As the judgement is likely to impact not only Jehovah’s Witnesses’ case but also the Sikh Gurdwara decisions and those of other communities, WSO presented oral arguments in the Supreme Court of Canada in the landmark Highwood Congregation versus Wall case which will adjudicate on whether courts can judicially review membership decisions taken by private religious associations.

Ottawa, Canada: In a sound expectation that the judgement is likely to impact not only the present case of the Jehovah’s Witnesses regarding who can be a member of a religious organisation but also the Sikh Gurdwara decisions and those of other communities, World Sikh Organisation in a proactive move intervened and presented oral arguments in the Supreme Court of Canada in the landmark Highwood Congregation versus Wall case which will adjudicate on whether courts can judicially review membership decisions taken by private religious associations.

The facts of Highwood Congregation versus Wall revolve around Mr. Wall who was “dis-fellowed” (expelled) from his Jehovah’s Witness congregation due to allegations of drunkenness and misbehaviour with his family.  Mr. Wall brought an application for Judicial Review of the Congregation’s 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 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.

WSO legal counsel Balpreet Singh presented oral arguments arguing that the Charter Value of state religious neutrality constrains the court from judicially reviewing the membership of private religious associations. WSO argued that courts should only be permitted in rare instances to intervene in religious practices, where the Charter’s broader free and democratic aims are at stake, and the court’s intervention would preserve or promote these objectives in a meaningful way and where maintaining neutrality would result in actual and significant harm.

In a media statement, WSO legal counsel Balpreet Singh said, “while this case is with respect to the expulsion of a Jehovah’s Witness member by the elders in his congregation, we believe that the result of this case could impact other religious communities as well, including Sikhs.  Religious associations must be allowed to choose whom to worship with, without state interference.  In the Sikh faith, any decision taken by the Punj Pyare are binding, however if Wall’s arguments are successful, such decisions would potentially be subject to review as well. We believe it was important for the Court to hear about this matter from a Sikh perspective.”   

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

Significantly, this is the fourth time WSO has represented in the Supreme Court of Canada on behalf of a non-Sikh appellant. Earlier on, WSO intervened in Syndicate Northcrest verus Amselem, on behalf of the Jewish community’s rights to religious freedom, in 2005, WSO intervened in Multani versus Commission Scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys with respect to the right of a Sikh student to wear his kirpan at school and in 2014 WSO had intervened in Loyola High School, et al. versus Attorney General of Quebec regarding whether legal persons such as a organizations, schools and institutions can claim protection under the Canadian Charter of Rights for freedom of religion.