Supreme Court of Canada affirms that courts not to have any say in membership of private religious organisations in the landmark case of Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Randy Wall (‘Wall’), wherein WSO had intervenor status and presented their views which were accepted by the court.

In a landmark judgement which can have far-reaching implication on membership of all religious organisations in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Randy Wall (‘Wall’) has declared in a unanimous 9-0 decision that courts will not interfere in the decisions of private organisations in deciding about their membership.

The World Sikh Organization of Canada -WSO, which was an intervener in the case has welcomed the decision.

One Mr. Randy Wall was expelled from his from his Jehovah’s Witness congregation due to allegations of drunkenness and misbehavior with his family.  He sought a Judicial Review of the decision alleging that the expulsion affected his “livelihood as a realtor since many of his clients were Jehovah’s Witnesses who no longer gave him business.”

“The courts will not consider the merits of a religious tenet; such matters are not justiciable.”

Justice Malcolm Rowe

Accepting the right of the complainant to seek such a review, the Court of Queen’s Bench concluded that the Court had jurisdiction to hear the Judicial Review application based on Wall’s economic interest on whether he was afforded due process before this disfellowship. The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the lower court decision.  The Congregation then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The World Sikh Organization of Canada, which was hitherto also gained intervenor status in other cases, was granted intervenor status in the case by the Supreme Court of Canada on August 24, 2017 and the appeal was heard by the Court on November 2, 2017.  

The WSO argued that “the Charter Value of state religious neutrality constrains the court from judicially reviewing the membership of private religious associations, as courts have no expertise or standing to consider matters of faith.  Allowing the court to intervene in such matters would be imposing the court’s (and the state’s) views on religious or doctrinal matters over the views of the actual faith community.”

The operative clause of the judgment is direct and forthright. In his decision on behalf of the Court, Justice Malcolm Rowe noted that “the courts will not consider the merits of a religious tenet; such matters are not justiciable”.

Just Rowe’s decision further recognizes that “sometimes even the procedural rules of a particular religious group may involve the interpretation of religious doctrine…In the end, religious groups are free to determine their own membership and rules; courts will not intervene in such matters save where it is necessary to resolve an underlying legal dispute.”

“Specific to the Sikh faith, decisions taken by the Punj Pyare -the beloved five saint-soldiers of the Sikhs faith, will continue to not be subject to a judicial review.”

Balpreet Singh Counsel, WSO

This decision of the Supreme Court of Canada will impact the membership of religious groups, political parties and voluntary associations. It has put to an end years of acrimony arising out of different judgements of lower courts.

WSO legal counsel Balpreet Singh said, “we are very pleased by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Wall case.  This was a case that had an impact on not just Jehovah’s Witnesses but potentially on all faith communities in Canada.” Balpreet Singh went on to say that, “The Court has now clarified that private religious groups can set their own rules and choose whom to worship with, without state interference.

 If you like our stories, do follow WSN on Facebook.

He further clarified that, “Specific to the Sikh faith, decisions taken by the Punj Pyare will continue to not be subject to a judicial review.  We are pleased to have been able to provide the perspective of the Sikh community in this case and are delighted that the Court has accepted our submissions on this matter.”