Canada: A Triumph Of Administrative Law: 2018's Supreme Court Of Canada Religious Freedom Cases

Last Updated: October 25 2018
Article by David Tang

2018 was touted as the year the Supreme Court of Canada would consider how religious freedom should be valued as a right guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court rendered three highly anticipated decisions which received a great deal of press. Two of the decisions relate to Trinity Western University's attempt to uphold religious values within its student body in the face of societal opposition to the university's refusal to embrace diversity in sexual orientation, as expressed by the Law Societies of British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Ontario. The third decision considered whether the decision of a Jehovah's Witnesses congregation to disfellowship a congregant could be subjected to judicial review and whether it needed to be accorded religious freedom as a result of the Charter or could be subjected to judicial review.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court relied upon administrative law concepts and rules to resolve both of these situations. In doing so, the much anticipated adjudication or balancing of religious freedom against other interests (procedural fairness and property rights in the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (Judicial Committee) v. Wall case and sexual orientation values in the Trinity Western University cases) never really occurred. Those harder questions were side-stepped.


The primacy of administrative law is both clearer and predictable in the Wall case. The primary question to be determined was whether the removal of Mr. Wall by his congregation from fellowship for sin and unrepentant behaviour had been carried out in a procedurally fair manner. His court application was founded on a clearly administrative law process and remedy – judicial review. Before any religious freedom issues were engaged, the court had to determine whether the congregation's decision was even subject to judicial review. After it was clear that judicial review was available to Mr. Wall, the question of whether a court should or is entitled to interfere in the decisions of a religious organization was considered.

Mr. Wall was clever enough to augment his case by asserting a property right. He argued that as a real estate agent, he was reliant upon clients who were largely members of the congregation and that the shunning he experienced as a result of the disfellowship affected his ability to make a living. That argument, and the fact that his daughter and wife would also have been required to shun him as a result of his expulsion from the congregation, made for a sympathetic situation that clearly influenced the decisions of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench and the majority of the Court of Appeal of Alberta. Those decisions permitted review of the disfellowship decision for procedural fairness, after also finding that all internal remedies had been fully exhausted. There was, however, a vigorous dissent at the Court of Appeal and, of course, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada was unanimous in its decision that judicial review is not available for private associations such as this congregation. The primary basis for the decision was that the congregation's decision is not a state decision to which judicial review applies. Any suggestion that a private association is subject to judicial review because it is incorporated was rejected. Simple incorporation and presumably taking advantage of legislative provisions like charitable registration will not render a private association into a public actor whose decisions can be judicially reviewed by the courts. It is also clear that a private association's impact on the public does not imbue that organization's decisions with the character of a public or state decision.

The Court also considered whether there was a separate civil or property right in this case, but found that there was no contract in place which would have allowed Mr. Wall any separate right to have the courts review the decision of the church. The Supreme Court has made it clear that judicial review is reserved for state decisions, consistent with what, at least, this author would have predicted for this case.

The Supreme Court then went on, in what is probably obiter dicta (an incidental analysis that does not establish a legal precedent), to discuss what would happen if there had been jurisdiction for it to judicially review the congregation's decision. Framed in the legal term "justiciability", this discussion focused on whether the issue is one that is appropriate for a court to decide. The Supreme Court did indicate that courts have neither the legitimacy nor the institutional capacity to decide on doctrinal matters generally. However, it left open the prospect that if Mr. Wall had been able to show there was a contractual right to have the procedural rules applied to the decision, the Court would have reviewed it. That opening should cause religious organizations to consider whether their structure does, intentionally or not, create such a contractual right.

The Court completed its discussion by addressing the suggestion that the Charter rights of 'freedom of religion and association' should inform the Court's decision. It disposed of these suggestions by holding that the Charter is simply not applicable to private litigation. It held that "religious groups are free to determine their own membership and rules; courts will not intervene in such matters save where it is necessary to resolve an underlying legal dispute." The matter therefore did not involve any balancing of religious freedom rights against procedural fairness.

