Charity Fraud Claims May Proceed Against Christian Apologetics Ministry

In Carrier v. Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, Inc., (ND GA, May 13, 2022), a Georgia federal district court allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with some of their charity fraud claims against RZIM, a Christian apologetics ministry, and the estate of its founder Ravi Zacharias. Plaintiffs claims include ones of unjust enrichment and violation of the state's Fair Business Practice Act. The court describes plaintiffs' claims:

They allege that the Defendants “bilked hundreds of millions of dollars from well-meaning contributors who believed RZIM and Zacharias to be faith-filled Christian leaders,” when “[i]n fact, Zacharias was a prolific sexual predator who used his ministry and RZIM funds to perpetrate sexual and spiritual abuse against women.”... 

Responding to defendants' assertion of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine as a defense, the court said in part:

The Court will exercise jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ claims to the extent they are predicated on misuse-of-funds allegations but not faith-based allegations. At bottom, the faith-based allegations ask the Court to examine the theology and customs of Christianity and Christian apologetics to determine whether Zacharias and RZIM fulfilled the religion’s (and the Plaintiffs’) moral standards. The Court would have to make inherently ecclesiastical determinations as part of this inquiry, such as what it means to be a “faith-filled, moral, and upstanding Christian leader” ..., and whether Zacharias’s alleged sexual misconduct is “diametrically opposed to the teachings of Christianity.”... It is not the role of federal courts to answer these kinds of questions “because that would require defining the very core of what the religious body as a whole believes.”... 

On the other hand, the Court believes that the Plaintiffs’ misuse-of funds allegations do not pose the same First Amendment concerns. Those allegations, and the claims associated with them, raise what amounts to a secular factual question: whether the Defendants solicited funds for one purpose (i.e., Christian evangelism) but instead used those funds for another purpose (i.e., to perpetrate and cover up sexual abuse). That dispute “concerns the [D]efendants’ actions, not their beliefs,” and can be decided according to state statutes and common law principles. 

Trial Court's Resolution Of Church Factional Dispute Is Upheld

In Chung v. Kim, (CA App., April 1, 2022), a California state appellate court held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion in dealing with a dispute between two factions in a Korean American church.  The court expalined:

Appellant Jang Geun Chung is an “Active Elder” at OMC and the leader of one faction, and OMC’s Senior Pastor, respondent Chi Hoon Kim, is the leader of the other faction. Prior to the initiation of the trial court proceedings, these individuals were the only two members of OMC’s “Session,” or board of directors. Chung and the Senior Pastor do not agree on whom to nominate as another Active Elder on the Session. Had Chung and the Senior Pastor concurred on the selection of one or more nominees, then any candidate receiving a vote of two-thirds or more of OMC’s congregation would have been elected to the Active Elder position and ultimately would have joined the Session.

Chung and the other members of his faction ... filed suit against the Senior Pastor and the two other members of his faction....  The trial court granted appellants’ motion, reasoning that the Senior Pastor had acted improperly in unilaterally selecting the candidates and scheduling the election. The court then ... ordered that a new election be held....  Appellants contest the trial court’s order adopting respondents’ proposed procedures for the new election....

The court rejected the argument that the trial court's order violated the Establishment Clause, saying in part:

Even assuming the eligibility determination for the Active Elder position calls for the resolution of an ecclesiastical matter, the trial court could not defer to a decision from the relevant authoritative ecclesiastical body—i.e., the Session. Specifically, the parties concede that because the Senior Pastor and Chung were unable to agree on nominees for this position (i.e., no candidate could “receive[ ] a vote of 2/3 or more” of the Session, as required by Art. 51(3)), the Session is “deadlocked” on this issue....  Appellants do not cite authority for the proposition that the Establishment Clause barred the trial court from resolving this impasse by allowing each member of the deadlocked authoritative ecclesiastical body to select his own candidate for the election.

