Written Argument

142 Pages·2015·1.8 MB·English

Court File No. S-149837
Vancouver Registry
VANCOUVER
SUPREMEC OLJRJr~tl~~ME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
BETWEEN:
TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY and
BRAYDENVOLKENANT
PETITIONERS
AND
THE LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
RESPONDENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE ASSOCIATION FOR REFORMED
POLITICAL ACTION (ARPA) CANADA, CANADIAN COUNCIL OF CHRISTIRAN
CHARITIES, CHRISTIAN LEGAL FELLOWSHIP, EVANGELICAL FELLOWSHIP
OF CANADA, CHRISTIAN HIGHER EDUCATION CANADA, JUSTICE CENTRE FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF
VANCOUVER, THE CATHOLIC CIVIL RIGHTS LEAGUE, THE FAITH AND
FREEDOM ALLIANCE, SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH IN CANADA, WEST
COAST WOMEN'S LEGAL EDUCATION AND ACTION FUND, OUTLAWS UBC,
OUTLAWS UVIC, OUTLAWS TRU AND QMUNITY
INTERVENORS
WRITTEN ARGUMENT OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Gall Legge Grant & Munroe LLP
10 00 - 1199 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, BC V6E 2T5
Peter A. Gall, Q.C.
Lawyer for the Respondent,
The Law Society of British Columbia
{GLGM-00076268;1}
TABLE OFCONTENTS
I. OUTLINEOFARGUMENT..................................................................................................................1
II. BACKGROUNDFACTS.......................................................................................................................5
A. TheRoleoftheLawSociety.........................................................................................................5
B. TheRoleofLawSchoolsinPromotingtheValuesoftheLegalSystem,andFulfillingtheObjectsof
theLawSociety.................................................................................................................................10
a) TheLawSociety’sRoleinLegalEducationinBC......................................................................10
b) TheMissionofLawSchoolsasGatewaystotheLegalProfession...........................................14
c) TheScarcityofLawSchoolSeatsandAccesstoLegalEducation.............................................16
C. TWUandtheCommunityCovenantasaConditionofAccess.....................................................17
a) OverviewofTWUanditsMission...........................................................................................17
b) TheMandatoryCovenant.......................................................................................................19
c) EnforcementoftheCovenant................................................................................................22
d) ConclusionontheEffectoftheCovenantonApplicantsandStudents....................................24
D. ProceduralBackground..............................................................................................................24
III. THEEVIDENTIARYARGUMENTSOFTHEPETITIONERS................................................................41
A. Overview...................................................................................................................................41
B. TheModernApproachtoJudicialReviewonthe‘Record’..........................................................42
C. ImplicationsofCharterValuesonthe‘Record’...........................................................................45
D. ContextoftheDecision..............................................................................................................48
E. SummaryRegardingEvidentiaryObjections...............................................................................50
IV. LEGALARGUMENT.....................................................................................................................52
A. StandardofReview....................................................................................................................52
a) PresumptionofReasonableness.............................................................................................52
b) BCCTDoesNotDictatetheAppropriateStandardofReview..................................................55
c) DecisionnotofcentralimportancetothelegalsystemandoutsidetheexpertiseoftheLaw
Society...........................................................................................................................................56
d) TheNatureoftheQuestionandDecisionMaker....................................................................59
e) TheContentoftheReasonablenessStandard........................................................................61
f) ReconcilingtheLawSociety’sStatutoryMandatewithCharterValues...................................63
B. TheLawSocietyisauthorizedundertheLegalProfessionActtoadopttheResolution...............64
a) Overview................................................................................................................................64
b) AuthoritytoDisapproveaSchoolofLawisConsistentwiththeLegalProfessionAct..............66
c) StatutoryAuthoritynotLimitedbytheLawSocietyRules.......................................................71
{GLGM-00076268;1} ii
d) ConclusiononStatutoryAuthoritytoAdopttheResolution....................................................71
C. TheBenchersdidnotsub-delegateitsstatutoryauthorityorimproperlyfetteritsdiscretion.....73
a) OverviewonFetteringandSubdelegation..............................................................................73
b) ScopeofSubrule4.1...............................................................................................................73
c) ApplicationofSubrule4.1toTWU.........................................................................................76
d) Section13DoesnotLimittheDiscretiontoHoldanExpeditedReferendum...........................80
