Difference between revisions of "Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group U"

Revision as of 17:36, 26 March 2014

Summary of Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers

Natural Law

Positivism

Separation Thesis and Lon Fuller

System of Rights

Liberty-Paternalism

Law as Efficiency

Feminist Jurisprudence

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_U/Summary_Of_Case|Summary of ''Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers'']]
-Trinity Western University vs. BC College of Teachers
-Facts:
-•	TWU established a teaching training program
-•	TWU applied to the BCCT for permission to assume complete responsibility for the program
-o	Rationale: TWU wanted to have the full program re`flect Christian world view
-•	BCCT refused
-o	Rationale: contrary to the public interest to have discriminatory practices (Christian against homosexuals)
-Issues:
-•	TWU:
-o	BCCT can ensure teachers are properly trained, competent, and of good character
-o	They are not authorized to deal with religious beliefs
-•	BCCT:
-o	Teaching programs must reflect human rights value (equality)
-o	Program must prepare teachers for the public school environment, which is diverse.
-•	TWU’s program is not capable of doing so
-•	Reconcile religious freedom with equality concerns of students in BC public school system (public interest)
-History:
-•	Trial judge:
-o	Approved TWU’s program for 5 years subject to a number of conditions
-•	Court of appeal:
-o	BCCT acted within jurisdiction but there is no reasonable foundation to support their decision
-Analysis:
-.	Is consideration of discriminatory practices within the jurisdiction of the BCCT?
-•	BCCT:
-o	Teaching programs must reflect human rights values
-o	Must ensure programs prepare future teachers for the public school environment, particularly for he diversity of public school students
-•	TWU:
-o	BCCT was not created to render judgment on religious beliefs, enforce human rights, eradicate discrimination
-o	S.4 of the Teaching Profession Act
-•	Statutory interpretation: BCCT limited to establishing whether teachers are properly trained, competent, of good character
-o	BCCT is not authorized to deal with discriminatory practices
-•	Court:
-o	Teachers are a medium for the transmission of values
-o	Canada is diverse → must be understood by teachers
-o	Need to respect and promote minority rights
-o	Schools need to be free of bias, prejudice, intolerance
-o	S.4 is not limited to determination of skill and knowledge
-o	Conclusion: BCCT has jurisdiction to consider discriminatory practices in dealing with TWU’s application.
-.	Was the decision of the BCCT Council justified?
-•	Standard of review
-•	BCCT:
-o	Use the standard of patent unreasonableness
-o	Expertise in the field of education
-o	Protect minority and human rights
-•	TWU:
-o	Standard of correctness
-o	BCCT claims to protect minorities and human rights, but they are not experts of human rights
-•	Court:
-o	BCCT has a lack of expertise in human rights
-o	BCCT is not the only gov’t actor entrusted with policy development
-o	Good character cannot be expanded into evaluation of religious belief, freedom of association, right to equality
-o	The appropriate standard of review is the standard of correctness
-•	The evidence of discrimination
-•	BCCT:
-o	The document is discriminatory against homosexuals
-o	Homosexual behaviour was in the list of biblically condemned practices
-o	Homosexual behaviour = homosexual people
-•	TWU:
-o	Only homosexual behaviour is prohibited.
-o	This is not enough to claim discrimination against homosexual people
-•	Court:
-o	TWU is designed to the heed the needs of people who share similar religious beliefs
-o	The admission document is not sufficient to establish discrimination
-•	It just deters certain people from applying to TWU
-•	TWU doesn’t prevent homosexuals from becoming teachers.
-•	This is not enough to say it is discriminatory
-o	To say 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 would be inconsistent with freedom of conscience and religious, which co-exist with the right to equality
-.	Reconciliation of freedom of religion and equality rights
-•	Religious freedom of those who want to attend TWU vs. equality concerns of students in BC’S public school system, parents, and society generally
-•	Court: must reconcile the two rights
-o	Neither freedom of religious nor equality rights (discrimination based on sexual orientation) is absolute
-o	There is a difference between having a belief and acting upon it
-•	Teachers from TWU can have religious beliefs without acting upon them in a discriminatory way.
-•	If the teachers do act in discriminatory ways, BCCT can discipline them.
-•	But BCCT cannot discipline them for simply having such belief.
-o	Charter must be read as a whole. All rights are equal. When there are conflicts, must seek a balance that respects the importance of both sets of rights.
-•	Court: TWU’s program must be allowed (to respect freedom of religion)
-o	BCCT prevents students of TWU from expressing their religious beliefs freely.
-o	There is not enough evidence to suggest teachers trained by TWU would not be qualified (no discriminatory conduct by any graduates)
-o	S.93 of the Constitution Act 1867 enshrined religious public education rights into our constitution
-o	Human Rights Act s.19
-o	Religious institution is not considered to breach the Act where it prefers adherents of its religious constituency
-o	Cannot be concluded that private institutions are protected by their graduates are unworthy in public service
-•	Conclusion:
-o	Reconciliation of the two rights → must find a common ground
-o	Allow TWU program but teachers cannot act in a discriminatory way once they graduate.
-Conclusion:
-•	BCCT has jurisdiction to consider whether the program follows discriminatory practices under the public interest component of the Teaching Profession Act
-•	No reasonable foundation to support the BCCT’s decision with regard to discrimination

Difference between revisions of "Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group U"

Revision as of 17:36, 26 March 2014

Navigation menu

Search