North York General Hospital’s (NYGH) lawyer Elisha Jamieson-Davies vowed to initiate legal action against former pediatric occupational therapist Wanh Porter if she did not agree to not speak from the Bible during future court hearings. .“As should be apparent, a case where the central claim is Christian discrimination and where the Plaintiff was plainly religiously motivated in her actions, spontaneous answers from the Plaintiff will inevitably involve explanations of her beliefs and how those beliefs are guided by the portions of Scripture,” said Liberty Coalition Canada (LCC) chief counsel James Kitchen in a statement. .“Hearing from the plaintiff her understanding and application of verses in the Bible that informed her decisions is both relevant and contributes to the Defendant’s understanding of the Plaintiff’s case against it.” .Porter initiated a wrongful dismissal and discrimination lawsuit against NYGH in 2022 after it fired her for being unvaccinated. .READ MORE: Pediatric therapist sues North York Hospital for wrongful dismissal over vax status.At first, she was only required to complete an education module about COVID-19 vaccines, declining to take them because of her religious beliefs. .She and other unvaccinated staff were required to undergo COVID-19 testing every three days a few months later. NYGH implemented a vaccine mandate and vowed to put on leave and fire all staff who did not comply unless they were granted an exemption. .LCC said the case of Porter vs. NYGH hit a snag during the discovery phase, where each party probes the other to discover the strength of their arguments. It said she attended discovery in her wrongful dismissal lawsuit in May. .When questioned by Jamieson-Davies why she acted a certain way, Porter said she was guided by the Holy Spirit and began to read a verse from the Bible. Jamieson-Davies interrupted her, saying she was not allowed to read from it. .Kitchen explained Porter was entitled to read from the Bible while describing her Christian beliefs and how she received guidance from God in making the decisions she was questioned about..Jamieson-Davies refused to continue with the discovery because they rejected her demand not to read from it. .Following the aborted discovery, Jamieson-Davies wrote to Kitchen threatening court action if Porter did not agree to refrain from reading the Bible as part of her answers to questions. He maintained his position and invited her to follow through with her threat. .More letters ensued. Eventually, she abandoned her demand and agreed to resume discovery, which will occur some time this fall. .LCC said the centrepiece of Porter’s lawsuit is she lives her life in accordance with the Bible and God’s will for it — the reason her employment was terminated — so whatever answer she gives would include quoting various verses. .In a case where a religious employee has been fired for not forsaking his or her religious beliefs, there are three items which can be at issue — the sincerity of these beliefs, the connection of those beliefs to a religion, and whether they were interfered with in an important way..Not only would she be disserviced by not being allowed to explain her beliefs from their source, LCC said it is unclear why the opposing party would not want to do so. .It acknowledged the best way to discover what Bible-believing Christians believe is to invite them to explain it in the clearest way possible by reference to it. .Kitchen and LCC said they are pleased this attempt to censor Porter has failed and look forward to moving her wrongful dismissal case forward by reattending discovery with her this fall. .He concluded by saying there is “no purpose and little value in reading Bible verses at the end of an answer.” .“The Plaintiff’s position remains the same: There is no impropriety or prejudice to the Defendant arising from Mrs. Porter occasionally reading from Scripture while providing the very answers you seek — answers about what she believes, why she believes it, and how and why those beliefs were the motivation for any particular action she took or decision she made,” he said..NYGH declined to comment.