Court Dismisses Unification Church Trademark Dispute On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity v. World Peace and Unification Sanctuary, Inc., (MD PA, March 30, 2022), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a trademark dispute between the Unification Church (HSA), led by the late Rev. Sun Myung Moon's wife, and defendant Unification Sanctuary, an organization created by Rev. Sun Myung Moon's son to spread Rev. Moon's teachings. At issue is the right of Sanctuary to use the trademarked Twelve Gates symbol. The court said in part:

While it is undisputed that the Twelve Gates symbol is registered with the USPTO in HSA’s name, Sanctuary contends that the Twelve Gates symbol is not entitled to trademark protection because the symbol has become generic as a universal religious symbol that represents Unificationism generally....

[T]he implicit question raised ... is whether Sanctuary can be classified as a branch of the Unificationist church in light of the apparent fundamental disagreements between the parties relating to the beliefs and practice of this religion. Indeed, while Sanctuary classifies itself as a Unificationist church, HSA vehemently disputes this assertion.... [I]t is well-settled that the court cannot resolve church disputes on the basis of religious doctrine and practice....

HSA’s registration of the Twelve Gates symbol with the USPTO constitutes prima facie evidence that it owns this trademark right....  However, Sanctuary has contested HSA’s ownership on inherently religious grounds. Specifically, Sanctuary has alleged that Sean Moon is the owner of all Unificationist property as the heir of Rev. Moon, and that he therefore owns the trademark to the Twelve Gates symbol since he controls the Unificationist Church, and by extension, HSA as a branch of same.

Plainly, this is a dispute that the court cannot resolve without venturing into issues of church leadership or organization—an area in which the Southern District of New York and the Second Circuit have already determined is inappropriate in a similar dispute presented by the same parties.

Defamation Suit Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Heras v. Diocese of Corpus Christie, (TX App, March 10, 2022), a Texas state appellate court affirmed the dismissal on ecclesiastical abstention grounds of defamation suits by two priests who were included on the diocese's list of clergy who have been credibly accused of sexually abusing a minor. The court said in part:

[W]e hold appellants’ defamation suits are barred by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine because the substance and nature of the appellants’ claims against appellees are inextricably intertwined with appellees’ internal directive for openness and transparency.... More specifically, appellants’ claims are inextricably intertwined with appellees’ decision to release the list incompliance with an internal church directive....

Priest's Suit For Reinstatement Dismissed

In Iwuchukwu v. Archdiocese for the Military Services,(D DC, Feb. 11, 2022), the D.C. federal district court dismissed a suit by a former Catholic priest who worked at Georgetown University Hospital and the Department of Veterans Affairs.  After a woman accused the priest of sexually abusing her, the Archdiocese revoked his faculties and endorsement so he could not work as a Catholic pastor.  Legal authorities did not pursue charges against the priest because the statute of limitations had run; the priest submitted polygraph results supporting his denial of wrongdoing.  However the Archdiocese refused to reinstate him.  He sued claiming violation of the 14th Amendment's due process clause and illegal retaliation against him for filing an employment discrimination claim. The court held that the suit should be dismissed under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine because this:

plainly concerns the composition of the clergy and a matter of church discipline.... Moreover, the conferral of faculties and an endorsement on a priest is a purely religious decision that cannot be reviewed by courts.

The court concluded that his claim for retaliation in violation of the D.C. employment discrimination law should be dismissed because of the statutory exemption for religious organizations.

Pastor's Suit Against Church For Mishandling Investigation Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Taylor v. Evangelical Covenant Church, (IL App., Jan. 12, 2022), an Illinois state appeals court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a suit by a pastor against his former church for breach of contract and intentional interference with economic advantage. Plaintiff claimed that the church carelessly handled an investigation into malicious accusations against him of sexual assault supposedly occurring some forty years earlier, before plaintiff became a pastor. Plaintiff was suspended during the investigation, and after the suspension was lifted he was never returned to his former position. The court said in part:

Even viewed in the light most favorable to him, plaintiff’s claims arise from a wholly internal investigation and suspension conducted by his church. Plaintiff’s claims are inexorably intertwined with defendant’s investigation as to whether he was fit to serve as a pastor, given the accusation of sexual misconduct against him. That is, the substance of plaintiff’s complaint relates to internal matters of church governance and discipline. Ecclesiastical abstention is required because this case necessarily involves matters of internal discipline....  [N]o matter how egregiously defendant may have departed from proper investigatory procedures, the subject matter of the dispute makes abstention compulsory.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Bars Adjudication Of Some Claims In Dispute Between Church Factions

