SCC and Trinity Western University

[FJAG]

Let me repeat. This case and the law societies' actions have nothing to do with what a particular graduate thinks or believes. The case stands for nothing more or less than.

1 Trinity does not now or ever had a law school and therefore there are no graduates.

2. Trinity wanted to have it's law school accredited so that any future graduates there would be eligible to be called to the bar in any given Canadian province.

3. BC and Ontario believed that the covenant that Trinity requires students to sign discriminates against the enrollment of members of the LGBTQ community at Trinity and therefore refused to accredit Trinity because of Trinity's discriminatory practice.

4. The SCC agreed that the covenant discriminated, that such discrimination was a valid consideration and that the two law societies had the authority to refuse to accredit Trinity.

That's all the decision says.

If you want to keep arguing that the law societies are discriminating against Christians graduates but not Muslims or Pastafarians or whatever than that's on you but has nothing to do with the actual decision. Read the case.

I'm leaving this thread. FJAG, Out.

[cheers]

 

[Xylric]

Let me repeat. This case and the law societies' actions have nothing to do with what a particular graduate thinks or believes. The case stands for nothing more or less than.

1 Trinity does not now or ever had a law school and therefore there are no graduates.

2. Trinity wanted to have it's law school accredited so that any future graduates there would be eligible to be called to the bar in any given Canadian province.

3. BC and Ontario believed that the covenant that Trinity requires students to sign discriminates against the enrollment of members of the LGBTQ community at Trinity and therefore refused to accredit Trinity because of Trinity's discriminatory practice.

4. The SCC agreed that the covenant discriminated, that such discrimination was a valid consideration and that the two law societies had the authority to refuse to accredit Trinity.

That's all the decision says.

If you want to keep arguing that the law societies are discriminating against Christians graduates but not Muslims or Pastafarians or whatever than that's on you but has nothing to do with the actual decision. Read the case.

I'm leaving this thread. FJAG, Out.

[cheers]

Thanks again for the clarification, FJAG.

 

[a_majoor]

Let me repeat. This case and the law societies' actions have nothing to do with what a particular graduate thinks or believes. The case stands for nothing more or less than.

1 Trinity does not now or ever had a law school and therefore there are no graduates.

2. Trinity wanted to have it's law school accredited so that any future graduates there would be eligible to be called to the bar in any given Canadian province.

3. BC and Ontario believed that the covenant that Trinity requires students to sign discriminates against the enrollment of members of the LGBTQ community at Trinity and therefore refused to accredit Trinity because of Trinity's discriminatory practice.

4. The SCC agreed that the covenant discriminated, that such discrimination was a valid consideration and that the two law societies had the authority to refuse to accredit Trinity.

That's all the decision says.

If you want to keep arguing that the law societies are discriminating against Christians graduates but not Muslims or Pastafarians or whatever than that's on you but has nothing to do with the actual decision. Read the case.

I'm leaving this thread. FJAG, Out.

[cheers]

The crux of the argument is highlighted: if this applies to one, then it applies to all, or it is just a raw power play directed against one group.

 

[Blackadder1916]

The crux of the argument is highlighted: if this applies to one, then it applies to all, or it is just a raw power play directed against one group.

Okay, so be it.  What other Canadian law school has policies that similarly discriminates against any identifiable group but have not been so sanctioned by a law society?

Somehow, the term "raw power play" doesn't seem to apply when the consultation and decision processes for the two law societies that were party to the Supreme Court decisions are examined.  In both instances, they were public and involved the wider membership of this self-regulated profession, as well as the public and the parties involved.  I guess Nova Scotia wasn't significant enough to warrant TWU's objections.

This analysis from the UNB law journal (via CANLII) was written prior to the Supreme Court rulings, but does discuss in detail the processes (particularly Ontario's) that led to the non-accreditation decisions.

66 U.N.B.L.J. 78 (2015)
Trinity Western University's Law School and the Associational Dimension of Religious Freedom: Toward Comprehensive Liberalism
Thomas M.J. Bateman

. . .

At time of writing, the law societies of Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Yukon Territory accredited the law school. Some law societies have decided against consideration until the courts have disposed of the issue. On April 25 2014 the Nova Scotia Barristers Society voted 10-9 to refuse accreditation unless TWU alters its Covenant. The Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”) – Ontario’s professional association – also rejected accreditation. In Ontario’s case the vote of Benchers on April 24, 2014 was 28-21 (with one abstention) to reject the motion to accredit. The Benchers did not issue reasons for rejection. In British Columbia, Benchers initially approved TWU’s application, but received criticism from members for the decision. Members pushed for a consultative referendum asking the Benchers to rescind their approval. The Benchers threw it back to the membership. A formal, binding referendum was held in October 2014, and 74% voted to rescind approval. Benchers then followed suit, as did the British Columbia Minister of Advanced Education.

