Trinity Univ. v. College of Teachers, (2001) 269 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 09, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 269 N.R. 1 (SCC);2001 SCC 31;151 BCAC 161;39 CHRR 357;[2001] SCJ No 32 (QL);31 Admin LR (3d) 163;82 CRR (2d) 189;JE 2001-1034;269 NR 1;[2001] 1 SCR 772;199 DLR (4th) 1

Trinity Univ. v. College of Teachers (2001), 269 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.R. TBEd. MY.006

British Columbia College of Teachers (appellant) v. Trinity Western University and Donna Gail Lindquist (respondents) and The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, EGALE Canada Inc., the Christian Legal Fellowship, the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Canada and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (interveners)

(27168; 2001 SCC 31)

Indexed As: Trinity Western University et al. v. College of Teachers (B.C.) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

May 17, 2001.

Summary:

A Christian university sought approval from the British Columbia College of Teachers for its proposed teacher education program. The Council of the College refused to approve the program because a majority of its members believed that the university and the proposed program discriminated against homosexuals. The university applied for relief.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. D46, allowed the application and granted certiorari and mandamus. The court quashed the Council's decisions and remitted the case back to the Council with a direction to approve the proposed program with stipu­lated conditions. The College appealed.

In a decision reported at 116 B.C.A.C. 1; 190 W.A.C. 1, the British Columbia Court of Appeal, Rowles, J.A., dissenting, dis­missed the appeal. The College appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 9102

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Standard of review - A Christian univer­sity sought approval from the British Col­umbia College of Teachers for its proposed teacher education program - The Council of the College refused to approve the pro­gram because a majority of its members be­lieved that the university and the pro­posed program discriminated against homo­sexuals - The university sought judi­cial review of the decision - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the absence of a privative clause, the College's expertise, the nature of the decision and the statutory context all favoured the application of a correctness standard - See paragraphs 15 to 19.

Civil Rights - Topic 345

Freedom of conscience and religion - Exer­cise of - Restrictions - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 8467 and Civil Rights - Topic 8664 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8467

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Interrelationship among Charter rights - A Christian university re­quired all students to sign a "Community Standards" document agreeing to refrain from biblically condemned practices, in­cluding homosexual behaviour - Faculty and staff had to sign a similar document containing a similar paragraph - The uni­versity sought approval from the B.C. College of Teachers for its proposed teacher education program - The College's Council declined, believing that the uni­versity and its program discriminated against homosexuals - The university ap­plied for judicial review - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed how to recon­cile the religious freedoms of individuals wishing to attend the university with the equality concerns of students in British Columbia's public school system - See paragraphs 20 to 38.

Civil Rights - Topic 8467

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Interrelationship among Charter rights - A Christian university required all students to sign a "Community Standards" document agreeing to refrain from biblically condemned practices, in­cluding homosexual behaviour - Faculty and staff had to sign a similar document containing a similar paragraph - The uni­versity sought approval from the B.C. College of Teachers for its proposed teacher education program - The College's Council declined, believing that the uni­versity and its program discriminated against homosexuals - The university ap­plied for judicial review - The Supreme Court of Canada noted that the freedom to hold beliefs was broader than the freedom to act on them - Absent concrete evidence that training teachers at the university fostered discrimination in the public schools of British Columbia, the freedom of individuals to adhere to certain religious beliefs at the university should have been respected - For the College to have prop­erly denied accreditation to the university, it should have based its concerns on speci­fic evidence - Any concerns should have gone to risk, not general perceptions - See paragraphs 20 to 38.

Civil Rights - Topic 8664

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights (s. 15) - Application - A Christian university required all students to sign a "Community Standards" document agree­ing to refrain from biblically con­demned practices, including homosexual behaviour - Faculty and staff had to sign a similar document containing a similar para­graph - The university sought appro­val from the B.C. College of Teachers for its proposed teacher education program - The College's Council declined, believing that the university and its program dis­crimi­nated against homosexuals - The university applied for judicial review - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "It is important to note that this is a pri­vate institution that is exempted, in part, from the British Columbia human rights legislation. To state that the voluntary adoption of a code of conduct based on a person's own re­ligious beliefs, in a private institution, is sufficient to engage s. 15 [of the Charter] would be inconsistent with freedom of con­science and religion, which co-exist with the right to equality." - See paragraph 25.

