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

From Kumu Wiki - TRU
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
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 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
 
  
 +
[[Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_U/Summary_Of_Case|Case Summary of ''Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers'']]
  
 +
== Theoretical Perspectives ==
  
 
[[Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_U/Natural_Law|Natural Law]]
 
[[Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_U/Natural_Law|Natural Law]]

Latest revision as of 22:54, 27 March 2014

Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers

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

Theoretical Perspectives

Natural Law

Positivism

Separation Thesis and Lon Fuller

System of Rights

Liberty-Paternalism

Law as Efficiency

Feminist Jurisprudence

Retrieved from "https://kumu.tru.ca/index.php?title=Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_U&oldid=5329"