e) ConclusiononFetteringandSubdelegation............................................................................82
D. NoBreachofProceduralFairness...............................................................................................83
E. TheLawSociety’sDecisionwasReasonable,andCorrect...........................................................86
a) OverviewontheReasonableness,andCorrectness,oftheLawSociety’sDecision..................86
b) WhattheResolutionDoesandDoesnotDo...........................................................................88
i. TheResolutionisnotbasedonthereligiouscharacterofTWU...........................................88
ii. TheResolutiondoesnotimpactthe“autonomousexistence”ofTWU’sreligiouscommunity
89
iii. TheResolutiondoesnotregulateorimpedereligiousbeliefs.............................................90
iv. TheResolutiondoesnotbegindownaslipperyslope.........................................................91
v. TheResolutiondoesnotdenyindividualsentrytothebar..................................................92
vi. TheResolutiondoesnotimpactwhethergraduatesofareligiousinstitutioncanbecome
lawyers......................................................................................................................................94
vii. TheResolutiondoesnot‘demand’thatthatTWUabandontheCommunityCovenant...95
viii. TheResolutiondoesnotbanorregulatecodesofconduct.............................................95
ix. ConclusiononthetrueimpactoftheResolution................................................................96
c) TrinityWesternUniversityv.BCCTdoesnotresolvethiscase................................................96
d) TheImpositionoftheCovenantisDiscriminatoryandImpedesEqualAccesstotheLegal
Profession....................................................................................................................................101
i. TheCovenantHasaDiscriminatoryImpactUponHistoricallyDisadvantagedGroups.......101
ii. TWU’s‘SeparatebutEqual’Argument..............................................................................109
iii. TWU’s‘LovetheSinner,HatetheSin’Argument..............................................................111
iv. TheLawSocietyCannotIgnoreitsConstitutionalandStatutoryObligationsbecauseTWUis
a‘Private’Institution................................................................................................................112
e) TheResolutionisReasonable,ConsistentwiththeLawSociety’sStatutoryMandateandLaw
SocietyRules,andUltimatelyCorrect..........................................................................................115
f) ApprovingofTWUDoesNotRepresentaProportionateBalanceofCharterValues..............117
i. TheDoréAnalysis.............................................................................................................117
ii. TheCharterRightsandInterestsofThoseSystematicallyExcludedfromTWU’sProposed
SchoolofLaw...........................................................................................................................118
iii. TheCharterRightsandInterestsofTWUasanInstitution................................................120
{GLGM-00076268;1} iii
iv. TheCharterRightsofMembersofTWU’sReligiousCommunitywhoWanttoAttendTWU
123
a. TWUisnotseekingtoprotectthefreedomofitsmembers,buttoeliminateit............123
b. FreedomofReligionisnotImpactedbytheResolution................................................125
c. FreedomofExpressionisnotImpactedbytheResolution............................................130
d. FreedomofAssociationisnotImpactedbytheResolution...........................................130
e. TheResolutiondoesnotimpactthesection15interestsofTWU’sreligiouscommunity
131
g) Conclusion:BalancingCharterRightsandValueswiththeStatutoryObjective.....................135
h) ThereWereNoAdditionalLegalBarrierstoAdoptingtheResolution...................................136
F. Conclusion...............................................................................................................................137
{GLGM-00076268;1} iv
I. OUTLINE OF ARGUMENT
1. TrinityWesternUniversity(“TWU”)seeksinitspetitiontolegallycompeltheLawSociety
to approve and facilitate its proposed law school, even though TWU will effectivelydeny
participationinitslegaleducationprogramonthebasisofsexualorientation,maritalstatus,
gender, and religion.
2. The Law Society of British Columbia (the “Law Society”) has the duty under the Legal
Profession Act to “uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice”,
including by"protecting and preserving the rights and freedoms ofallpersons".
3. It also has a duty, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to consider the
rightsandvaluesenshrined intheConstitutioninexercising itsdiscretionarypowersunder
the Legal Profession Act.
4. Pursuanttotheseduties,theLawSocietyadoptedaresolutionto notapprovetheproposed
law school of TWU, following an exhaustive review process which involved seeking the
views ofthe Law Society’s membership.
5. The Law Society adopted this resolution because TWU intends to require, as a condition
ofaccess to its proposed law school,that studentscommit to abide bya covenant that:
i. prohibits sexual intimacy between married same-sex couples but not married
heterosexual couples, thereby discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender and queer (“LGBTQ”) persons;
ii. prohibits sexual intimacy outside of marriage, discriminating against those in
long-termand committed common law relationships;
iii. denies its students access to reproductive choice, discriminating against
women;and
iv. seekstonotonlycreateanevangelicalChristianlearningenvironment,butalso,
through the Covenant, to impose evangelical Christian views and behavioural
norms onall, discriminating onthe basis ofreligion.
