2016 Bcca 423 Trinity Western University v. the Law Society of British c | Lawyer | Marriage

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 66
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report



Views: 0 | Pages: 66

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Related documents
Decision on TWU law school case
  COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Trinity Western University v. The Law Society of British Columbia,  2016 BCCA 423   Date: 20161101 Docket: CA43367 Between: Trinity Western University and Brayden Volkenant Respondents (Petitioners)  And The Law Society of British Columbia  Appellant (Respondent)  And Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada, Canadian Council of Christian Charities, Christian Legal Fellowship, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Christian Higher Education Canada, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver, Catholic Civil Rights League, Faith and Freedom Alliance, Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Canada, West Coast Women ’ s Legal Education and Action Fund, Canadian Secular Alliance, British Columbia Humanist Association, The Advocates ’  Society, Outlaws UBC, Outlaws UVic, Outlaws TRU and QMUNITY   Intervenors Before: The Honourable Chief Justice Bauman The Honourable Madam Justice Newbury The Honourable Mr. Justice Groberman The Honourable Mr. Justice Willcock The Honourable Madam Justice Fenlon On appeal from: An order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, dated December 10, 2015 ( Trinity Western University v. The Law Society of British Columbia  , 2015 BCSC 2326, Vancouver Docket No. 149837).  Trinity Western University v. The Law Society of British Columbia Page 2 Counsel for the Appellant: P.A. Gall, Q.C. D.R. Munroe, Q.C. Counsel for the Respondents: K.L. Boonstra K. Sawatsky J.B. Maryniuk Counsel for the Intervenor, Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada E.L. Vandergriendt  A. Schutten Counsel for the Intervenor, Canadian Council of Christian Charities B.W. Bussey Counsel for the Intervenor, Christian Legal Fellowship D.B.M. Ross Counsel for the Intervenors, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Christian Higher Education Canada G. Trotter Counsel for the Intervenor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms R.J. Cameron Counsel for the Intervenors, Roman Catholic  Archdiocese of Vancouver, Catholic Civil Rights League, and Faith and Freedom  Alliance G.C. Allison M. Wolfson, Articled Student Counsel for the Intervenor, Seventh-Day  Adventist Church in Canada G.D. Chipeur, Q.C. Counsel for the Intervenor, West Coast Women ’ s Legal Education and Action Fund J. Winteringham, Q.C. R. Trask J.R. Lithwick Counsel for the Intervenors, Canadian Secular Alliance, and British Columbia Humanist Association T. Dickson C. George Counsel for the Intervenor, The Advocates ’  Society M. Pongracic-Speier Counsel for the Intervenors, Outlaws UBC, Outlaws UVic, Outlaws TRU and QMUNITY (the “ LGBTQ Coalition ” ) E.R.S. Sigurdson K. Brooks   Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, British Columbia June 1, 2, and 3, 2016  Trinity Western University v. The Law Society of British Columbia Page 3 Written Submissions Received July 18, 25, and 29, 2016 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia November 1, 2016 Written Reasons of the Court  Trinity Western University v. The Law Society of British Columbia Page 4 Table of Contents Paragraph Range I. INTRODUCTION  [1] - [4] II. BACKGROUND  [5] - [50] 1. The TWU Initiative  [5] - [9] 2. The April 11, 2014 Benchers’ Resolution   [10] - [20] 3. The June 10, 2014 Members’ Resolution   [21] - [24] 4. The September 26, 2014 Benchers’ Resolution   [25] - [26] 5. The October 31, 2014 Benchers’ Resolution   [29] - [30] 6. Revocation of Ministerial Consent  [31] - [31] 7. Concurrent Consideration of TWU Accreditation  [32] - [40] 8. Judicial Review Elsewhere  [41] - [47] 8.1 Nova Scotia  [42] - [44] 8.2 Ontario  [45] - [47] 9. The Judgment of the Court Below  [48] - [50] III. ISSUES ON APPEAL  [51] - [51] IV. ANALYSIS  [52] - [193] 1. Did the Law Society have statutory authority to refuse to approve TWU’s law school on the basis of an admissions policy?  [52] - [59] 2. Did the Benchers unlawfully sub-delegate or fetter their decision-making authority?  [60] - [91] 2.1 Sub-Delegation  [62] - [64] 2.2 Fettering  [65] - [91] (a) The Power to Hold a Binding Referendum  [67] - [77] (b) Consistency with Statutory Duties  [78] - [91] 3. Was TWU denied procedural fairness?  [92] - [97] 4. Does the Law Society’s decision r  easonably balance the statutory objectives of the Legal Profession Act against the religious freedom rights of TWU?  [98] - [193] 4.1 Charter   Rights Engaged  [98] - [116] 4.2 The Decision- Maker’s Exercise of Authority When Charter   Rights and Values Are Engaged  [117] - [134] (a) Doré    [118] - [121] (b) Loyola High School    [122] - [134] 4.3 The Law Society Did Not Balance Charter   Rights  [135] - [189]
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks