- Will Lawyers In Canada Soon Face A Religious Test? The Hypersensitive Response Over Canada’s First Openly Christian Law School
- BC Law Society Approves TWU Law School Graduates
- The Cold Chill of the Legal Profession’s Rejection of Religious Freedom
- A Referendum On Religious Freedom
- Lawyers’ Referendum Not Just About TWU – It’s About Our Commitment To The Rule Of Law
- Called To Participate, But Not At The Table
- Hearing Update On Trinity Western University v. Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society
- Breaking News Supreme Court of Nova Scotia rules in favour of Trinity Western University …. more to come
- Space Enough For All: Nova Scotia Supreme Court Makes Decision on Trinity Western University Law School
- The Strange Case of Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society Appeal of the TWU Ruling
- CCCC Granted Intervener Status In TWU Case in British Columbia
- The Onward March of TWU: Next Step The Court of Appeal
- Trinity Western University and the Legal War of Attrition: Isn’t It Time To Let Diversity Flourish?
- Charitable Status of Un-Popular Opinion
- CCCC Denied Intervener Status at Ontario Court of Appeal
- CCCC Granted Intervener Status at the BC Court of Appeal on TWU Case
- Sending a Message to TWU: Your Graduates Need Not Apply
- Recent Happenings: CCCC Files Factum At BC Court of Appeal; Bussey appears on TV
- CCCC at the British Columbia Court of Appeal
- The Experts Demand Deference: Law Societies & TWU
- The Intolerance of Intolerance: The Outrageous Accusation That TWU’s School of Law Is Related To The Orlando Massacre
- Being On the Right Side of History: Where the Offended Take Away Religious Freedom
- Nova Scotia’s Highest Court Rules in Favour of TWU
- Common Sense Prevails at the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
- Bussey on John Gormley Show
- Nova Scotia Barristers Society Will Not Appeal
- BC Court of Appeal On TWU
- Developing Story: BC Court of Appeal Rules 5-0 in favour of TWU
- The Decision That Has Changed Everything For TWU
- Law Society of BC Appeals TWU To Supreme Court of Canada
- Bussey in Vancouver Sun: Appeal court ruling on Trinity Western University is a game changer
- The Legal Revolution Against Religion
- Supreme Court Grants Leave On TWU
- Supreme Court Grants 9 But Denies 23 Groups Intervener Status In Landmark Case
- Canadian Council of Christian Charities Granted Intervener Status in TWU Case: The Supreme Court Changes Course On TWU Interveners
- Australian Group Interviews Bussey on Equality and Freedom of Religion
- Bruce Clemenger’s Video Message on TWU Case
- Oral Argument of CCCC on TWU at the Supreme Court of Canada
- June 15 TWU Decision To Be Released
- TWU Loses: Canada’s Religious Freedom Forever Altered
- The Constitutional Promise of Religious Freedom Betrayed
- TWU Drops Mandatory Community Covenant
Associate Chief Justice Alexandra Hoy, of the Ontario Court of Appeal, decided that the Canadian Council of Christian Charities would not be given intervener status in Trinity Western University’s appeal of the Ontario Divisional Court’s decision. The role of an intervener is to provide an assistance to the Court to understand the broader implications of the case at hand. The decision to decide who may intervene is at the sole discretion of the Court.
The legal test for an intervener is the likelihood of the proposed entity being able to make a useful contribution to the resolution of the matter without causing injustice to the immediate parties. To determine that the courts require the proposed intervener meet at least one of the following:
- that it has a real substantial and identifiable interest in the subject matter of the proceeding;
- that it has an important perspective distinct from the immediate parties;
- that it is a well-recognized group with a special expertise and a broadly identifiable membership base.
The court gets to choose, in its sole discretion, whether a proposed party will in fact be useful. Justice Hoy was of the view that CCCC had met the test but at the end of the day she was of the view that its submissions would not be of any assistance as its arguments would be duplicative of the arguments put forward by the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF). The CCF proposes to argue “that the Divisional Court gave insufficient weight to the historical importance of religion in Canada balancing the competing Charter rights at play.”
During oral argument, I, as CCCC’s lawyer, pointed out to the Court that CCCC wanted to emphasize the importance of institutional religious freedom under s.2a of the Charter. I also stated that there was an important contribution CCCC could make about the ability of such institutions in the ongoing debate about the “private” and “public” sphere. When asked about how that is different from TWU’s position I noted that as an organization of some 3300 Christian charities across Canada we are well placed to share with the Court the implications its decision will have not only on universities but the entire institutional Christian community, as they too have codes of conduct based on their religious beliefs.
The position of institutional religious freedom runs to the core of what CCCC’s is all about. We have ministries that range from development organizations drilling wells in underdeveloped countries to running TV programming. It is a wide swath of endeavours that its members are a part of. The outcome of this case against TWU is not, in our view, going to be limited to universities and educational institutions. Instead the ramifications will be widespread.
To date, the courts in B.C. and Nova Scotia have thought that CCCC’s contribution to their respective TWU cases has been of value as we have been given the opportunity to submit our position and concerns. Ontario courts have not found CCCC’s position to be of any assistance. It is their call to make.
During oral argument, at the Ontario Court of Appeal, I also shared our experience in the BC and Nova Scotia courts. When those courts granted intervener status they maintained the discretion to grant oral argument after the factums (legal briefs) were filed. This provided the courts flexibility to determine whether it was necessary to hear oral argument from the interveners. It also provided the interveners the opportunity to meet and discuss among themselves their various positions to ensure that they eliminate as much overlap as possible when preparing their factums. Indeed, Justice Hoy encouraged the interveners in this case to consult with each other to avoid any duplication in their argument. She also retained the discretion of granting oral argument to panel of judges that will hear the case. “Once the panel has reviewed all factums filed and heard oral submissions from TWU and the LSUC, it will be in a position to determine to what extent oral submissions from the interveners would be of assistance to it.” That is a positive move forward and it will hopefully assist in future cases of this nature in Ontario.
Though CCCC will not be part of the hearing at the Ontario Court of Appeal, perhaps we nevertheless had a positive role to play, however indirectly, by making such submissions on procedure. That in the end, the process is better because CCCC did in fact participate to such a limited degree.
In the meantime, we will continue with our arguments in Nova Scotia in the New Year where we have been granted 20 minutes oral argument and also granted the right to file a 20 page brief outlining matters that, in our view, will be helpful to the court about the importance of this case to institutional religious freedom.
It’s interesting to note that the learned associated Chief Justice found that CCCC met the threshold for intervener status yet denied them the opportunity. I am wondering if the process is similar to the Supreme Court’s prerogative on denying leave to appeal without the need to prove reasons.
Hi Ed, so far my experience at the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has been that if you meet the threshold for intervener status then you are granted leave to intervene. I think there is great wisdom in the SCC approach because it allows for a greater number of views to come to the court to assist it in becoming aware of the wide impact that its decision will make. The SCC will often allow the interveners to file written submissions but will keep its discretion to allow oral argument until after it reads the submissions. That way court limits the time in oral hearing to only those interveners it wants to hear from either because it has further questions or wishes further explanation of the intervener’s position. So far in the TWU case it has only been the Ontario Court’s that have denied interveners. BC and NS have been very open to such participation. Barry