WSO appears at Supreme Court of Canada for Highwood Congregation v. Wall appeal.

author-image
Meeshika Sharma
New Update
NULL

WSO legal counsel Balpreet Singh on Nov 2 appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada with Co-Counsel Avnish Nanda to argue for entrenchment of religious state neutrality as a Charter value.

World Sikh Organization of Canada presented oral arguments  Court  in the landmark case in Highwood Congregation v. Wall, a case questioning whether courts can judicially review membership decisions taken by private religious associations.

While this case is with respect to the expulsion of a Jehovah’s Witness member by the elders in his congregation, WSO 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.

The facts of Highwood Congregation v. Wall revolve around Mr. Wall who was “dis-fellowed” (expelled) from his Jehovah’s Witness congregation due to allegations of drunkenness and misbehavior with his family.

Advertisment

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. The WSO was granted intervener status in the case by the Supreme Court of Canada on August 24, 2017.

WSO legal counsel Balpreet Singh presented oral arguments on behalf of the organization.  The WSO argued 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.

canada-news latest-canada-news
Advertisment