Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada

Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada
Case name	Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada
Full case name	Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada, et al.
Heard	2017-11-02
Decided	2018-06-15
Citations	2018 SCC 33
Docket	37688
Ruling	Appeal dismissed
Ratio	Professional regulatory bodies may consider public interest when assessing accreditation of private institutions
Majority	Chief Justice McLachlin
Joinmajority	Justices Brown, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon
Dissent	Justices Abella, Cromwell
Laws applied	Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada was a landmark Canadian legal dispute about the accreditation of a private religious institution by professional regulatory bodies. The case involved Trinity Western University, the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Law Society of British Columbia, and culminated in a judgment by the Supreme Court of Canada addressing the interplay of religious freedom, equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and professional regulation. The decision attracted engagement from civil society groups, religious organizations, legal associations, and provincial governments.

Background

Trinity Western University (TWU), a private evangelical institution in Langley, British Columbia, operated a proposed mandatory community covenant for students, faculty, and staff that prohibited sexual intimacy outside heterosexual marriage. TWU sought accreditation for a proposed Juris Doctor program, prompting reviews by provincial law societies including the Law Society of Upper Canada in Ontario and the Law Society of British Columbia. The covenant raised objections from equality advocates, legal academics, and organizations such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Bar Association, and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups including Egale Canada Human Rights Trust. TWU argued that its covenant was protected by freedom of religion claims linked to precedents from cases involving the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Legal Issues

Key legal issues included whether a law society could deny accreditation to a law school because of a private institution's student code of conduct; whether such a denial violated TWU's freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and whether the denial was justified under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. The case raised questions about the role of professional regulatory bodies like the Law Society of Upper Canada and the Federation of Law Societies of Canada when considering public interest, access to the legal profession, and protection of equality rights enshrined in prior jurisprudence such as decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada on religious freedom and equality.

Court Proceedings

The dispute proceeded through administrative and judicial review processes, with the Law Society of British Columbia and the Law Society of Upper Canada initially refusing to approve TWU's proposed program. TWU challenged those decisions in courts including the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, and Ontario courts reviewed the Law Society of Upper Canada decision. The matters were consolidated on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which heard arguments involving interveners such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Christian Legal Fellowship, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, provincial Attorneys General including those of Ontario and British Columbia, and academic institutions.

Supreme Court of Canada Decision

On 15 June 2018 the Supreme Court of Canada delivered a 7–2 decision dismissing TWU's appeal against the law societies. The majority, authored by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin (note: McLachlin retired 2017 but judgment credited), held that law societies could consider the public interest and that the decisions to deny accreditation were reasonable administrative decisions. The Court concluded that while TWU's covenant limited freedom of religion, the law societies' refusals were justified under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms given their duty to protect equality and the public interest in access to the legal profession. Justices Rosalie Abella and Moldaver were divided in parts; Justices Abella and Cromwell dissented on aspects of the analysis. The judgment referenced prior Supreme Court decisions on Charter rights, administrative law doctrines from cases such as those involving Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick and principles articulated in Vriend v. Alberta and other equality jurisprudence.

Impact and Aftermath

The ruling affected accreditation practices of provincial law societies including the Law Society of Ontario (successor to the Law Society of Upper Canada) and prompted reviews by regulatory bodies across professions such as medical, teaching, and nursing regulators. The decision influenced policy debates in provinces including British Columbia, Ontario, and Alberta about the accreditation of faith-based institutions like Redeemer University, Canadian Mennonite University, and King's University College (Alberta). It informed litigation strategies in subsequent cases engaging religious freedom claims, and shaped interventions by organizations such as the Supreme Court Advocacy Network, the Canadian Constitution Foundation, and faith-based coalitions. The ruling also prompted legislative and policy responses at the provincial level and discussions in academic forums including faculties at University of Toronto Faculty of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, and Peter A. Allard School of Law.

Reactions and Commentary

Responses spanned legal scholars, faith communities, equality advocates, and political figures. Religious organizations including the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada expressed concern for religious freedom, while civil liberties groups such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and LGBTQ+ organizations welcomed the affirmation of equality protections. Commentary appeared in outlets associated with institutions like the Munk School of Global Affairs and in analyses by jurists from the Supreme Court of Canada bench and academics at McGill University Faculty of Law. International observers including commentators from the United States and United Kingdom legal communities noted implications for religiously affiliated professional education. The decision continues to provoke scholarship in constitutional law, administrative law, and professional regulation across Canadian legal literature.

Category:Supreme Court of Canada cases Category:Canadian constitutional case law Category:Religion and law in Canada