Running Head: TRINITY WESTERN CASE REVIEW 1

Trinity Western Case Review

Malia Gray

Lana Lodhar

Mohamed Noordeen

Rachelle Troendle

University of Calgary

EDUC 525 L01 – Summer 2018

Ethics and the Law

LT1 – Law Assignment

TRINITY WESTERN CASE REVIEW 2

In 2001, the B.C. Court of Appeal deliberated the case of Trinity Western University

(TWU) vs. British Columbia College of Teachers’ (BCCT), wherein they considered if BCCT’s

denial of accreditation for the University’s Bachelor of Education program was valid. This

became a landmark case in Canada because both TWU’s and BCCT’s arguments were based

upon fundamental freedoms within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. TWU won

the appeal and the University was granted full accreditation of their Bachelor of Education

program. After considering the case we hold the court’s position that TWU should have been

granted the right to accreditation of their Bachelor of Education program based on the following

factors: BCCT discriminated against TWU and infringed upon their Charter rights; BCCT has

contradicted the principle/doctrine of pluralism on which Canadian society is built; and although

BCCT holds the responsibility to ensure student’s rights in public schools are protected from

discrimination, since TWU had not yet graduated any students independently from Simon Fraser

University (SFU) BCCT’s ruling against TWU was based on presumption not fact.

At the centre of the BCCT’s rejection is the accusation of discrimination on the part of

the TWU. Based on speculation, the BCCT concluded that the “inclusion of homosexual

behaviour in the list of biblically condemned practices demonstrates intolerance”, claiming the

end result is institutionalized discrimination of homosexuals (TWU v. College of Teachers,

2001, p. 806). Although the appeal found BCCT was within its grounds to consider equality

concerns present within the Charter in formulating their decision, at the same time, the court

found section 2 (a) and 15 of the Charter enshrines “freedoms of conscience and religion” and

protects against “discrimination based on … religion” needed further consideration in this matter

(TWU v. College of Teachers, 2001, p. 809). It is worth noting that religious institutions such as

TWU are allowed the freedom to discriminate in their admissions policies on a religious basis
Running Head: TRINITY WESTERN CASE REVIEW 3

through accommodations from B.C.’s human rights legislation. Further, section 41 of the Human

Rights Code specifically provides for exceptions in the case of religious institutions such as the

TWU (CanLii, 2016). What follows is the conclusion that if institutions possess religious

freedoms, that their participants cannot be held guilty of possessing these same perspectives.

However, in BCCT claiming that graduates from the TWU teacher program would create

“detrimental impact” (TWU v. College of Teachers, 2001, p. 776) on B.C.’s public school

system, what was actually being inferred is that one group’s freedom (TWU’s students freedom

of religion) will infringe upon the rights of others (the right of students in the B.C. public school

system to not be discriminated against). TWU in its’ opposition of the decision from the BCCT

claimed that Charter rights of section 2 (a) (the freedom of conscience and religion), their

positive freedom, and section 15 (the right to not be discriminated against), their negative

freedom, were being taken over (Donlevy, 2004, p. 319); specifically, their negative freedom to

not be discriminated against for their controversial views which they are entitled to hold. In

allowing TWU and its students to hold religious perspectives protected as religious freedoms

under section 2(a) and 15 of the Charter, the courts further elaborated their position by drawing a

line between belief and conduct and concluded that it is their right to be able to hold their

perspectives so long as no discriminatory behaviour or action is followed.

The court’s final decision to support the accreditation of TWU’s Bachelor of Education

program is endorsed by the values and freedoms that have influenced and continue to be a part of

Canadian society. Canadian society is pluralistic in nature and founded upon a value for freedom

and acceptance of diverse backgrounds, experiences, beliefs, and perspectives. “Accommodation

of diversity is essential for fostering social cohesion in a pluralistic society” and this ideal is

supported through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as, governing bodies of
Running Head: TRINITY WESTERN CASE REVIEW 4

education, such as Alberta Education (2005, p. 4-5). The court’s decision to support TWU’s

appeal for accreditation, supported freedom in Canadian society and accommodated for

individuals to hold beliefs and values, even if they might be considered unacceptable to others

within the same Society. While TWU’s religious view about homosexual behavior may be

deplorable to many, including other Christians, because of the freedoms given in the Charter,

Trinity Western is allowed to support and uphold its Christian values (Donlevy, 2004, p. 319).

