Showing posts with label Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Show all posts

Thursday, January 11, 2024

British Columbia Court Says Jehovah's Witness Elders Must Submit Confidential Documents to Privacy Commissioner

In Vabuolas v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), (BC Sup. Ct., Jan. 8, 2024), the British Columbia Supreme Court upheld an order issued by the B.C. Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner over the objections raised by two elders of the Jehovah's Witness congregations. Petitioners claimed that the Order violated their rights under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As the court explained:

Two former members of the Jehovah's Witnesses each sought disclosure from their former congregations of all records that include their personal information. The elders of the congregations refused, arguing that disclosure of confidential religious notes would be contrary to their religious beliefs....

[Under B.C. Personal Information Protection Act] Where an individual has made an access request to an organization for a copy of personal information about the individual held by the organization, and the individual is dissatisfied with the organization’s response to the access request, they may ask the Commissioner to conduct a review. This is what happened in this case....

Of particular concern to the petitioners is that the groups of elders who meet to determine membership must be able to discuss matters in confidence and without fear of having their confidential discussions disclosed. The petitioners are concerned that if the elders’ confidential communications are disclosed, they may be further disseminated for the purposes of mocking either the petitioners or elders, causing unnecessary embarrassment....

I am not satisfied that disclosure of the Disputed Records by the congregational elders to the Commissioner for review for the purpose of determining whether disclosure to the Applicants will be required would preclude the elders from continuing to follow their religious practices when weighing the rights of individuals to control over their personal information on the one hand and the religious freedom of the elders on the other. The Production Order represents a balancing of the competing interests, and I conclude that the infringement on the congregational elders’ religious freedoms that results from the Production Order is proportionate....

I conclude that while ss. 23(1)(a) and 38(1)(b) of PIPA infringe the petitioners’ rights under s. 2(a) of the Charter, those rights are limited in a manner that is reasonably justified in a free and democratic society.

CBC News reports on the decision.

Friday, October 20, 2023

Canadian Court Says Oath to Monarchy Does Not Infringe Sikh Lawyer's Rights

In Wirring v. Law Society of Alberta, (AB KB, Oct. 16, 2023), the Court of King's Bench of the Canadian province of Alberta (sitting as a trial court) rejected a challenge to the oath of allegiance to the British monarch that law school graduates are required to take in order to be admitted to the Law Society and practice law in Alberta. According to the court:

Mr. Wirring is an amritdhari Sikh. He has pledged an absolute oath of allegiance to Akal Purakh, the divine being in the Sikh tradition. Mr. Wirring asserts that the oath of allegiance to the Queen is incompatible with the oath he has sworn to Akal Purakh.

The court held, however, that the oath requirement did not infringe plaintiff's freedom of religion, or his equality rights, that are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court said in part:

[117]  ... [T]he Oath of Allegiance ... should be interpreted ... not as an oath to the Queen as a person, but as a symbolic oath to our constitutional democracy by those seeking to be barristers and solicitors....

[165]      I ... accept Mr. Wirring’s own words that he can only see the Oath of Allegiance as an oath to the Queen. However, and importantly, I do not find that portion of his evidence to be part of his sincerely held religious belief. The conclusion that the Oath of Allegiance is an oath to the Queen is Mr. Wirring’s own legal interpretation....

[166]      ... [T]he interpretation of the Oath of Allegiance is an objective exercise performed by the Court....

[172]      Because I have found the Oath of Allegiance to be symbolic, Mr. Wirring is not required under the LPA to pledge allegiance to a spiritual or secular entity other than Akal Purakh. Therefore, there is no objective interference with Mr. Wirring’s freedom of religion by the state.

[173]      ... [I]t is Mr. Wirring’s misunderstanding of the Oath of Allegiance’s meaning, and not the requirement to take the Oath of Allegiance, which is preventing him from admission to the legal profession in Alberta.

YesPunjab reports on the decision.

Thursday, February 18, 2021

Canadian Court Refuses To Order Churches To Follow Health Orders Pending Hearing On Constitutionality

In Beaudoin v. British Columbia, (BC Sup. Ct., Feb. 17, 2021), a trial court in the Canadian province of British Columbia refused to issue an interlocutory injunction requiring three churches who are petitioners in the case to comply with COVID-19 public health orders banning in-person religious services in the province. The churches, clergy and another plaintiff filed suit challenging the public health orders as being in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A hearing on this challenge is scheduled for March 1.  Pending that hearing, the government sought immediate injunctions to prevent the churches from continuing to hold in-person services. Refusing to issue the requested injunction, the court said in part:

I am left to wonder what would be achieved by the issuance of an injunction in this case....

When asked, counsel for the respondents said that the respondents accept that the petitioners’ beliefs are deeply held, but in response to my question as to why an injunction was sought, responded that while the petitioners and others like them are not dissuaded from their beliefs and practices by the impugned orders, an order from this Court is more likely to accomplish their compliance.

Given the other remedies available to the respondents, I have reservations that an injunction alone, without enforcement by the B.C. Prosecution Service, would overcome the deeply held beliefs of the petitioners and their devotees.... 

Vancouver Sun reports on the decision.

Tuesday, July 30, 2019

Canadian Court Says West Bank Wines Cannot Be Labeled "Products of Israel"

In Kattenburg v. Attorney General of Canada, (Federal Ct. Canada, July 29, 2019), a judge of Canada's Federal Court held that labeling wine produced by wineries in the West Bank settlements of Shiloh and Psagot as "Products of Israel" is false, misleading and deceptive in violation of § 7(1) of Canada's Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and § 5(1) of Canada's Food and Drugs Act. The court said in part:
Both parties and both interveners agree that, whatever the legal status of the settlements may be, the fact is that they are not within the territorial boundaries of the State of Israel.
The court added:
[S]ome individuals opposed to the creation of Israeli Settlements in the West Bank express their opposition to the settlements and their support for the Palestinian cause through their purchasing choices, boycotting products produced in the Settlements. In order to be able to express their political views in this manner, however, consumers need to have accurate information as to the origin of the products under consideration. Identifying Settlement Wines incorrectly as “Products of Israel” inhibits the ability of such individuals to express their political views through their purchasing choices, thereby limiting their Charter-protected right to freedom of expression.
The Globe and Mail reports on the decision.

