Trinity Western Drops Community Covenant Requirement For Students

As previously reported, in June the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the decision by two provinces to refuse to accredit Trinity Western University's proposed new law school. The provinces took the action because of the University's religious-based Community Covenant which, among other things, barred students, faculty and staff from "sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman."  In response, last week the University announced that the Covenant will no longer be mandatory for students.  However, as reported by Inside Higher Ed, the Covenant will remain mandatory for faculty, staff and administrators. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead via TaxProf Blog.]

Canada's Supreme Court Will Review Two Trinity Western Law School Cases

On Feb. 23, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear appeals in Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada (Ontario) (summary of case) and Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, et. al. (British Columbia) (summary of case). At issue is the question of whether the Law Societies in various provinces can refuse to accredit Trinity Western University Law School because of its code of conduct based on evangelical Christian teachings.  In particular, the law school refuses to recognize same-sex marriages and requires students to sign its Community Covenant that, among other things, prohibits sexual intimacy outside of a marriage between one man and one woman. TaxProf Blog has more on the Supreme Court's action. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Trinity Western Law School Wins Appeal In British Columbia

In Trinity Western University v. Law Society of British Columbia, (BC Ct. App., Nov. 1, 2016), the Court of Appeal for the Canadian province of British Columbia held that the province's Law Society acted unreasonably when it denied approval to a proposed new law school at the Christian-affiliated Trinity Western University. The Law Society's vote was a reaction to a requirement at the University that students sign a Community Covenant that, among other things, does not recognize same-sex marriage. The court summarized its decision in part as follows:

The issue on appeal is whether the Law Society met its statutory duty to reasonably balance the conflicting Charter rights engaged by its decision: the sexual orientation equality rights of LGBTQ persons and the religious freedom and rights of association of evangelical Christians. The Benchers initially voted to approve TWU’s law school. That decision was met with a backlash from members of the Law Society who viewed it as endorsement of discrimination against LGBTQ persons. The Benchers decided to hold a referendum and to be bound by the outcome. A majority of lawyers voted against approval. The Benchers then reversed their earlier position and passed a resolution not to approve TWU’s law school.

In doing so, the Benchers abdicated their responsibility to make the decision entrusted to them by the Legislature. They also failed to weigh the impact of the decision on the rights engaged. It was not open to the Benchers to simply adopt the decision preferred by the majority. The impact on Charter rights must be assessed concretely, based on evidence and not perception.

... [D]enying approval would not enhance access to law school for LGBTQ students. In contrast, a decision not to approve TWU’s law school would have a severe impact on TWU’s rights.... 

In a diverse and pluralistic society, government regulatory approval of entities with differing beliefs is a reflection of state neutrality. It is not an endorsement of a group’s beliefs.

CBC News reports on the decision. [Thanks to David Fernandes for the lead.]

Nova Scotia Appeals Court Overturns Refusal To Recognize Christian Law School's Graduates

In Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society v. Trinity Western University, (NS Ct., App., July 26, 2016), the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, without reaching religious liberty claims, held that the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society exceeded its authority in adopting a regulation that effectively barred graduates of a Christian law school based in British Columbia from being admitted to the bar in Nova Scotia by refusing to allow them to article there.  At issue was Trinity Western University's "community covenant" that requires students and faculty to abide by various Biblical teachings, including a ban on sexual intimacy outside of heterosexual marriage.  The Barristers' Society passed a resolution refusing to recognize Trinity Western's degrees because the community covenant is discriminatory.  The Society subsequently amended its regulations to allow non-recognition of law schools that unlawfully discriminate on grounds prohibited by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act. The court said:

It is inconceivable that the Legislature, without expressing a supportive word in either the Legal Profession Act or the Human Rights Act, intended that the Society’s Council could assert for itself an autonomous jurisdiction concurrent with that of a human rights board of inquiry.

The court went on to conclude that even if the Society's regulation had been properly adopted, Trinity Western did not violate Nova Scotia's Human Rights Act since all its activities occurred in British Columbia, and Trinity Western is not subject to the Charter of Rights because it is a private university. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision, and The Globe and Mail reports on it.

Canadian Court OK's Ontario's Refusal To Accredit Christian Law School

In Trinity Western University v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, (CA ON, June 29, 2016), a 3-judge panel of the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the decision of the Law Society of Upper Canada to deny accreditation to Trinity Western Law School because its religiously-grounded Community Covenant requires all students to "refrain from sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman."  Finding that "the part of TWU’s Community Covenant in issue in this appeal is deeply discriminatory to the LGBTQ community," the Court held that the Law Society "did not violate its duty of state neutrality by concluding that the public interest in ensuring equal access to the profession justified a degree of interference with the appellants’ religious freedoms." In reaching that conclusion, the Court relied in part on the U.S. Supreme Court's 1983 Bob Jones University decision. Similar battles over accreditation of the Christian law school are in progress in the school's home province of British Columbia, as well as in Nova Scotia.  CBC News reports on yesterday's decision. [Thanks to Paul de Mello Jnr. for the lead.]

British Columbia Court Requires Law Society Approval of Trinity Western Law School

In Trinity Western University v. Law Society of British Columbia, (BC SC, Dec. 10, 2015), a British Columbia trial court reinstated an April 2014 vote by the Benchers of the Law Society of British Columbia approving graduates of Trinity Western University Law School for entry into the Society's bar admissions program.  In October 2014, the benchers had reversed their earlier approval after a referendum of the full membership disapproved of Trinity Western's required community covenant for students and faculty. The covenant includes a prohibition on sexual intimacy outside of a marriage between a man and a woman. (See prior posting.) The court however concluded that the referendum and subsequent October vote of the Benchers were procedurally flawed:

There is no basis upon which a conclusion could be drawn ... that the LSBC’s membership considered, let alone balanced, the petitioners’ Charter rights against the competing rights of the LGBTQ community....

While the Benchers clearly weighed the competing Charter rights of freedom of religion and equality before voting on the April Motion, the record does not permit such a conclusion to be reached with respect to the Benchers’ vote of October 31, 2014. As the respondent had bound itself to accept the referendum results of its members, I am unable to find that the vote of the LSBC’s members or the impugned decision considered, let alone balanced, the two implicated Charter rights. Further support for this conclusion comes from the fact that opposite results were reached by the Benchers’ votes of April 11 and October 31, 2014, despite the October 31, 2014 vote being conducted without any substantive discussion or debate.

CTV News reports on the decision.