In In re Thomas, (TX App., Jan.14, 2022), Jan. 14, 2022), a Texas state appellate court ruled on the extent to which the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine bars various claims in a dispute between two factions in a Baptist church over who should be its pastor and which faction controls its large bank account. The court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine bars civil courts from ruling on the deacons' authority to terminate the church's pastor and on whether one group is obligated to relinquish control over the church's financial records and bank account. However, the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine did not necessarily bar adjudication of claims for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion of church funds and access to the church's books, records and bank statements.

Church Dispute Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Iglesia Pentecostal Filadelfia, Inc. v. Rodriguez, (TX App., Dec. 29, 2021), a Texas state appellate court affirmed a trial court's dismissal of an internal church dispute on ecclesiastical abstention grounds. Jose  Rodriguez, Jr. took over as pastor of the church when his mother passed away. Plaintiffs sued on behalf of the church challenging Rodriguez's actions in that role. The court said in part:

Here, the trial court found that neither side complied with the Church’s organizational and governing documents, including the Bylaws, a decision we find support for in the record .... Therefore, we find that a determination of the Church’s claims at issue would impermissibly embroil the trial court in a religious controversary to include choosing its church leaders....

Further, the Church’s second declaration is clearly a matter of church authority or governance as opposed to substantively and effectively a property dispute as it asks the trial court to declare that “[Jose Jr.] has no right or authority to act on the behalf of [the Church] and its congregation.”

Moreover, to develop the Church’s conversion claim would impermissibly force the trial court to decide the Church’s corporate governance because to do so would require it to determine which board to inquire of for the reason behind the alleged unlawful use of funds.

Fraud and Emotional Distress Claims Against Archdiocese Are Dismissed

In Dux v. Bugarin, (MI App., Dec. 21, 2021), a Michigan state appellate court dismissed an intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claim and a fraud claim growing out of the Archdiocese of Detroit's removal of an accused Catholic priest supported by plaintiffs. The court describes plaintiffs' claims:

In their IIED count, plaintiffs claimed defendants’ statement that the allegations of sexual abuse were credible was an “extreme and outrageous act.” In their fraud count, plaintiffs alleged the Archdiocese asked its parishioners, including plaintiffs, to donate money to the Catholic Services Appeal (CSA). Plaintiffs alleged the Archdiocese represented the donations would be used for church ministry and would not be used to settle claims “of any nature” against the Archdiocese.

Dismissing the IIED claim under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, the court said in part:

The trial court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ IIED claim because resolution of that claim would require the trial court to delve into matters of ecclesiastical policy concerning how the Archdiocese investigates and evaluates claims of sexual abuse made against its clergy.... [A]ny inquiry into the means and methods by which the Archdiocese evaluates such claims would require the trial court to inquire into ecclesiastical matters forbidden under the First Amendment.

Dismissing plaintiffs' fraud claims, the court said that one of the fraud claims-- that they were defrauded by the statement that donations would be used for the church "ministry"-- would require courts to impermissibly inquire into internal church matters. It would need to decide whether "ministry" includes investigation into sex abuse claims and providing treatment for victims. Turning to a second fraud claim, the court said in part:

Turning then to whether plaintiffs otherwise stated a claim for fraud on the basis of the statement that CSA donations would not be used to settle claims against the Archdiocese, plaintiffs’ claim is premised on the theory that the Archdiocese had a duty to disclose the information about the true purpose of the donations.

“Michigan courts have recognized that silence cannot constitute actionable fraud unless it occurred under circumstances where there was a legal duty of disclosure.”

Automatic Stay of Suits In Bankruptcy Prevents State Court Defamation Suit Against Diocese

In In re Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Santa Fe, (NM Bkruptcy., Sept. 17, 2021), a New Mexico federal bankruptcy court refused to lift the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay of suits which the Diocese of Santa Fe enjoys while going through bankruptcy reorganization proceedings. Rudy Blea, a former lay minister in the Catholic Church, sought to bring a state court defamation action against the Diocese for wrongfully placing him on a list of "Priests, Deacons, and Religious Accused of Sexual Abuse of Children." He claims that his lay position places him outside the description of those included in the list. He also contends that a relationship he had when he was 19 with 17 year old Gary House was consensual. Subsequently Blea settled a suit against him brought by House. Now the bankruptcy court said in part:

[T]he Court finds that Blea has not carried his burden of showing that cause exists to modify the automatic stay. Blea has an uphill battle to win his defamation claim and get money damages. His chance of obtaining his desired equitable relief from this Court is vanishingly small, for the reasons outlined above. It makes no sense to allow Blea to tilt at this windmill, nor to force Debtor (and other creditors) to incur the expense of defending the charge.

The court did however hold that the Bankruptcy Court:

has jurisdiction to hear Blea’s defamation claim and award money damages if appropriate, applying neutral principles of law. It also has jurisdiction to enjoin further publication of defamatory statements, if defamation is proved. It does not have jurisdiction, however, to order that Blea be removed from the List, nor to adjudicate Blea’s challenge to Debtor’s decision that he was close enough to the church in 1970 to warrant inclusion on the List.

Bishop's Suit for Indemnification Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Kawimbe v. The African Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc., (ND GA, Aug. 27, 2028), a Georgia federal district court dismissed a suit by the Bishop of a church district covering part of South Africa.  The bishop's suit sought indemnification from the Church (a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation) for his successful defense before a church tribunal of charges bought against him by a minister in South Africa. The court held that the suit is not precluded by the ministerial exception doctrine because "the Church’s decision to deny Kawimbe indemnification does not implicate its right to select its ministers." The court concluded however that the suit should be dismissed under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, saying in part:

Under Pennsylvania law, if a representative of a non-profit corporation succeeds on the merits in an action or proceeding brought against him “by reason of” his representative status, the non-profit corporation must indemnify him...

To determine whether Kawimbe is or was a representative of the Church, the Court would be required to scrutinize “the composition of [the Church and AMEC’s] hierarchy,” including the nature of Kawimbe’s role as a bishop, which are matters of “core ecclesiastical concern.”...

[T]o determine whether the internal proceeding was brought “by reason of” Kawimbe’s role as a representative of the Church, the Court would have to consider the responsibilities and powers given to Kawimbe in his role as bishop and whether the accusations against him involved those responsibilities and powers. This inquiry would necessarily entangle the Court in matters of church governance. 

Mississippi Supreme Court Rejects Claims By Pastor's Former Wife Against His Church On Unusual Facts

In Woodard v. Miller, (MS Sup. Ct., Aug. 12, 2021), the Mississippi Supreme Court applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine in an unusual context.  Plaintiff Kim Miller married Andrew Johnson when he was a seminary student studying to be a United Methodist Church minister. Church officials encouraged Miller to give up her higher education plans to serve as a minister's wife, and told her that the church would provide for her needs. After more than 20 years of marriage, Miller filed for divorce. She took this step after Johnson confessed to her that he was gay, had contracted HIV from an extramarital affair, and had infected Miller.

Miller sued her ex-husband, the United Methodist Church Conference and a fellow-pastor asserting a variety of claims. She asserted that "had the conference and the fellow minister followed United Methodist policy and procedure, they would have discovered Johnson’s behavior and remedied it or warned Miller before she contracted HIV."

The court dismissed plaintiff's claims against the church, saying in part:

[U]nder the First Amendment, for Miller’s claim to proceed against MUMC, the claimed assumed duty cannot be religious or ecclesiastical in nature.... And we are hard-pressed to see how Miller’s claim would hold up if it were against a non-religious employer. Though Miller personally interpreted MUMC’s promise to provide for her and her family if she gave up her own career goals as both an assurance of sufficient financial remuneration and a guarantee against her husband committing adultery, such an interpretation would be considered wholly unreasonable if the promise was being made by, say, a law firm, a hospital, or a technology company. In other words, Miller interpreted the assurances of MUMC ministers as including guaranteeing the success of her marriage and family life precisely because her fiancé was going into church ministry. Thus, her claim fails because the religious nature of his employer cannot be the basis for recognizing a legal duty....

