Case Study: Pandorini V. Peel Board Of Education

Bringing a Kirpan to School Case Study Analysis

Parsa Hemmati

Law Grade 12

Case Citation:

Ontario Human rights Commission and Harbhajan Singh Pandori v. Peel Board of Education (1991), 3 OR (3d) 531 (Div.CL)

List The Facts:

• Pandorini was a teacher with the Peel Board Of education. As a Khalsa Sikh, he was required to wear a kirpan wherever he went.

• The Peel Board of Education developed a no-weapons policy in response to high amounts of violence and knife related incidents. This created a dispute between Pandorini and the school as they identified his kirpan as a dangerous object which meant he was not able to wear his kirpan on school property.

• Pandorini took his case to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which set up a Board

of Inquiry under the Ontario Human Rights Code to investigate the matter.
• The Board ruled that the school board’s policy discriminated against Khalsa Sikhs.

It ordered that Pandorini be allowed to wear his kirpan on school property certain to some safety restrictions in order to prevent his kirpan from being removed easily.

• The school board appealed this order.

Identify The Main Issue:

Is it justifiable for the School Board to view a kirpan as a weapon and not a religious garb and thus not permitting Pandorini to wear a kirpan on school property or is this discrimination towards Khalsa Sikhs.

Specific Law Applicable To the Case:

Section 10(1): A right of a person, under Part 1 is infringed where a requirement, qualification or factor exists that is not discrimination on a prohibited ground but that results in the exclusion, restriction, or preference of a group of persons who are identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination and of whom the person is a member except where,

(a) The requirement, qualification or factor is reasonable and bona fide (in good faith) in the circumstances...

Arguments in support of respondent:

• Pandori and the Human Rights Commission argued that there had only been three reported incidents where a kirpan was used violently in a Toronto area and also none of these incidents happened in a school.

• No record or evidence of a Kirpan being used as a weapon in any Peel

school.
• Two other schools in Toronto allowed students to wear kirpans to school and no evidence was present to show that kirpans had caused any violence in other school.
• The Peel school board's policy was contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code and amounted to religious discrimination.

Arguments in support of Education (Appellant):
• Kirpans could be perceived by non-Sikhs as a weapon, and thus, a danger to bring to school.
• Kirpans are prohibited on Canadian airplane flights and judges in Manitoba courts have the power to exclude kirpans from their courtrooms.
• The Board also stated that its schools were special places, and the Ontario Human Rights Code has to be interpreted in light of this fact.
• It was reasonable to enforce its weapon ban on kirpans to ensure safety of all students under its jurisdiction. Also the Board could not accommodate the requirements of Khalsa Sikhs without any suffering.

Final Decision:

Appeal of Peel School board dismissed.

Rationale:

There was sufficient Evidence to support all the findings of fact of the Board of Inquiry. There was no error in law in its interpretation of the Human Rights Code, 1981 and no error in principle in the application of the Code to the facts of this case. Lack of evidence and cases of kirpans being used as weapons was a major contributor to the final decision. In addition, Peel board was not able to identify the religious garb of Khalsa Sikhs as a weapon.