The decisions to reject accreditation and the discussions preceding them reveal much about the nature and strength of ideas of secularism, religious freedom, and liberalism in Canada. Three provincial law societies – Ontario, British Columbia, and Nova Scotia – undertook extensive public consultation processes and invited comments on the accreditation proposal. This analysis focuses on the Ontario process. Ontario is Canada’s largest provincial jurisdiction and the LSUC is Canada’s oldest and largest law society. Ontario is a particularly apt case study since many of the submissions made to the LSUC were also made to the other law societies.

The author surveyed each of the 212 submissions made to the LSUC regarding the TWU proposal ahead of the LSUC’s April 24, 2014 decision. These submissions are available on the LSUC web page devoted to the TWU process.7 Only 10 of the 212 were not relevant to this study. Some were concerned with the oversupply of lawyers that a new school could create. Other submissions were short letters from members of an association appending a previous statement made by an officer of that association. The latter document was counted; the former were not. Of the 202 submissions examined, 79 supported TWU’s application and 123 opposed. In other words, 61% of submissions opposed TWU’s accreditation in Ontario – Canada’s largest provincial jurisdiction.

. . .

It goes on and on as probably only a law professor can drone. It may interest some.  But if anyone is interested in the public convocation that resulted in the LSUC decision, you can watch all several hours on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BFIXJxz470

And examine all the submissions here http://www.lsuc.on.ca/uploadedFiles/For_the_Public/About_the_Law_Society/Convocation_Decisions/2014/convapr102014_submissions.pdf

 

[Cloud Cover]

I'll take just a few little issues with that article. If the oversupply of lawyers is a problem (and it is a real and genuine problem) then why does the LSO look so favourably on Ryerson's move to offer a law degree. It is by no mean a special or new type of degree, despite all the huff and pug Ontario has been producing technology and IP lawyers for 20 years.

Further, would this have gone the way it did if Trinity was a Christian school serving primarily a racialized Christian community (for example Hispanics and Phillipino's who happen to be devout Catholics?) with the same rules and criteria as Trinity??

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The crux of the argument is highlighted: if this applies to one, then it applies to all, or it is just a raw power play directed against one group.

Because few of us believe the Law Society will have the balls to do the same to Muslim or other non-Christian group. Attempts to create legitimacy for Sharia law in Canada is just one reason why there is no faith. (for the record I also oppose Torah based rulings as well) 

 

[Brad Sallows]

The largest barrier to entry is the number of first-year slots open to applicants (medicine has the same problem).  Not accrediting does nothing to lower that barrier; accrediting lowers that barrier, albeit imperfectly.  The course of action chosen doesn't support the stated aim.

There would be more diversity (of thought) in the profession if there were more schools with particular ethoses, rather than a bunch of law schools all expressing the same herd biases found on most Canadian university campuses.

The number of potentially harmed individuals is not zero, but it is very, very small.  Setting aside people who return to (law) school after some time pursuing some other career, most students should be expected to be in the age range 22-25.  Marriage of any kind is uncommon among university-educated adults that young.  The fraction of SSMs among those marriages should be expected to be small.  The harm of not accrediting (not increasing student seats) is probably several orders of magnitude larger.

I assume "oversupply of lawyers" means more lawyers serving the same client base, which promotes competition.  That should mean more legal services available to Canadians at lower costs, which is in the public interest.  Limiting the supply of lawyers (or doctors) is guild behaviour, not professional behaviour.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My opinion of the Law Society here in BC dropped significantly watching my wife go through the grinder to become accredited here. The fact that they made her take a tax course as a requirement, when it's an elective at UBC, but the required textbook was written by the then head of the Law Society made me wonder. Then making them go through "practice court" When she had 7 years of practice in Malaysia and her counterpart for that part was a ex-judge from Germany, the instructor admit that they seemed to be really, really well versed in courtroom procedure. Then make her article with a lawyer who was technically her junior and she had to spend time saying "yea you can't do that, or that". It was painfully clear that the Law Society main purpose appeared to be a gatekeeper to protect the new lawyers coming from anointed Institutions such as UBC.   

 

[Remius]

And more news on this...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trinity-western-drops-mandatory-covenant-forbidding-sex-outside-of-heterosexual-marriage-1.4784924

Curious to see if that changes anything.