FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,781
- Points
- 1,160
The Supreme Court of Canada has come down with two related decisions (seven judges concurring with two dissenting) respecting the law societies of Ontario and British Columbia denying accreditation to TWU because it's mandatory religious based covenant restricted access to members of the LGBT community.
The SCC determined that the law societies were entitled to consider the effect of the covenant in determining whether or not to accredit TWU.
The following are key quotes from the Ontario decision.
The BC decision is the longer more detailed explanation for the ruling.
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17140/index.do
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17141/index.do
:cheers:
The SCC determined that the law societies were entitled to consider the effect of the covenant in determining whether or not to accredit TWU.
The following are key quotes from the Ontario decision.
[1] Trinity Western University (TWU), an evangelical Christian postsecondary institution, seeks to open a law school that requires its students and faculty to adhere to a religiously based code of conduct prohibiting “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman”.
[19] In this case, the LSUC [Law Society of Upper Canada now Ontario] interpreted its duty to uphold and protect the public interest as precluding the approval of TWU’s proposed law school because the mandatory Covenant effectively imposes inequitable barriers on entry to the school. The LSUC was entitled to be concerned that inequitable barriers on entry to law schools would effectively impose inequitable barriers on entry to the profession and risk decreasing diversity within the bar. Ultimately, the LSUC determined that the approval of TWU’s law school, as proposed, would negatively affect equitable access to and diversity within the legal profession and would harm LGBTQ individuals, which would be inconsistent with the public interest.
The BC decision is the longer more detailed explanation for the ruling.
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17140/index.do
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17141/index.do
:cheers: