This case concerns a claim for wrongful dismissal brought by a pastor against his former church.
In his claim the pastor seeks, amongst other relief, compensation in lieu of reasonable notice after being terminated from his job.
The defendant church applied to summarily dismiss the pastor’s claim on the basis that he should not be considered an employee at law.
The defendant argued that both the religious nature of the pastor’s role and the internal process by which the pastor was appointed and dismissed were inconsistent with an employment relationship and should not give rise to a claim for wrongful dismissal. Historically, the courts have not treated the relationship between clergy and church as an employment relationship.
Notwithstanding that, the Court on this application determined that the pastor was an employee of his former church and should enjoy “the protection that other employees enjoy in contemporary Canadian society”. In reaching this decision, the Court confirmed that it is the fundamental substance of a relationship, rather than titles or internal policies, that best determines whether two parties are employer and employee – and that the most important legal aspect of an employment relationship is control of one party by the other.
This outcome is in line with recent decisions from the United Kingdom concerning the status of clergy with regard to institutions like human rights or employment standards tribunals. Like the McCormick case, this is a decision where the courts have shown a willingness to look beyond established preconceptions of what may constitute employment.
The full decision is available here.