Education - Topic 4125

Universities - Courses or programs - Ap­proval of - Considerations - [See sec­ond Civil Rights - Topic 8467 ].

Education - Topic 4125

Universities - Courses or programs - Ap­proval of - Considerations - Section 4 of the B.C. Teaching Profession Act stated: "It is the object of the college to establish, having regard to the public interest, stan­dards for the education, professional re­sponsibility and competence of its mem­bers, persons who hold certificates of qualification and applicants for member­ship and, consistent with that object, to encourage the professional interest of its members in those matters" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that it would not be correct to limit the scope of s. 4 to a determination of skills and knowledge - The court held that the B.C. College of Teachers had jurisdiction under s. 4 to consider discriminatory practices in dealing with a university's application for program accreditation - See paragraphs 11 to 14.

Education - Topic 4126

Universities - Courses or programs - Ap­proval of - Judicial review - [See Ad­ministrative Law - Topic 9102 and second Civil Rights - Topic 8467 ].

Cases Noticed:

Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 - see Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al.

Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825; 195 N.R. 81; 171 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 437 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [paras. 13, 47].

U.E.S., Local 298 v. Bibeault - see Union des employés de service.

Union des employés de service, local 298 v. Bibeault - see Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).

Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employ­és de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244, refd to. [para. 16].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citi­zenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [paras. 17, 51].

Pezim v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Brokers) - see Pezim v. British Col­umbia Securities Commission et al.

Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 17, 53].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 17].

Saumur v. Quebec (City), [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 19].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237, refd to. [para. 26].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 27, 85].

M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3; 238 N.R. 179; 121 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 27, 89].

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium et al. v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 263 N.R. 203; 145 B.C.A.C. 1; 237 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 27].

D.P. v. C.S., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 141; 159 N.R. 241; 58 Q.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 29, 62].

R.B. v. Children's Aid Society of Metro­politan Toronto - see Sheena B., Re.

Sheena B., Re, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; 176 N.R. 161; 78 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 30, 62].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 31].

Human Rights Commission (Ont.) and O'Malley v. Simpsons-Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; 64 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 35].

Khalil et al. v. Canada (Secretary of State), [1999] 4 F.C. 661; 243 N.R. 369 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. and Merck Frosst Canada Inc.

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. and Merck Frosst Canada Inc., [1994] 1 F.C. 742; 162 N.R. 177 (F.C.A.), affd. [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1100; 176 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284; 69 N.R. 241; 73 A.R. 133, refd to. [para. 47].

Casson v. College of Teachers (B.C.), [2000] B.C.T.C. 328 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

Pearlman v. Manitoba Law Society Judi­cial Committee, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 869; 130 N.R. 121; 75 Man.R.(2d) 81; 6 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 52].

Lindsay and Smith v. Motor Transport Board (Man.) (1989), 60 Man.R.(2d) 1; 62 D.L.R.(4th) 615 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 59].

Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5; 122 N.R. 361; 47 O.A.C. 271, refd to. [para. 59].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 61].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Ser­vice Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 941; 150 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 67].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227; 26 N.R. 341; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 51 A.P.R. 2371, refd to. [para. 67].

Bob Jones University v. United States (1983), 461 U.S. 574 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 70].

Brillinger v. Brockie, [2000] O.H.R.B.I.D. No. 3, refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.) (2001), 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 94].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 94].

Thomson Newspapers Co. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877; 226 N.R. 1; 109 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 95].

Child and Family Services of Winnipeg Central v. K.L.W. et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 519; 260 N.R. 203; 150 Man.R.(2d) 161; 230 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 96].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 97].

Adler et al. v. Ontario et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 609; 204 N.R. 81; 95 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 97].

Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada v. Northwest Territories (Commissioner) et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 367; 112 N.R. 269, refd to. [para. 98].

Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Richardson - see Canadian Egg Market­ing Agency v. Pineview Poultry Product et al.

Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Pine­view Poultry Product et al., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 157; 231 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 99].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 101].

Corbiere et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203; 239 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 103].

Lovelace v. Ontario - see Ardoch Algonquin First Nation and Allies et al. v. Ontario et al.

Ardoch Algonquin First Nation and Allies et al. v. Ontario et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 950; 255 N.R. 1; 134 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 108].

Harrison v. University of British Colum­bia; Connell v. University of British Columbia, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 451; 120 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 108].

Statutes Noticed:

Teaching Profession Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 449, sect. 4 [para. 9].

Authors and Works Noticed:

British Columbia, Human Rights Commis­sion, Gay/Straight Alliance Clubs - Un­derstanding Our Differences (April 3, 2000) (Press Release), generally [para. 83].

Canada, Health Canada, The Experience of Young Gay Men in the Age of HIV (1996), p. 19 [para. 82].

Eskridge, William N. Jr., Gaylaw: Chal­lenging the Apartheid of the Closet (1999), generally [para. 89].

Fontaine, Janet H., The Sound of Silence: Public School Response to the Needs of Gay and Lesbian Youth, in School Experiences of Gay and Lesbian Youth: The Invisible Minority (1997), p. 105 [para. 79].

Kroll, Ian T., and Warneke, Lorne B., The Dynamics of Sexual Orientation & Ado­lescent Suicide: A Comprehensive Review and Developmental Perspective (1995), Introduction [para. 85]; pp. 1, 4 [para. 85]; 40 [para. 82].

Lahey, Kathleen A., Are We "Persons" Yet? Law and Sexuality in Canada (1999), p. 197 [para. 81].

MacDougall, Bruce, Silence in the Class­room: Limits on Homosexual Expression and Visibility in Education and the Pri­vileging of Homophobic Religious Ideology (1998), 61 Sask. L. Rev. 41, pp. 41 [para. 86]; 44 [para. 81]; 78 [para. 71].

Mathison, C., The Invisible Minority: Preparing Teachers to Meet the Needs of Gay and Lesbian Youth (1998), 49 J. Teacher Education 151, p. 154 [para. 90].

Nichols, Sharon L., Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youth: Understanding Diversity and Promoting Tolerance in Schools (1999), 99 Elementary School J. 505, p. 514 [para. 86].

Counsel:

Thomas R. Berger, Q.C., Gary A. Nelson and Erin F. Berger, for the appellant;

Robert G. Kuhn, Kevin G. Sawatsky and Kevin L. Boonstra, for the respondents.

David M. Brown and Adrian C. Lang, for the intervener the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada;

Susan Ursel and Maurice A. Green, for the intervener the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation;

William J. Sammon, for the intervener the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops;

Timothy J. Delaney and James Gopaul­singh, for the intervener the British Col­umbia Civil Liberties Association;

Kenneth W. Smith and Pam MacEachern, for the intervener EGALE Canada Inc.;

Dallas K. Miller, Q.C., and Corina Dario, for the intervener the Christian Legal Fellowship;

Gerald D. Chipeur and Barbara B. John­ston, for the intervener the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Canada;

Andrew K. Lokan and Heather E. Bowie, for the intervener the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Solicitors of Record:

Nelson & Vanderkruyk, Vancouver, Brit­ish Columbia, for the appellant;

Kuhn & Company, Abbotsford, British Columbia, for the respondents;

Stikeman, Elliott, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada;

Green & Chercover, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation;

Barnes, Sammon, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops;

Lindsay Kenney, Vancouver, British Col­umbia, for the intervener the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association;

Elliott & Kim, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener EGALE Canada Inc.;

Fraser Milner Casgrain, Calgary, Alberta, for the interveners the Christian Legal Fellowship and the Seventh-Day Ad­ven­tist Church in Canada;

Growling, Strathy & Henderson, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

This appeal was heard on November 9, 2000, by McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Basta­rache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. On May 17, 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered its decision in both official lan­guages, which contained the following rea­sons:

Iacobucci and Bastarache, JJ. (McLach­lin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Major, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 46;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 47 to 111.