Courts are limited in adjudicating ecclesiastical decisions.
 |
| Supreme Court of Canada — Wikipedia image/ed. by Gilbert |
The Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously affirmed that "ecclesiastical decisions, including decisions over qualifications or determination of membership, or decisions on internal discipline, should not be subject to judicial oversight absent some other legal basis."
- - -
[ Excerpt ]
The CCRL Applauds Supreme Court Decision in Highwood Congregation v. Wall
by CCRL
Toronto, ON May 31, 2018 – The Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) applauds today’s unanimous ruling in the appeal of Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Randy Wall, as a strong statement in recognition of the independence of private religious institutions.
The CCRL intervened jointly with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC), asserting that ecclesiastical decisions, including decisions over qualifications or determination of membership, or decisions on internal discipline, should not be subject to judicial oversight absent some other legal basis. Our brief submitted that secular courts are not qualified to make rulings on theological or ecclesiastical concerns. Moreover, it was submitted that the Charter was not applicable to private entities, or if the court found the Charter to apply, that the broad protection of freedom of religion in section 2(a) of the Charter should be found in favour of the congregation in this case.
Today, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous 9-0 ruling, overturned the lower court’s allowance of a judicial review claim of a Jehovah’s Witness congregation’s decision to “disfellow” Mr. Hughes over its assessment of his “sinful” behaviour.
- - -
CCRL President and constitutional lawyer Philip Horgan
re Mr. Justice Malcolm Rowe's writing of the judgment of the Court
Mr. Justice Rowe’s reasons provide a strong statement on the limited role courts should have on reviewing internal decisions of private institutions, and in particular, ecclesiastical bodies. We are pleased with the court’s analysis of the limited role for judicial review of such institutional decisions, and the further recognition that secular courts are not qualified to rule on theological or ecclesiastical concerns. Every private institution serves to benefit from this analysis, especially those with underlying religious conceptions.
Mr. Justice Rowe’s reiteration of previous case law, to the effect that “courts have neither legitimacy nor institutional capacity to deal with” religious dogma (Para 36), is a helpful synopsis of the limits of courts in adjudicating ecclesiastical decisions.
Support the excellent work of the Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL)
Comments
Post a Comment
Your comments will be appreciated and posted if 1) they are on topic and 2) preserve decorum.
Stand by your word.