Catholic Dimension, we explored the concept of freedom of conscience and religion as guaranteed in section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and reviewed a number of the primary cases addressing both freedom of religion and freedom of conscience in Canada.
However, in Canada such freedoms are not absolute. They are moderated and balanced as against the “collective good” by the justification provisions of section 1 of the Charter, which both guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in the remaining sections of the Charter and constrains them to reasonable limits expected in a free and democratic society:
“1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
Legal proof pursuant to section 1 is divided into two criteria justifying the breach of other sections of the Charter: the “reasonable limits prescribed by law” requirement and the “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” criteria.
On the “reasonable limits prescribed by law” portion of section 1, the party wishing to rely upon justification for the breach of a Charter right, must show that the provisions of the imposed law are “reasonably accessible to those which it affects”, precise in that they enable those whom it affects to regulate their conduct pursuant to the law, are not vague, in that they provide a sufficiently clear standard, and are a proper exercise of discretion, in that the discretion granted by the law is appropriately constrained by legal standards (Canadian Federation of Students v. Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, 2009 S.C.C. 31).
Further, a section 1 Charter defence requires proof on the “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” portion of section 1 that the provisions of the law are pressing and substantial, that the means employed in the law are rationally connected to that objective, minimally impair the rights of those which it adversely affects and produce salutary effects which outweigh the deleterious effects of a breach (R v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, and Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835).
The leading case on the application of “justification” pursuant to section 1 of the Charter, of a breach of the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion under section 2(a) of the Charter is Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony v. Alberta, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567. In that case, the Province of Alberta required that all driver’s licenses should have a photograph of the driver, which photograph would be kept in the province’s facial recognition databank for the purposes of identification and prevention of identity theft. The members of the Wilson Hutterite Colony objected to having their pictures taken on the basis that it offended the second commandment:
“You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above” (Exodus 20:1-17, RSV).
The most comprehensive discussion of the section 2(a) guarantee of freedom of religion in this case came in one of the dissenting decisions, that of Madam Justice Abella:
“Freedom of religion is a core, constitutionally protected democratic value. To justify its impairment, therefore, the government must demonstrate that the benefits of the infringement outweigh the harm it imposes”.
Justice Abella said, however, that there were circumstances where “the nature of the particular religious duty brings it into serious conflict with countervailing and competing social values and imperatives” requiring that “religious freedoms (be) subject to such limitations ‘as are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others...’.” In allowing for some impairment of the rights to conscience and religion, she said:
“’The values that underlie our political and philosophic traditions demand that every individual be free to hold and to manifest whatever beliefs and opinions his or her conscience dictates, provided ... only that such manifestations do not injure his or her neighbours or their parallel rights to hold and manifest beliefs and opinions of their own’ (quoting from Big M Drug Mart).”
Justice Abella said that both individual and group aspects of freedom of conscience and religion were important to consider, including “the right to manifest one’s religion in community with others”. This recognition that freedom of conscience and religion is both individual and communal was concurred in by the majority of the Court which quickly found that the Hutterian Brethren’s rights to freedom of religion had been infringed given that they sincerely held “a belief or practice that has a nexus with religion; and ... the impugned measure interferes with (their) ability to act in accordance with (their) religious beliefs in a manner that is more than trivial or insubstantial”.
However, the majority decision, in applying the Oakes/Dagenais test set out above, found:
“The goal of minimizing the risk of fraud associated with driver’s licenses is pressing and substantial. The limit is rationally connected to the goal. The limit impairs the right as little as reasonably possible in order to achieve the goal; the only alternative proposed would significantly compromise the goal of minimizing the risk. Finally, the measure is proportionate in terms of effects: the positive effects associated with the limit are significant, while the impact on the claimants, while not trivial, does not deprive them of the ability to follow their religious convictions”.
As a result, the limits placed on the Hutterian Brethren’s freedom of religion by the requirement to be photographed if they wished to hold a driver’s license, was “justified” under section 1 of the Charter.
Another case before the Supreme Court of Canada which addressed section 2(a) protection but justified a breach of freedom of conscience and religious rights by reference to section 1 was Whatcott v. Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal, 2013 SCC 11. In that case, Mr. Whatcott distributed flyers in Regina and Saskatoon targeting homosexuals. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission determined that the material “promoted hatred against individuals because of their sexual orientation”. One of the defences raised was freedom of religion, on the basis that:
“objection to same-sex sexual activity is common among religious people. They object because they believe this conduct is harmful; and many religious people also believe that they are obligated to do good and warn others of the danger”.
The Supreme Court of Canada dealt with the freedom of religion argument briefly. They said that “the protection provided under s. 2(a) should extend broadly”, that the “Court has consistently refrained from formulating internal limits to the scope of freedom of religion in cases where the constitutionality of a legislative scheme was raised”, found that the claimant sincerely held a belief or practice that had a nexus with his religion, and that the Human Rights provision interfered with Mr. Whatcott’s ability to act in accordance with his religious beliefs, which interference was more than trivial or insubstantial. As a result, the Court found a breach of the guarantee of conscience and religion and turned to the section 1 “justification” analysis.
Applying the Oakes/Dagenais test set out above, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the breach of this fundamental freedom was justified, recognizing that “s. 1 both guarantees and limits Charter rights”, and in the present circumstances:
“it does not matter whether the expression at issue is religiously motivated or not. If, viewed objectively, the publication involves representations that expose or are likely to expose the vulnerable group to detestation and vilification, then the religious expression is captured by the legislative prohibition”.
A similar result was reached by the Supreme Court of Canada in Multani c. Marguerite-Bourgeoys (Commission scolaire), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256 where a Sikh boy was initially prohibited from wearing a kirpan in public school. The Court acknowledged that an absolute prohibition of a mandatory religious requirement was a breach of the section 2(a) guarantee of freedom of religion, that his belief was sincere and that the infringement was neither trivial nor insignificant. The issue then turned to whether the prohibition was justified under section 1. The Court found that the school boards’ object to provide a safe and secure school environment was pressing and substantial, and the prohibition against the wearing of a kirpan had a rational connection with that object, but that the absolute prohibition against wearing a kirpan did not minimally impair the student’s right as it stifled the promotion of values, multiculturalism, diversity and the development of an educational culture respectful of the rights of others. Finally, the deleterious effects of prohibiting the wearing of a kirpan outweighed the salutary effects such that this infringement was not justifiable in a free and democratic society.
An identical result was held in the case of a mature 14 year old Jehovah witness girl with Crohn’s disease and serious dilution of hemoglobin after initial treatment with IV fluids, refusing a blood transfusion for religious reasons, which was administered under Court order at the request of the Director under the Manitoba Child and Family Services Act. In Manitoba (Director of Child & Family Services) v. C. (A.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 181 the Court found:
“The limit on religious practice imposed by the legislation emerges as justified under s. 1”.
The Canadian Charter promotes the active engagement of diversity in religious views, the promotion and respect of all religious views in relationship to one another; it promotes religious pluralism, rather than relativism or syncretism. Its protection of conscience and religion it is both individual and collective in nature, not based upon an expressed separation of Church and state, and plural in experience and intent. It recognizes a broad definition of both religion and freedom of religion, and places particular emphasis on the protection of the minority with respect to religious rights. However, freedom of religion in Canada is not absolute. It is subject to justification, in that rights may be infringed where that infringement is pressing and substantial, rationally connected to a legitimate objective, minimally impairs the rights of those which it adversely affects, and where the salutary effects of the breach of rights outweigh the deleterious effects. In this very Canadian way, the individualistic protection of rights in the Charter is balanced by the traditional communal, pluralistic values of the Canadian Constitution.