Trinity Western University

The Trinity Western University law school court challenges looked more likely to involve consideration and a careful balancing of the competing Charter rights and values: 'freedom of religion and association' versus 'freedom from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.'

Trinity Western University, a private religious university in British Columbia, required its students to sign a Community Covenant in order to attend the university. The Community Covenant expressed the religious beliefs of the university and included the statement that sexual relations are only for those within a marital relationship involving one man and one woman. The regulatory bodies for lawyers in British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia determined that this was discriminatory and refused accreditation of the university's law school, making it impossible for graduates to become lawyers in those provinces.

Nova Scotia

The Nova Scotia Barristers' Society case was finally decided on administrative law principles in 2016. The Society's regulations originally recognized any law degree granted by any university approved by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada. Trinity Western University's law school had been approved. The Society then amended its regulations to purportedly give its Council the right to determine whether a law school "unlawfully discriminates...on grounds prohibited by either the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act" and excluded any such law school from being recognized. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal determined that there was nothing in the Society's enacting and empowering legislation that allowed its Council to become a human rights tribunal that could assess either the Charter or the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act. The Court noted that the university was a private actor to which the Charter did not apply, that its activities take place in British Columbia, a province in which the Society has no nexus or authority, and that there already was a Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission charged with considering breaches of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act. It was thus held that the amended regulation which allowed the Barristers' Society to exclude Trinity Western University was ultra vires (beyond its legal power or authority).

British Columbia and Ontario

The British Columbia and Ontario courts used a much more direct approach and their decisions were considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2018. As previously reported, the decision of the majority of the Supreme Court was to uphold those decisions. In coming to that conclusion, the Court relied on a test that has been carved out for use only by administrative tribunals. The Doré Test is an exception to the normal Charter of Rights and Freedoms test applied when assessing whether a state activity or enactment that contravenes a Charter right can be saved on the basis that it imposes "a reasonable can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

The normal test, the Oakes Test, is a two-part balancing test for determining whether a government can justify a law which infringes a Charter right:

  1. The government must establish that the law has a goal that is both "pressing and substantial."
  2. The Court then applies three sub-tests:
    • Is there is a rational connection between the law's purpose and the provision which impacts the Charter right?
    • Does the state action or provision minimally impair the violated Charter right?
    • Is the effect of the state action appropriately proportional? Put it in another way, is the infringement of the Charter right too high of a price to pay for whatever societal good the state action is aimed at?

That analysis would have pitched the competing rights against each other and required a balancing of the different interests and rights.

However, the Doré Test is quite different. Traditionally, administrative law has involved the review of actions by decision makers who have particular expertise in their subject matter and extensive experience in dealing with the legislation and regulations they regularly consider. As a result of that expertise, courts have chosen to defer to their decisions in many situations rather than override them. The primary mechanism used to provide "deference" is the application of a different standard of review. Instead of determining whether the decision is correct, a court will only overturn it if it was "unreasonable." The administrative tribunal's decision does not have to be correct or right. Demonstrating that a decision was unreasonable is significantly more difficult than convincing a court that the decision was incorrect.

Indeed that is what occurred here. Most of the Supreme Court of Canada justices found that the Law Societies' decisions were not "unreasonable." The significance of the result once the Doré Test was applied to this case is highlighted by the dissenting justices, who criticized its use, as it has generally been established as the appropriate test to apply to administrative tribunals.


One potential action step for any organization, including religious organizations, is a review of its documentation to determine whether there is any basis for an allegation that an agreement or contract allows its members to assert a right for court review.

While there has been much anticipation that these three Supreme Court of Canada decisions would consider collectively how religious freedom and freedom of association rights should be balanced against procedural fairness, property rights and Canadian society's recognition and preference for allowing diverse sexual orientation, that did not occur. The use of administrative law principles allowed decisions which did not fully grapple with the much more difficult task of determining an appropriate balance.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

David Tang
In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions