WSO ap­peals Cana­dian Supreme Court in TWU case for equal stan­dards of re­view

 -  -  107


Ot­tawa, Canada: WSO in­ter­venes in the Cana­dian Supreme Court in the TWU -Trin­ity West­ern Uni­ver­sity case and pleads for equal stan­dards of re­view for com­mu­ni­ties

WSO is on its heels in­ter­ven­ing in cases in­volv­ing com­mu­ni­ties other than Sikhs, in its true com­mit­ment to hu­man rights and re­li­gious free­doms, fol­low­ing up on the High­wood Ap­peal in No­vem­ber 2017.  Ap­pear­ing in the Supreme Court of Canada on the first day of De­cem­ber, in the sem­i­nal Trin­ity West­ern Uni­ver­sity ap­peal, WSO made sub­mis­sions on the need to clar­ify ad­min­is­tra­tive law prin­ci­ples con­cern­ing the stan­dard of re­view that de­ci­sions of ad­min­is­tra­tive bod­ies are sub­ject to, when con­sti­tu­tional rights are im­pli­cated. 

WSO coun­sels Bal­preet Singh and Avnish Nanda ar­gued that clar­i­fy­ing the ap­pro­pri­ate stan­dard of re­view in such in­stances will have im­pact be­yond the TWU case, and have a last­ing ef­fect on how ad­min­is­tra­tive de­ci­sions that in­fringe Char­ter val­ues and rights are re­viewed. They sub­mit­ted that the same stan­dard of re­view should ap­ply in all sit­u­a­tions where ad­min­is­tra­tive de­ci­sions en­gage Con­sti­tu­tional mat­ters.

Counsels Avnish Nanda and Balpreet Singh
Counsels Avnish Nanda and Balpreet Singh

The TWU case re­volves around the de­ci­sion of the BC and On­tario law so­ci­eties not to ac­credit grad­u­ates from Trin­ity West­ern Uni­ver­si­ty’s law pro­gram be­cause of the uni­ver­si­ty’s com­mu­nity covenant.

The WSO was the only non-Chris­t­ian in­ter­vener in the case and was granted in­ter­venor sta­tus in the case by the Supreme Court of Canada. 

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

WSO Pres­i­dent Mukhbir Singh said, “the WSO be­lieves it is es­sen­tial for the Sikh com­mu­ni­ty’s per­spec­tive to be heard in im­por­tant cases in­volv­ing free­dom of re­li­gion.  While in the TWU ap­peal we did not take a po­si­tion on the mer­its of the case, our ar­gu­ment fo­cused on the broader is­sue of the stan­dard of re­view for Char­ter cases.  The is­sue of stan­dard of re­view was key in cases like Mul­tani and Loy­ola and will con­tinue to have an im­pact in the fu­ture.  Our sub­mis­sions fo­cused on the ar­gu­ment that dif­fer­ent stan­dards of re­view should not ap­ply de­pend­ing on the na­ture of the con­sti­tu­tional ques­tion that is en­gaged.”

107 rec­om­mended
1200 views

Write a com­ment...

Your email ad­dress will not be pub­lished. Re­quired fields are marked *