Trinity Western University et al. v. College of Teachers (B.C.) et al., (1998) 116 B.C.A.C. 1 (CA)

• Judge: Goldie, Rowles and Braidwood, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: December 30, 1998
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1998), 116 B.C.A.C. 1 (CA)

Trinity Univ. v. College of Teachers (1998), 116 B.C.A.C. 1 (CA);

   190 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JA.032

Trinity Western University and Donna Gail Lindquist (petitioners/respondents) v. The British Columbia College of Teachers (respondent/appellant) and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (respondent/intervener) and British Columbia Catholic Civil Rights League (respondent/intervener)

(CA023720)

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

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Goldie, Rowles and Braidwood, JJ.A.

December 30, 1998.

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. A Chambers judge allowed the application and granted certiorari and mandamus. The judge quashed the Council's decisions and remitted the cause back to the Council with a direction to approve the proposed program with stipulated conditions. See [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. D46. The Col­lege appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Rowles, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 9118

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Curial deference to decisions of tribunals -The British Columbia College of Teachers set the standards of the profession, includ­ing approval of proposed university courses or programs - The British Colum­bia Court of Appeal held that the College was entitled to a high degree of deference - However, that degree of deference did not extend to its interpretation of the pro­vincial Human Rights Code and the Charter nor where it acted without an appropriate evidentiary foundation - See paragraph 104.

Education - Topic 4126

Universities - Courses or programs - Ap­proval of - Judicial review - A Chris­tian university sought approval from the B.C. College of Teachers for a proposed teacher education program - The College's Council declined, believing that the uni­versity and its program discriminated against homosex­uals - The British Colum­bia Court of Appeal affirmed that the Council erred (1) in law by considering itself bound by the Teaching Profession Act, s. 4, to apply its view of the Charter and the provincial Human Rights Code to its evaluation and (2) in fact by assuming that the university espoused such discrimi­nation as part of its beliefs and that accep­tance of such beliefs was a prerequisite to admission to the program - Further, the Council acted in a patently unreasonable way by acting in anticipation of intolerant behaviour - See paragraphs 63 to 127.

Cases Noticed:

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; [1989] 2 W.W.R. 289; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 34 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 36 C.R.R. 193; 25 C.C.E.L. 255, refd to. [para. 65].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Cit­izenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982; 226 N.R. 201; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [paras. 91, 136].

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; [1994] 7 W.W.R. 1; 92 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 14 B.C.R(2d) 217; 22 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1; 114 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 104].

Board of Education of Toronto v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation District 15 et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 487; 208 N.R. 245; 98 O.A.C. 241; 144 D.L.R.(4th) 385, consd. [para. 108].

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; 133 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 37 Admin. L.R.(2d) 131, refd to. [paras. 112, 148].

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

Wrights' Canadian Ropes Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1947] A.C. 109 (J.C.P.C.), consd. [para. 126].

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; [1991] 6 W.W.R. 289, refd to. [para. 141].

Elias v. Law Society of British Columbia (1996), 79 B.C.A.C. 314; 129 W.A.C. 314; 26 B.C.L.R.(3d) 359 359 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 141].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 658, refd to. [para. 143].

Gould v. Yukon Order of Pioneers, Dawson Lodge No. 1 et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 571; 194 N.R. 81; 72 B.C.A.C. 1; 119 W.A.C. 1; 133 D.L.R.(4th) 449, refd to. [para. 143].

McConnell, Hopkinson, Wilson and Benjamin v. Douglas Aircraft Co. of Canada Ltd. and O'Shea, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 245; 29 N.R. 109, refd to. [para. 151].

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; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 121, refd to. [para. 171].

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. 173].

Bob Jones University v. United States; Goldsboro Christian Schools v. United States (1983), 461 U.S. 574; 76 L.Ed. 2d 17; 103 S. Ct. 2017 (S.C.), consd. [para. 191].

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. Heerspink and Director, Human Rights Code, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 145; 43 N.R. 168, refd to. [para. 205].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161; 12 R.F.L.(4th) 201; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 205].

Haig and Birch v. Canada et al. (1992), 57 O.A.C. 272; 9 O.R.(3d) 495; 94 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 205].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237; 156 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 205].

Human Rights Commission (Ont.), Dunlop, Hall and Gray v. Borough of Etobicoke, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 202; 40 N.R. 159, 132 D.L.R.(3d) 14, refd to. [para. 213].

Caldwell v. Catholic Schools of Vancouver Archdiocese, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 603; 56 N.R. 83; 15 D.L.R.(4th) 1, consd. [para. 214].

Adler et al. v. Ontario et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 609; 204 N.R. 81; 95 O.A.C. 1; 140 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 268].

Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (At­torney General) et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 273].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 278].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 280].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1; 127 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 281].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur géné­ral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 281].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 25 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 12, refd to. [para. 296].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 266]; sect. 2 [para. 11]; sect. 2(a), sect. 2(b), sect. 2(d) [para. 267]; sect. 15(1) [para. 65].

Human Rights Act, S.B.C. 1984, c. 22, sect. 19 [para. 234].

Teaching Profession Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 449, sect. 4 [para. 13]; sect. 21 [para. 34]; sect. 21(i) [para. 158]; sect. 23(1) [para. 35]; sect. 23(1)(d), sect. 23(1)(e), sect. 23(1)(f) [para. 159]; sect. 24 [para. 95]; sect. 25(1)(a), sect. 25(1)(b) [para. 77]; sect. 27(4) [para. 35]; sect. 40 [para. 94].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ontario (Attorney General), The Report of the Professional Organiz­ations Commit­tee (1980), pp. 886-887 [para. 141].

Counsel:

T.R. Berger, Q.C., and E.F. Berger, for the appellant;

J.D. Baker, Q.C., K.G. Sawatsky and K.L. Boonstra, for the respondents.

T.J. Delaney, for the respondent, intervener British Columbia Civil Lib­erties Associ­ation;

L.T. Doust, Q.C., and J.L. Owen, for the respondent, intervener Catholic Civil Rights League.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 15 to 17, 1998, before Goldie, Rowles and Braidwood, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered on December 30, 1998, and the following opin­ions were filed:

Goldie, J.A. (Braidwood, J.A., concur­ring) - see paragraphs 1 to 127;

Rowles, J.A. - see paragraphs 128 to 301.