Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group U

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: 1. 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.

2. 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

3. 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

Natural Law

Positivism

Separation Thesis and Lon Fuller

System of Rights

Liberty-Paternalism

Law as Efficiency

Feminist Jurisprudence