{GLGM-00076268;1} 1
6. As a condition of attending TWU’s proposed law school, the Covenant is clearly
discriminatoryand contraryto the equality rights ofLGBTQ people. It also discriminates
onother protectedgrounds ofmaritalstatus, gender and sex, and religion.
7. ByimposingthisCovenantasaconditionofparticipationinitsproposedlawschool,TWU
isnotonlylimitingtheaccessofLGBTQandotherpersonstothelegalprofession,butalso
sending the message that the rights and freedoms of these persons are not deserving of
protectionand preservation inour legalsystem.
8. Todothisinthecontextofprovidingalegaleducationisinconsistentwiththefundamental
values that the legal profession is obligated to uphold and protect, and inconsistent with
the Law Society’s statutorymandate.
9. TWU says that it canimpose the Covenant onstudents ofits proposed law schoolbecause
homosexualrelations, sexualintimacygenerallyoutside ofmarriage, and abortion, are not
permitted under the religion to which TWU ascribes. While this may allow TWU to
excludeLGBTQandothergroupsofpeopleinotherspheresinwhichTWUoritsreligious
community engages or participates, the Law Societydoes not consider it to be acceptable
as a condition ofparticipation in a legal education programand hence participation in the
legalprofession.
10. Law schools are the training ground for future lawyers and judges. Such training is not
confined to legalknowledge and skills, and the Law Society’s mandate is not so confined.
11. As in Ontario,the Law Societyhas had a longstanding involvement in and influence over
legal education in the Province, to ensure that the profession is meeting its obligations to
uphold and protectthe public interest inthe administrationofjustice.
12. Because law schools act as gateways to the legal profession and judicial branch of
government, the Law Society must ensure that a law school preserves the rights and
freedoms ofallpersons, including the right to equalaccess to alegaleducation, which is a
prerequisite to entryintothe legalprofession.
{GLGM-00076268;1} 2
13. A law school that engages in discriminatory action against LGBTQ and other persons in
their access to legal education seriously undermines the integrity and foundation of the
administrationofjustice.
14. That wastheviewofthe membersoftheLawSocietywhoseguidancetheBenchersrelied
onindeciding whether to approve TWU’s proposed law school.
15. Contrary to what TWU claims, the resolution is not invalid because the Law Society
adopted it after considerationofa voteofits members.
16. The Law Societyis legallyentitled to consider the wishes ofits members in exercising its
discretion under the LPA, as long as it is consistent with the Law Society’s statutory and
constitutionalobligations.
17. The Resolution is consistent with the Law Society’s statutory and constitutional
obligations.
18. The Law Society has the power to determine admission to the bar, which reasonably
includes ensuring that there is equal access to a legal education and hence to the legal
profession.
19. And most importantly, TWU does not have a religious right to the approvalofan institute
of legal education that does not preserve and protect the rights and freedoms of LGBTQ
and other persons to be able to become lawyers.
20. TWU’s religious community is lawfully entitled to pursue and advocate for its religious
beliefs. That is not being denied bythe Law Society.
21. But the Law Society is not legally obliged to approve or facilitate TWU’s proposed law
school if it does not respect the rights and freedoms ofallpersons to have equalaccess to
entryintothe legalprofession.
22. ItisimportanttoemphasizethatthiscaseisaboutapprovalofTWU’sproposedlawschool.
23. There are no graduatesofTWU’s proposed law school.
{GLGM-00076268;1} 3
24. TWU’s proposed law schoolis inthe planning stages.
25. It stillneeds accreditation fromthe Government,whichwas rescinded because ofthe Law
Society’s Resolution.
26. The Resolution has made it clear that the Law Society does not believe that a law school
should be allowed to effectively denyentryto the legalprofession through the imposition
ofa Covenant that discriminates against certainpeople inour society.
27. This is the statutory means by which the Law Society can, and indeed must, ensure that
certain groups in society are not being denied an equal opportunity to enter the legal
profession.
28. As will be elaborated uponbelow,the Law Societysubmits that it has the statutorypower
to not approve a law school that denies equal access to the legal profession through a
discriminatoryadmissions policy, and that it exercised this power reasonably, and indeed
correctly, inthe circumstances ofthis case.
29. The fact that people might have different views on how freedom of religion and equality
rights areto be balanced inthe context ofTWU’s proposed law schooldoes not meanthat
the balance reached bythe Law Societywas unreasonable.
30. The Law Society submits that reasonableness is the applicable standard of review to be
applied to its decision not to approve TWU’s proposed law school, both in terms of the
scope of its powers under the Legal Profession Act and its balancing of Charter rights in
the exercise ofits statutoryduty.
31. However, even if the standard of correctness is applied to these considerations, the Law
Societysubmits that its Resolution must be upheld.
{GLGM-00076268;1} 4
II. BACKGROUND FACTS
A. The Role ofthe Law Society
32. As the guardian of the public interest in the administration of justice, the Law Society is
statutorily required to preserve and protect the rights and freedoms of all persons and to
protectthe integrityand honour ofthe legalprofession.
33. The statutory obligations of the Law Society, as a self-regulating body, are outlined in
section3 ofthe Legal Profession Actas follows:
3. It is the object and dutyofthe societyto uphold and protect the public interest
inthe administrationofjustice by
(a) preserving and protecting the rights and freedoms ofallpersons,
(b) ensuring the independence, integrity, honour and competence oflawyers,
(c) establishing standards and programs for the education, professional
responsibility and competence of lawyers and of applicants for call and
admission,
(d)regulating the practice oflaw, and
(e) supporting and assisting lawyers, articled students and lawyers of other
jurisdictions who are permittedto practise law inBritishColumbia in fulfilling
their duties inthe practice oflaw.1
34. The Law Society is, by statutorydesign, a democratic organization. The Benchers are the
governing council of the Law Society, and the Legal Profession Act provides for the
election of Benchers by the Law Society’s members.2 There are currently twenty five
elected Benchers, and five appointed Benchers.3
35. The Legal Profession Act provides broad statutory powers to the Benchers with which to
governand administerthe affairs ofthe Law Society.
1LegalProfessionAct,SBC1998,c9(“LegalProfessionAct”or“LPA”).
2LPA,ss.4,5,7.
3LawSocietyofBCwebsite,Benchers,<http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/page.cfm?cid=50>. TheLegalProfessionAct
providesthattherecanbeamaximumofsixappointedBenchers. SeeLPA,s.5(1). TheLawSocietyRules(the
“Rules”)providethenumberofelectedbenchers,basedonthedistrictssetoutintheRules.SeeRule1-20(1).
{GLGM-00076268;1} 5
36. Thesepowers includethetakingof“anyactiontheyconsidernecessaryforthepromotion,
protection, interest or welfare of the society” and “any action consistent with this Act by
resolution”.4 For greater clarity, the Legal Profession Act provides that these powers are
not limited by any other specific power or responsibility given to the benchers under the
Act.5
37. TheBenchersarealsoempoweredgenerallytomakerulesforthegoverningofthesociety,
lawyers, law firms, articled students and applicants, and for the carrying out of the Legal
Profession Act. This power includes the ability to make rules for the purposes of
discharging the Law Society’s statutory mandate set out in section 3. The Act stipulates
thatthis generalpower is not limited byanyspecific powerorrequirement under the Act.6
38. Consistent withtheLawSociety’sbroadstatutorymandateandpowers,theBenchershave
the authorityunder the Legal Profession Actto set requirements, including but not limited
to academic requirements, necessarytoobtainadmissionto the Law Society, and to adopt
rules establishing those requirements.7
39. Pursuant to this statutoryauthorityunder the Legal Profession Act, the Benchers have set
out Rules relating to the approval of law schools.8 It is through this mechanism that the
Law Society is able to ensure that its statutory mandate is fulfilled in terms ofaccess to a
legaleducationwhich is a prerequisite to admissionto the bar.
40. Among the requisite qualifications for enrolment is proofthatthe applicant has completed
therequirementsforadegree“fromanapprovedcommonlawfacultyoflawinaCanadian
university”. The Benchers may adopt a resolution declaring that the law school is not or
has ceased to be anapproved facultyoflaw, under Rule 2-27 (4.1)(“Subrule 4.1”).
41. In determining whether to exercise the discretion conferred by Subrule 4.1, as with any
discretion under the Legal Profession Act, the Law Society must consider and seek to
4LPA,ss.4(2),4(3).
5LPA,s.4(3).
6LPA,ss.11(1),11(2).
7LPA,ss.20,21.
8SeeLawSocietyRules,Rule2-27.
{GLGM-00076268;1} 6