Thursday, May 16, 2019

Ontario Court Upholds Requirement That Objecting Doctors Refer Patients to Others

In Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, (Ont. Ct. App., May 15, 2019), the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected a constitutional challenge to two policies of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.  At issue is the requirement that physicians who object to providing any medical procedure or pharmaceuticals on the basis of religion or conscience must refer the patient to a non-objecting, available and accessible physician, health care professional or agency.  Physicians challenging the policies claimed they infringe their freedom of conscience and religion under Sec. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by requiring them to be complicit in procedures such as abortion or aid in dying that violate their religious beliefs. In a 74-page opinion, the court held while the policies infringe religious liberty, the infringement is justified under Sec. 1 of the Charter, because they are reasonable limits, demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The Globe & Mail reports on the decision.

Thursday, May 02, 2019

Canadian Court Refuses To Enjoin Law Allowing Gay Student Associations

In PT v Alberta, (Alberta Ct. App., April 29, 2019), the Alberta (Canada) Court of Appeal in a 2-1 decision upheld a trial court's refusal to issue an interim injunction staying operation of challenged provisions of the School Act while its constitutionality is being litigated.  At issue are provisions which empower students to create voluntary student organizations that create a welcoming environment, especially for LGBTQ+ students. Parents, along with numerous Christian schools and organizations, sued claiming that the law infringed their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by depriving parents of choice in the education of their children and their ability to educate their children in accordance with their moral and religious values. Calgary Star reports on the decision.

Monday, April 01, 2019

Canadian Tribunal Finds Anti-Transgender Election Pamphlet Amounts To Illegal Discrimination

In Canada, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal last week held that a Christian activist violated the province's Human Rights Code when he circulated a pamphlet attacking a candidate for the province's Legislative Assembly because of her transgender status.  In Oger v. Whatcott, (BCHRT, March 27, 2019), the Tribunal held that William Whatcott's conduct amounted to unlawful hate speech and discrimination against transgender advocate Morgane Ogerunder.  At issue was the application of Section 7 of the Human Rights Code which prohibits publications that, among other things, indicate an intent to discriminate or which likely expose a person to hatred or contempt on the basis of their gender identity or expression. As described by the Tribunal:
Mr. Whatcott created a flyer entitled “Transgenderism vs. Truth in Vancouver‐False Creek” [Flyer]. In it, he called Ms. Oger a “biological male who has renamed himself… after he embraced a transvestite lifestyle”. He expressed a concern “about the promotion and growth of homosexuality and transvestitism in British Columbia and how it is obscuring the immutable truth about our God given gender”. He described being transgender as an “impossibility”, which exposes people to harm and constitutes a sin. Mr. Whatcott ended the Flyer with a call to action: do not vote for Ms. Oger or the NDP.
In its 105-page opinion, the Tribunal rejected Whatcott's freedom of expression and religion defenses, balancing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms against the objectives of human rights legislation. Toronto Star reports on the opinion.

Thursday, October 22, 2015

Canadian Court: Grandparents Have No Right To Force Religious Exposure On Grandchild Over Mother's Objections

In A.R. and B.R. v. M.W. and L.R., (BC Prov. Ct., Oct. 21, 2015), a British Columbia (Canada) Provincial Court rejected an application by paternal grandparents for unsupervised contact time with their 4-year old granddaughter.  The grandparents want to be part of the child's life even though their son (the child's father) has little contact with them or with the child.  The child's mother, however, objects to the grandparents' insistence on taking the child to Jehovah's Witness religious services.  The court rejected the grandparents' claim that their right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to free exercise of religion has been infringed, saying:
No one is questioning the applicants’ right to practice their religion. This dispute arises from the applicants’ refusal to accept that they have no say in the religious and spiritual upbringing of A.W. They are not guardians and they do not have any parental responsibilities.
The court limited the grandparents' visits to one hour per month in the mother's home, supervised by the mother.  CBC News reports on the decision.

Friday, December 20, 2013

Canada's Supreme Court Strikes Down Country's Laws Restricting Activities Relating To Prostitution

In a decision today in which 3 religious groups were among the numerous interveners, the Supreme Court of Canada held unconstituitonal three provisions of Canada's criminal code which prohibit certain activities related to prostitution.  In Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, (Sup. Ct. Can., Dec. 20, 2013), the Court held unanimously that the prohibition on keeping or being in a bawdy‑house; living on the avails of prostitution; and communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution, are unconstitutional under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Sec. 7 which protects life, liberty and security, saying in part:
The prohibitions all heighten the risks the applicants face in prostitution — itself a legal activity.  They do not merely impose conditions on how prostitutes operate.  They go a critical step further, by imposing dangerous conditions on prostitution; they prevent people engaged in a risky — but legal — activity from taking steps to protect themselves from the risks.
However the Court suspended the effectiveness of its judgment for one year in order to give Parliament time to enact a new approach to regulating prostitution.  CBC News reports on the decision. In a press release reacting to the decision, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada(one of the Interveners in the case) said:
In light of today’s decision, we urge the federal government to enact new laws to protect vulnerable women, children and men from victimization and being trafficked.
The Catholic Civil Rights League and Christian Legal Fellowship (the other religious interveners) also issued press releases reacting to the decision. [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]