The court dismissed Miller's claim against the fellow-pastor because: "a fiduciary duty cannot arise merely from a minister-church member relationship."

Finally, the court, over the dissent of two judges allowed plaintiff to move ahead on her claims against her former husband, rejecting his defense that the claims against him were released as part of the divorce settlement. The majority held that Johnson had waived this defense.

Fraud Claim Against Catholic Diocese Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, (TX App, Aug. 11, 2021), a Texas state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires dismissal of a suit alleging that a Catholic diocese committed fraud when it failed to follow its own internal policies for responding to clergy sex-abuse claims after plaintiff reported that he had been sexually abused by a Diocesan priest. The court said in part:

[A] court would have to evaluate whether ... the Dallas Diocese implemented its policy under the canonical meanings of "minor," "sexual abuse," and "vulnerable adult." This would necessitate a secular investigation into the Dallas Diocese's understanding of those terms.... Such an inquiry would cause a court to evaluate whether the Dallas Diocese properly applied canon law and "interlineate its own views" of canonical terms....

Furthermore, in the context of a religious organization's choices in investigating and regulating its formal leaders and people ordained for religious duties, "any investigation would necessarily put to question the internal decision making of a church judicatory body."...

Dispute Over Church Vote On Hiring Pastor May Move Ahead

In Howard v. Heritage Fellowship, (VA Cir. Ct., June 30, 2021), a Virginia state trial court refused to dismiss a suit by five church members challenging the membership vote on employment of a senior pastor.  The court said in part:

... Plaintiffs bring suit in concern of whether "the Deacons Board's decision to finalize the membership roll after the results of the 2018 election was in compliance with Bylaws, Constitution and other applicable policies."... [N]one of this request requires the Court to delve into a religious thicket by reviewing religious principles of membership.... [T]here is no allegation ... of a doctrinal dispute between two factions, HFC also lacks an internal tribunal to decide conflicts.... Since HFC lacks internal tribunals to rule on such matters, civil court action is necessary to resolve this dispute.

The court also concluded that the ministerial exception doctrine does not apply, despite the fact that the dispute revolves around selection of the church's minister, saying in part:

Although the language of the ministerial exception does not explicitly state it cannot be applied to other scenarios, that silence does not mean it may extend to election issues. Here, Plaintiffs only ask for democratic, neutral principles of law to be enforced. The Court is not asked to determine whether Reverend Sullivan would make a good Pastor, or if he may stay within said position.

Content of Sermon Protected By Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Hullibarger v. Archdiocese of Detroit, (MI App., July 8, 2021), a Michigan state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires dismissal of a suit claiming that a priest's sermon at the funeral of plaintiff's son amounted to intentional infliction of emotional distress, misrepresentation and invasion of privacy. The court also held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires dismissal of  a negligent hiring, supervision and retention claim. According to the court:

Plaintiff’s son committed suicide in early December 2018, but his family kept the manner of his death from the public. Plaintiff’s pastor, defendant Father Don LaCuesta, officiated at the funeral and during his homily revealed the suicide of plaintiff’s son to the public. He then proceeded to preach about suicide as a grave sin and specifically about how it endangered the immortal soul of plaintiff’s son.

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Ecclesiastical Abstention Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in North American Mission Board v. McRaney, (Docket No. 20-1158, certiorari denied 6/28/2021). (Order List.) In the case the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a vote of 9-8, denied en banc review of a panel decision that had refused to invoke the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine in a dispute between the Mission Board and its former executive director. (See prior posting.)

Cert. Denied In Unification Church Leadership Dispute

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Moon v. Moon,   (Docket No. 20-1415, certiorari denied 6/14/2021). (Order List) (Links to pleadings.) In the case, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in a Nov. 5, 2020 decision (full text) applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to refuse to adjudicate a dispute over who is the true leader of the Unification Church.

