Straight to the heart of Trinity Western's anti-gay law school rules

Please chip in to support rabble's election 2019 coverage. Support rabble.ca today for as little as $1 per month!

The Federation of Law Societies of Canada (FLSC) released its report on Trinity Western University's (TWU) proposed law school program in December 2013. The FLSC gave TWU's law school preliminary approval despite serious concerns expressed by different sectors of the legal profession, including the Council of Canadian Law Deans, that the school's Community Covenant Agreement, which requires TWU students and staff to agree not to engage in same‑sex sexual intimacy, discriminates against LGBTQ students.

FLSC's approval has, unsurprisingly, led to strong and divergent opinions on the appropriate balancing of rights.  

Law societies in Ontario, British Columbia and Nova Scotia are now actively debating whether they will accredit TWU's law school and permit its graduates to practice law in those provinces.

Carsten Jensen, President of the Law Society of Alberta, released a statement expressing concern over the law school's preliminary approval, but stated that the Law Society of Alberta has delegated authority for approving such programs to FLSC. Mr. Jenson encouraged law societies across the country to co‑operate in amending the law school approval criteria used by FLSC.

The law itself does not provide much assistance in reconciling the competing human rights engaged in this dispute. It weighs these rights in a silo, without regard to the wider public policy concerns about validating this type of discrimination, resulting in a hierarchy, not a balancing, of rights.

Background on Trinity Western University

TWU is a privately funded institution which markets itself as a Christian university for liberal arts, sciences and professional studies.  

This is not the first time TWU's educational programs have been the subject of controversy. In 2001, TWU and the British Columbia College of Teachers (BCCT) took their dispute over BCCT's refusal to approve TWU's teacher training program to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). BCCT's refusal was based on the fact that TWU required its students and staff to agree that they would not engage in "sexual sins," including homosexual behaviour.

A majority of the SCC found that BCCT's refusal to approve the teacher education program unreasonable. According to the majority of the SCC, BCCT did not properly consider the competing human rights involved when it assessed TWU's restrictions on student behaviour. BCCT failed to consider the right to freedom of religion under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in making its decision.

The SCC made the following observations about BCCT's decision:

-  There was no evidence that graduates of TWU's teaching program would discriminate against LGBTQ individuals when they became teachers.

-  BCCT did not require public universities to screen out applicants who held discriminatory views.

-  TWU fell under the exemption created by section 41 of B.C.'s Human Rights Code (the Code).

The SCC did find that LGBTQ students could sign the Community Covenant Agreement only "at great personal cost," recognizing that prohibiting same‑sex sexual intimacy meant, de facto, that TWU prohibited LGBTQ students.  

Section 41 of the British Columbia Human Rights Code

Section 41 of the Code exempts charitable, philanthropic, educational, fraternal, religious or social organizations which operate on a not‑for‑profit basis from the Code if their primary purpose is the promotion of the interests and welfare of an identifiable group or class protected under the Code. Organizations that fall within this description will not be found in contravention of the Code merely because they grant a preference to that identifiable group or class.

The word "preference" is important in the context of the Code. In Ontario, for instance, section 18 of its Human Rights Code grants a similar exemption, but states that membership or participation in special interest organization must be restricted to persons who are similarly identified.

The B.C. Court of Appeal (BCCA) considered the application of section 41 of the Code in Vancouver Rape Relief Society v. Nixon. At issue in that case was whether the Vancouver Rape Relief Society (the Society) could exclude Kimberly Nixon from training for peer counseling services because she was born male. The BCCA found that the Society was not required to establish that its primary purpose was to promote the interests of women who have lived their entire lives as females, to benefit from the section 41 exemption. They could exercise an internal preference and still fall under the Code exemption.  

In TWU's case, it does not restrict applicants to its law program to Christian applicants, however, it does exhibit a preference by requiring students to sign a Community Covenant Agreement, which among other things, asks its students to commit to "embody attitudes and to practice actions indentified in the Bible as virtues, and to avoid those portrayed as destructive." The broad language of section 41, arguably, permits TWU to fall under the exemption.

Balancing of competing rights

Through their fact‑based approach to competing rights, courts have inadequately addressed the appropriate balancing of these rights.

Critics accrediting TWU's law program point out that the Community Covenant Agreement creates a de facto quota on spots available to students who do not identify as heterosexual, limiting opportunities for individuals who identify as LGBTQ to attend an accredited law school and become licensed to practice law in Canada.

Freedom of religion is protected under the Charter and law societies must make decisions with Charter rights and values in mind. Preventing TWU students who graduate from a FLSC-approved law program from being licensed would be discriminatory and violate those students' Charter protected right to freedom of religion. Accrediting the program, however, in effect approves the institution's conduct in actively excluding individuals based on sexual orientation. 

There is something fundamentally unjust in giving an institution, which actively discriminates against an identifiable group based on a Charter-protected identity, access to a licensing regime that should be open to all individuals, equally.   

TWU should not be prevented from carrying out educational programs in a religious context. But, in view of balancing competing human rights instead of creating a hierarchy, a line should be drawn where those educational programs are designed to provide access to a public licensing process that is bound by the Charter. The BCCT decision did not consider this broader public policy perspective.

Iler Campbell LLP is a law firm serving co-ops, not-for-profits, charities, and socially-minded small business and individuals in Ontario.

Pro Bono provides legal information designed to educate and entertain readers. But legal information is not the same as legal advice -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. While efforts are made to ensure the legal information provided through these columns is useful, we strongly recommend you consult a lawyer for assistance with your particular situation to obtain accurate advice.

Submit requests for future Pro Bono topics to probono@rabble.ca. Read past Pro Bono columns here.

Related Items

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.

Comments

We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:

Do

  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.

Don't

  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.