Skip to content

Nova Scotia court rules in favour of TWU law school

|Written By Anastasiya Jogal

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court ruled today the province's law society doesn't have the authority to deny accreditation to graduates of Trinity Western University’s law school.

The NSBS does not have the authority to block doesn

Last month, TWU spent two days battling the Nova Scotia Barrister’s Society in court. It had voted in April to ban Trinity Western students from its bar admission program unless the university dropped or changed its controversial covenant. The covenant asks students to refrain from “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman,” a stipulation critics argue is discriminatory against LGBTQ individuals.

The university took the society to court, arguing the ban amounts to religious discrimination.

The decision by Justice Jamie Campbell said the NSBS Society did not have the power to deny TWU’s law graduates accreditation.

The NSBS will be reviewing the decision and would not comment further on it Wednesday afternoon.

A statement from society President Tilly Pillay noted: “We appreciate that Justice Campbell dealt with this matter very quickly and comprehensively. We are analyzing the decision and will review it with our legal counsel before we can determine what the next steps might be. There is much to consider.”

“We believe this is an exceptionally important decision from Justice Campbell,” said TWU spokesperson Guy Saffold. “It affirms that protection of religious freedom is and must continue to be central value in Canada’s pluralist society.”

The logic behind the decision is based on authority and perspective. According to the court transcripts the decision is not about the LGBT equality rights verses religious freedoms of  the Christian-based university. Rather, the central issue was whether the NSBS had the authority to do what it did.

Th court ruled the society does not have the legal right to enforce policy change requirements from law school and universities. The secondary issue that the judge pointed out, did have to do with religious freedom and liberty of conscience.

Cambell said that even if the NSBS had the authority to not grant accreditation to graduates, it did not reasonably consider the concerns for religious freedom of expression.

“What one person sees as having the strength of moral convictions is just sanctimonious intolerance to another. As with a lot of things, it depends on perspective. Orthodoxies, secular or religious, can provide the comfort of certainty,” says the ruling.

He went on to note: "The discomforting truth is that religions with views that many Canadians find incomprehensible or offensive abound in a liberal and multicultural society. The law protects them and must carve out a place not only where they can exist but flourish."

Saffold said the decision was important not only to TWU “but also, we believe it sets an extremely valuable precedent in protection of freedoms for all religious communities and people of faith in Canada."

Trinity Western’s application to open a law school has already been approved by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, as well as the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and the Yukon.

A similar case is ongoing in Ontario, where the Law Society of Upper Canada voted 28-21 last April to reject TWU’s law school bid. Originally scheduled to be heard this month, the case will now begin June 1. And in mid-December, TWU launched a lawsuit against the Law Society of British Columbia, which voted to deny accreditation after initially approving it.

Update: 9:20 pm: Clarification of statement from Nova Scotia Barristers' Society and comments from Trinity Western University added.

  • CLO

    Jaclyn Giffen
    2:1 Romans confirms, "You who are without sin shall cast the first stone." It is not about practising what you condemn but rather passing judgment on those perceived as "sinners". It is God that shall give ultimate judgment. We are to treat others as we would want to be treated. The question remains, is it against fundamental justice for the legal profession to condone discrimination based on sexual orientation? Is it acceptable that a school entrusted with the responsibilty to teach Charter rights does not itself hold them true? If you attended TWU and were disciplined for having a same sex partner, is this not exactly the Charter violations that the legal profession is responsible for combating? DGA missed the point as to the interests that require protection. Those that hold religious beliefs may attend law school as they have equality under the law. However, those that do not conform to TWU`s fundamental beliefs are not afforded the same protection. Herein lies the hypocrisy.
  • Lawyer

    D G Alex
    The previous poster fails to see that Rom. 2:1 condemns hypocrisy (practicing what you condemn in others), not the practice of making moral judgments per se.

    More to the point, there is no conflict between an ability to apply equality principles to clients, and a moral belief that sex is only permissible within marriage. A free society has to make room for a variety of moral beliefs. E.g., A lawyer can believe that divorce is morally wrong, yet apply the principles of family law accurately. A lawyer can believe that religious beliefs are wrong, but yet serve religious clients faithfully.

    Section 2 of the Charter wasn't meant to protect those who hold popular beliefs; those with mainstream beliefs need no protection. Rather, the right of unpopular minorities (e.g., TWU) to hold their beliefs without being excluded from full participation in society is what needs to be defended. It is disturbing that so many lawyers don't get this.
  • Chief Legal Officer

    Jaclyn Giffen
    Within the actual covenant that is at issue, the footnote refers to the basis for the prohibition as Romans 1:26-27. If you continue on shortly after this, Romans 2:1 states: "Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else. For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things." The fundamental principle of Canadian Society is equality before and under the law. How can a law school train lawyers that will soon thereafter be regulated by the Law Societies that are disputing their ability to apply equality principles to their future clients? While I do agree with religious freedom and liberty of conscience, I also believe that lawyers must live up to a higher standard of acceptance of others in order to foster passion for fundamental justice. This tolerance of discrimination and inequality in a law school is the first step toward violating fundamental justice in our legal profession.





  • clawbies 2015
    clawbies 2014
  • clawbies 2013
    clawbies 2012
  • clawbies 2011
    clawbies 2010