The only caveat is the Charter also specifies that organizations and individuals cannot use their

beliefs and values as justification to infringe on the rights of others through discriminatory acts

(TWU v. College of Teachers, 2001, p. 774). Although one could argue that the contract TWU

makes students sign prevents certain individuals with differing beliefs and values from attending,

such individuals still have opportunities to become teachers by applying to other Universities

(TWU v. College of Teachers, 2001, p. 775). BBCT’s denial of accreditation for Trinity’s

Education Program, violated the rights of the individuals who do and will attend the University

and in order for Canadian society to maintain its pluralistic ideologies along with the freedoms of

individuals, there needs to be allowance for a multitude of perspectives and beliefs, as long as

they do not cause harm to others (Donlevy, 2004, p. 325).

Weighing BCCT’s jurisdiction to exercise authority citing public interest, and its

subsequent reasoning for rejection of TWU’s application certainly illustrates the need for diligent

interpretation in deciding such matters. The B.C. Supreme Court ruled against BCCT’s plea to

assess TWU’s application using jurisdiction based on the grounds of public interest as outlined in

section 4 of the Teaching Profession Act (Donlevy, 2004, p. 304); conversely the Court of

Appeal ruled BCCT did have the authority to assess the application on these grounds (TWU v.

College of Teachers, 2001, p. 733). In a dissent L’Heureux-Dubé referenced the importance of

Running Head: TRINITY WESTERN CASE REVIEW 5

BCCT’s proactive attempts to consider public interest referencing to “await harm is to suggest

that we will experiment on children” (Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation cited in

TWU v. College of Teachers, 2001, p. 845). At the heart of the dissection lies the decision by

both courts which found BCCT’s reasoning to deny TWU’s application unjustifiable based on

lack of supporting evidence, ruling in favour of TWU (TWU v. College of Teachers, 2001, p.

773). Since the Charter protects TWU’s organizational rights to religious freedom, confirming

expression via the Community Standards contract, the reasoning BCCT used to support its

decision lacks sufficient evidence to justify rejection of TWU’s application. In order for BCCT

to satisfy the burden of proof in this case it needed to provide evidence demonstrating TWU

teacher graduates act discriminatorily against students in public schools, based on their religious

worldviews regarding homosexuality. BCCT is obligated to hold TWU graduates to the same

standards as graduates from other institutions, and without proof that TWU teacher graduates’

worldviews create discriminatory conduct BCCT failed to justify its case. Since at that time

TWU students all graduated under the umbrella of SFU it was impossible for BCCT to evaluate

TWU graduate teachers’ professionalism (TWU v. College of Teachers, 2001, p. 773). Although

BCCT operated within its authority to weigh TWU’s application against public interest it could

not meet the courts’ burden to prove TWU teacher graduates act discriminatorily without TWU

first holding accreditation.

Freedom of religion and the right to not be discriminated against based on religion are

constitutionally protected rights in Canada, providing Canadians with the freedom to assemble

and worship without limitation or interference. By refusing to grant TWU the right to

accreditation assuming possible inference of discrimination by TWU graduate teachers, BCCT

infringed on TWU’s right of freedom of religion. BCCT failed to consider the prescribed
Running Head: TRINITY WESTERN CASE REVIEW 6

principle of pluralism which is manifested in Canadian society through the coexistence of

multiple legal means. In the TWU case, equal value for both religious freedom as well as sexual

equity should be upheld. BCCT does indeed hold the responsibility of directing teacher standards

and ensuring students are protected, however it cannot assume discriminatory conduct; since no

TWU graduates existed at the time no evidence existed to support such a claim. As such, we

uphold the decision of the Court of Appeal in favor of TWU being granted accreditation for their

Bachelor of Education program.

Running Head: TRINITY WESTERN CASE REVIEW 7

References:

Alberta Education. (2005). Social Studies Kindergarten to Grade 12. [Program of Studies].

Edmonton, AB: Alberta Education. Retrieved from:

https://education.alberta.ca/media/159597/program-of-studies-grade-6.pdf

CanLII. (2016). Human Rights Code, RSBC 1996, c 210. [online] Retrieved 2018, July 12:

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/laws/stat/rsbc-1996-c-210/latest/rsbc-1996-c-210.html

Donlevy, J. K. (2004). Value Pluralism and Negative Freedom: The Surrey and Trinity Cases.

McGill Journal of Education 39 (3) pp. 305-325. Retrieved: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-

csc/scc-csc/en/item/1867/index.do

Trinity Western University v. College of Teachers [2001] 1 S.C.R. 772, 2001 SCC 31. Retrieved

from: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2001/2001scc31/2001scc31.html