Religious freedom to discriminate on disability grounds … Anglicans in court … Illness has no place in God’s design, especially when money is involved … Diocese of the Murray … Allegations of bullying … Janek Drevikovsky reports from the City of Churches 

The Lord works in mysterious ways.  

Now The Venerable Dr Peter Carlsson taken the Synod to the Federal Court, alleging discrimination. 

There’s no final outcome yet but Justice Tony Besanko, the court’s man on duty in Adelaide, has refused an injunction to keep the priest on the church’s payroll because Carlsson’s cancer treatment will make things too inconvenient for the local diocese. 

The respondents are the local bishop John Ford and the synod. Carlsson is a lifelong man of the cloth who fell gravely ill in 2012 – a hematoma on his spine, emergency surgery, leading to partial paralysis, a near-total loss of sensation and problems with walking and bowel function.  

Nonetheless, The Venerable Carlsson returned to work. In 2014, he was made archdeacon of the SA Diocese of the Murray where he had to coordinate parish priests, cover for absentees, and conduct a “travelling ministry”. The job came with a house, a car and a stipend. The diocese stretches from Adelaide’s southern suburbs to the Victorian border.

In 2015, Carlsson became Vicar General of the diocese, meaning he had to fill in whenever the bishop took a holiday. That post came with no remuneration. 

Fast forward to June 2018, when struggling with his illness, Carlsson took extended sick leave. By August, he was still away from work and that month the bishop, John Ford, appointed a new Vicar General.  

By January 2019 the venerable doctor had been absent for 180 consecutive days – exactly the period of absence before the bishop could fire him. Poor Carlsson was sacked from the archdeaconship on January 3. 

The same day, the dean of the local cathedral accused Carlsson of nicking several candles and two priestly robes. Carlsson was arrested and charged with theft, but the charges were dropped.

Around this time, Carlsson was diagnosed with bowel cancer, apparently unrelated to his existing illnesses. He began a course of treatment. 

Then, in February, Carlsson wrote to the Human Rights Commission, complaining that by sacking him the bishop and the diocesan synod had breached s.15 of the Disability Discimination Act.  

Carlsson’s says the diocese hired him knowing he was disabled. It was the bishop’s idea for him to take sick leave in mid-2018. The bishop then “contrived” to keep him away from work 180 days, bullying him during meetings. The main reason for his dismissal was his disability. 

The respondents argue Carlsson’s case is weak – he never expressed a desire or an ability to return to work. In their opinion, Carlsson actually said he wanted to stay away, and even made an insurance claim for permanent incapacity. 

In April, the applicant filed for an interim injunction to preserve the status quo, under s.46PP of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act  . 

Besanko thought Carlsson had at least an arguable prima facie case and also held the balance of convenience. In particular, HH held that even if Carlsson later won damages, they would not fully compensate the loss of the rectory and the motor.

The church said it was on a “tight budget” and couldn’t afford to keep paying Carlsson if he couldn’t do the work. Besanko rejected this, saying there was no express evidence about the church’s finances. 

HH granted the first injunction, ruling Carlsson could stay as archdeacon and keep his car, gaff and stipend – until the AHRC dealt with the complaint.  

Then, in early May the AHRC terminated Carlsson’s complaint. Carlsson launched full proceedings in the Federal Court, as he was entitled to do. 

He applied for a second injunction, in identical terms to the first. The only difference was the head of power – the first injunction was issued under s.46PP, which applies only until the AHRC finalised the complaint. The second injunction was sought under s.46PO(6), which is relevant once a case is before the court.   

Besanko held these two powers operated under separate principles. He was therefore entitled to grant an injunction under the first power, but refuse one under the second. 

By now, the judge also had more information about Carlsson’s bowel cancer treatment – requiring chemotherapy and several surgeries, making for a 40-50 percent chance of full cure. The treatment would keep him away from work for at least four months. 

The new information changed the judge’s thinking: 

“The tragedy of this case is that the matter which tips the balance of convenience in the respondents’ favour is the serious illness the applicant has.” 

Carlsson’s inability to work would mean, if the injunction were granted, the church would haemorrhage money. The wretched parishioners of the Murray Diocese would be without their archdeacon, and the bishop would have a higher workload.  

His Honour recognised Carlsson would suffer:

“I am prepared to proceed on the basis that the refusal of an injunction will result in substantial hardship to the applicant, with the caveat that the precise extent of the hardship is unknown.”

So no injunction for the venerable one. The case continues, with substantive hearings yet to come. 

Venerable Dr Carlsson v Right Reverend Ford 

Extra bit: