Showing posts with label Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 25, 2021

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.

Thursday, March 18, 2021

Injunction Governing Competing Factions' Access To Church Building Upheld

In Yakob v. Kidist Mariam Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, Inc., (GA App., March 16, 2021), a Georgia state appeals court, in a dispute between the church's administrative board and its former priest Abba Yakov (who also served as Archbishop over several churches), reversed the trial court's grant of an interlocutory injunction to compel attendance of board members at board meetings. It held that the interlocutory injunction altered the status quo.  However the court affirmed the trial court's interlocutory injunction that gave access to the two factions to conduct services at different times. The challenged portion of that injunction dealt with Yakob's role during the times that the opposing faction had access. It provided:

Defendant Yakob may attend the Church’s services as a parishioner, but he is prohibited from presiding over, controlling, or attempting to preside over or control the Church’s services in any way. Defendant Yakob may enjoy the Church’s services from the pew, but he may not enter areas of the Church’s sanctuary for which access to parishioners is prohibited and may not participate in those services in any role other than as a parishioner.

The court concluded: 

[T]he complaint addresses itself to matters outside of First Amendment jurisprudence, such as issues of Church property and board governance issues. Given the Church’s hybrid form of governance ..., those property and governance issues are capable of resolution by reference to neutral principles of law. Importantly, nothing in the April 2017 injunction relates to the propriety or validity of Yakob’s termination as priest, or his role as Archbishop.

Monday, June 24, 2019

Factional Dispute In Ethiopian Orthodox Church Dismissed

In Ambellu v.  Re’ese Adbarat Debre Selam Kidist Mariam, (D DC, June 21, 2019), the D.C. federal district court dismissed a suit brought by former members of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church alleging that a group of current members and priests conspired to take control of the Church through means that violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The court held that the 1st Amendment precludes it from hearing the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, saying:
Whether someone may worship at a church is plainly a matter of ecclesiastical cognizance.
The court also dismissed complaints about the way dues money is spent, saying in part:
How a church spends worshippers’ contributions is, like the question of who may worship there, central to the exercise of religion. And placing its assets in trust for the Parishioners at the expense of the Current Leaders would constitute an impermissible judicial interference with the Church’s ability to make governance and spending decisions. Indeed, evaluating the Parishioners’ claims would require the Court to decide who is rightfully empowered to make financial decisions for the Church. The Free Exercise Clause requires that the Court to decline to do so.
The court held that while the 1st Amendment does not deprive it of jurisdiction over claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, it held that plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded these claims.