I was recently reviewing our most popular 2018 videos, and came across the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in the Trinity Western case. As you may know, the BC law society refused to accredit Trinity Western’s proposed law school based on its discriminatory practises against the LGBTQ community. On the surface, it appears to be a case about balancing the freedom of religion versus the freedom of equality.
This video includes discussion on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision and what the case was really about, along with analysis of other important Supreme Court decisions.
This case was actually about the application of administrative law to the Charter. As you know, the court must apply the standard of reasonableness to judicial reviews (not correctness).
Yes, it was. However, the bulk of the decision was about how do you deal with judicial review when the Charter is in play. The majority of the SCC commented that there must be a balance between the statutory objectives of the tribunal with the Charter. i.e the law society’s role is to govern and set standards for licensing and accreditation of law schools.
The law society also engaged in an appropriate Charter analysis, by taking the freedom of religion argument seriously, and applying section 1. In conclusion, the SCC decided that there was a balance between the law society’s statutory objectives and the Charter.
Having watched the video and considered the case, what do you think? Feel free to contact me and let me know your opinion.
*see individual programs and jurisidictional allowances for accredited hours/requirements for Canadian law societies.