{"id":39174,"date":"2026-10-19T12:05:35","date_gmt":"2026-10-19T16:05:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/?p=39174"},"modified":"2026-10-19T12:05:35","modified_gmt":"2026-10-19T16:05:35","slug":"cccc-at-the-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/legal\/2026\/10\/cccc-at-the-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"CCCC at the Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

On Friday, October 9, 2026, CCCC appeared at the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in a joint intervention with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada<\/a> (EFC) in the Vabuolas<\/a><\/em> case. You can watch CCCC\/EFC oral submissions here (beginning at 2:35:30)<\/a> and can read CCCC\/EFC written submissions here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Issue: Commissioner Review of Religious Decisions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The key issue in Vabuolas<\/a><\/em> was whether the British Columbia Privacy Commissioner could compel production of purely religious records for line-by-line review. CCCC and EFC intervened to ensure that purely religious decisions, and records of those decisions, are not subject to state oversight, whether by an independent commissioner or otherwise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Privacy legislation cannot determine the scope of freedom to make purely religious decisions; rather, freedom of religion must refine the scope of legislation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Precedent: Courts Do Not Review Religious Decisions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

It is well established law that purely religious, theological, and doctrinal decisions are not justiciable, that is, courts don\u2019t second-guess or make judgements about them. They don\u2019t have the proper authority or the necessary expertise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two SCC decisions, Wall (2018)<\/a><\/em> and Aga (2021)<\/a>,<\/em> affirmed that membership in a religious association, without more, does not create legal rights. Courts have consistently exercised restraint when it comes to religious organizations. While a religious context<\/em> doesn\u2019t preclude a court from judging a contract, corporate, or property law dispute, purely religious decisions remain outside court jurisdiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Practically, this means that a court could review whether an incorporated church followed its bylaws but would refrain from deciding whether the Matthew principle<\/a> was met or if a member satisfied spiritual criteria. Or a court could review an employee\u2019s termination to ensure employment standards are met but would refrain from deciding the outcome of a related doctrinal dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our position in this case was that it simply raised a new context of privacy law that likewise requires restraint toward purely religious matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judgement: Released at a Future Date<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The SCC reserved its decision, meaning it will be released at a later date. Once the SCC releases its judgement, we\u2019ll be sure to update you here on our blog.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We\u2019re Here to Help<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

If you have questions or would like support, please contact our Member Support Team<\/a> by phone or email<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On Friday, October 9, 2026, CCCC appeared at the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in a joint intervention with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) in the Vabuolas case. You can watch CCCC\/EFC oral submissions here (beginning at 2:35:30) and can read CCCC\/EFC written submissions here. Issue: Commissioner Review of… More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":39175,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ts_fic_featured_image_caption":"The Supreme Court of Canada building (a large, imposing, white limestone building; seven large vertical rectangular windows across the main portion of the building; wide steps across the front; a copper roof).","footnotes":""},"categories":[137],"tags":[437,460,471,141,391],"series":[],"class_list":["post-39174","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-advocacy","tag-intervention","tag-privacy","tag-religious-freedom","tag-supreme-court-of-canada"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39174","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39174"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39174\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":39177,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39174\/revisions\/39177"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/39175"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39174"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39174"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39174"},{"taxonomy":"series","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/series?post=39174"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}