Deacon's Defamation Suit Against Diocese Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In In re Diocese of Lubbock, (TX Sup. Ct., June 11, 2021), the Texas Supreme Court in a 7-1 decision, held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires the trial court to dismiss an action for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress brought by against the Diocese of Lubbock by one of its ordained deacons. The deacon's name was included on a published list of those against whom credible allegations of sexual abuse of a minor have been raised. The deacon contended that he was wrongly included on the list because the person accusing him was not a minor. The court said in part:

[T]he Diocese ... based the scope of its investigation on the canonical meaning of minor: “a person who habitually lacks the use of reason,” which includes “vulnerable adults.” Thus, a court would have to evaluate whether the Diocese had credible allegations against Guerrero under the canonical meaning of “minor.” This would necessarily entail a secular investigation into the Diocese’s understanding of the term “minor,” whether a court agrees that the woman he allegedly sexually abused qualifies as a “minor” under Canon Law, and whether the allegations it possesses were sufficiently “credible.” ...

This inquiry would not only cause a court to evaluate whether the Diocese properly applied Canon Law but would also permit the same court to interlineate its own views of a Canonical term. Indeed, any investigation would necessarily put to question the internal decision making of a church judicatory body.

Justice Blacklock filed a concurring opinion. Justice Boyd filed a lengthy dissenting opinion. The briefs and oral arguments in the case are available online.

In a companion case in a per curiam order in Diocese of Lubbock v. Guerrero,(TX Sup. Ct., June 11, 2021), the court vacated and dismissed a trial court order in a suit invoking the Texas Citizens Participation Act.

Church's Suit Against Bank Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Eglise Baptiste Bethanie De Ft. Lauderdale, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A., (FL App., May 26, 2021), a Florida state appellate court, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed the dismissal of a suit by a Baptist church against a bank for negligently transferring control of the church's bank accounts to the widow of the deceased pastor. The court said in part:

Here, although the Church’s negligence claims against the Banks involve a question of control over bank accounts, in order to resolve those claims the court would necessarily have to decide which faction within the Church controls the bank accounts. The only way for the court to make this determination is for it to consider the Church’s internal governance structure. “[Q]uestions of church governance are manifestly ecclesiastical.” Id. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.

Judge Winter dissented, saying in part:

Appellants argued that the case could be decided on neutral legal principles, and to determine otherwise goes beyond the four corners of the complaint. At best, therefore, dismissal was premature. The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies to church property disputes in hierarchical religious organizations. A different rule applies to churches which are congregational organizations. Based upon the correct rule, dismissal was error.

Canadian Supreme Court Refuses To Invalidate Archbishop's Expulsion of Church Members

In Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church of Canada St. Mary Cathedral v. Aga, (Sup Ct Canada, May 21, 2021), the Supreme Court of Canada refused to invalidate an Archbishop's expulsion of five church members. The expelled members had been critical of the Archbishop's refusal to accept a recommendation of a committee investigating a movement which some saw as heretical. The members argued that their expulsions violated principles of natural justice because they had no opportunity to hear or contest the charges against them. The court held, however, that "there is no free‑standing right to procedural fairness with respect to decisions taken by voluntary associations." The court explained its decision:

Jurisdiction to intervene in the affairs of a voluntary association depends on the existence of a legal right which the court is asked to vindicate. Here, the only viable candidate for a legal right justifying judicial intervention is contract. The finding of a contract between members of a voluntary association does not automatically follow from the existence of a written constitution and bylaws. Voluntary associations with constitutions and bylaws may be constituted by contract, but this is a determination that must be made on the basis of general contract principles, and objective intention to enter into legal relations is required. In this case, evidence of an objective intention to enter into legal relations is missing. As such, there is no contract, there is no jurisdiction, and there is no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Canadian law however does permit courts to intervene in religious decisions more readily than America courts are willing to do, as illustrated by this summary by the Court:

[W]hile purely theological issues are not justiciable ..., where a legal right is at issue, courts may need to consider questions that have a religious aspect in vindicating the legal right.... For example, courts adjudicating disputes over church property may need to consider adherence to the church’s internal rules, even where those rules are meant to give effect to religious commitments.  

Law Times reports on the decision.