Jehovah's Witness cannot appeal expulsion to a judge: Supreme Court

[The Librarian]

OTTAWA -- The Supreme Court of Canada says a Jehovah's Witness who was expelled from his Calgary congregation cannot take his case to a judge.

In a decision today, the high court says the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench has no jurisdiction to review the congregation's decision to shun Randy Wall over alleged drunkenness and verbal abuse.

Several religious organizations took an active interest in the case, given questions about the degree to which the courts can review such decisions by faith-based bodies.

Wall, an independent realtor, was summoned in 2014 to appear before the judicial committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, a four-person panel of elders.

He admitted to two episodes of drunkenness and, on one of those occasions, verbally abusing his wife -- wrongdoing he attributed to family stress over the earlier expulsion of his 15-year old daughter from the congregation.

The judicial committee told Wall that he, too, would be expelled because he was not sufficiently repentant.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/jehovah-s-witness-cannot-appeal-expulsion-to-a-judge-supreme-court-1.3953336

[The Librarian]

SCC rules courts have limited power to review fairness of decisions of voluntary associations

The Lawyer's Daily

The elders' decision required Jehovah's Witnesses, including Wall's wife and children, to shun him. As a real estate agent, his potential income was ...

Jehovah's Witnesses win right at top court to shun a church member

iPolitics.ca

Randy Wall of Calgary has lost his case at the Supreme Court of Canada against his own church – the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's ...

Religious groups 'free to determine' membership, rules: Supreme Court - The Globe and Mail

Jehovah's Witness expelled from Calgary congregation can't take his case to a judge: Supreme Court - Toronto Star

 

Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (Judicial Committee) v. Wall

Lexum

Between: Judicial Committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. (Vaughn Lee — Chairman and Elders James Scott Lang and ...

Courts have no jurisdiction on private religious matters, Supreme Court rules The Catholic Register The decision involving the case of a man who was expelled from his Jehovah's Witness congregation is being hailed as a victory for religious freedom ... Media Release: The EFC and CCRL welcome Supreme Court decision in Wall case - Wire Service Canada (press release)

[Srecko Sostar]

33 minutes ago, The Librarian said:

the high court says the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench has no jurisdiction to review the congregation's decision to shun Randy Wall over alleged drunkenness and verbal abuse.

Court has no jurisdiction to review cong. decision to shun sinful  members or ex members. But some secular authorities  have problem with some WT procedures, as 2-3 witness for child abuse, not call police in such case, male investigators on minor victims or female victims ...

Maybe secular government must not need to be involved in "group internal regulations on membership" but some issues need to be concerned and reviewed, investigated by "outsiders". 

 

[Evacuated]

19 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

some issues need to be concerned and reviewed

And they are.

[Bible Speaks]

Jehovah's Witnesses cannot appeal expulsion to a judge, Supreme Court rules

Several religious organizations took an active interest in the case

Jim Bronskill7 The Canadian Press · Posted: May 31, 2018 9:54 AM MT | Last Updated: May 31

 

The Supreme Court of Canada heard an appeal of a decision from the Court of Appeal of Alberta concerning who has jurisdiction to hear a case involving Jehovah's Witness congregation shunning.(Chris Wattie/Canadian Press)

A Jehovah's Witness who was expelled from a Calgary congregation cannot take his case to a judge, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in a decision that affirms the general right of religious organizations to govern their own affairs.

In a 9-0 decision Thursday, the high court said the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench has no jurisdiction to review the congregation's decision to shun Randy Wall over alleged drunkenness and verbal abuse.

"In the end, religious groups are free to determine their own membership and rules," Justice Malcolm Rowe wrote in the decision, adding that courts will not intervene in such matters unless it is necessary to resolve an underlying legal dispute.

Religious and civil liberties organizations took an active interest in the case, given questions about the degree to which the courts can scrutinize decisions by faith-based bodies.

Wall, an independent realtor, was summoned in 2014 to appear before the judicial committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, a four-person panel of elders.

He admitted to two episodes of drunkenness and, on one of those occasions, verbally abusing his wife — wrongdoing he attributed to family stress over the earlier expulsion of his 15-year-old daughter from the congregation.

Not sufficiently repentant

The judicial committee told Wall, a congregation member since 1980, that he, too, would be expelled because he was not sufficiently repentant.

Members who are "disfellowshipped" may still attend congregational meetings, but they are permitted to speak only to immediate family members about non-spiritual matters.

An appeal committee upheld the decision, prompting Wall to pursue the matter in provincial court. He alleged the congregational judicial committee did not give him proper notice, an adequate opportunity to be heard or reasons for its decision.

The congregation argued that Wall's application for review should be tossed out because a secular court had no jurisdiction to review a religious tribunal's decision.

In a submission to the Court of Queen's Bench, Wall said that his real estate clients — about half of whom belonged to Jehovah's Witness congregations — refused to conduct business with him any longer.

Private parties cannot seek judicial review to solve disputes that may arise between them.- Decision

A judge concluded the court had jurisdiction to hear the case on the grounds that being shunned had an economic impact on Wall.

The provincial Court of Appeal upheld the decision, and the congregation then took its arguments to the Supreme Court.

In its decision, the high court said the purpose of judicial review is to ensure the legality of state decision-making. However, in this case, the congregational committee was not exercising statutory authority.

"Private parties cannot seek judicial review to solve disputes that may arise between them."

Courts may only interfere to address procedural fairness concerns about the decisions of religious groups or other voluntary associations if legal rights are at stake, Rowe wrote. Yet there was no evidence that Wall and the congregation had a contractual relationship.

Finally, the decision said, it is not appropriate for the courts to make decisions about religious tenets.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/jehovah-s-witnesses-supreme-court-1.4685553?cmp=rss

[David Normand]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/religious-groups-can-decide-own-membership-rules-supreme-court-says-1.3953336

Hopefully the link worked. Here is the text.

OTTAWA -- A Jehovah's Witness who was expelled from a Calgary congregation cannot take his case to a judge, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in a decision that affirms the general right of religious organizations to govern their own affairs.

In a 9-0 decision Thursday, the high court said the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench has no jurisdiction to review the congregation's decision to shun Randy Wall over alleged drunkenness and verbal abuse.

"In the end, religious groups are free to determine their own membership and rules," Justice Malcolm Rowe wrote in the decision, adding that courts will not intervene in such matters unless it is necessary to resolve an underlying legal dispute.

Religious and civil liberties organizations took an active interest in the case, given questions about the degree to which the courts can scrutinize decisions by faith-based bodies.

Wall, an independent real estate agent, was summoned in 2014 to appear before the judicial committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, a four-person panel of elders.

He admitted to two episodes of drunkenness and, on one of those occasions, verbally abusing his wife -- wrongdoing he attributed to family stress over the earlier expulsion of his 15-year old daughter from the congregation.

The judicial committee told Wall, a congregation member since 1980, that he, too, would be expelled because he was not sufficiently repentant.

Members who are "disfellowshipped" may still attend congregational meetings, but they are permitted to speak only to immediate family members about non-spiritual matters.

An appeal committee upheld the decision, prompting Wall to pursue the matter in provincial court. He alleged the congregational judicial committee did not give him proper notice, an adequate opportunity to be heard or reasons for its decision.

The congregation argued that Wall's application for review should be tossed out because a secular court had no jurisdiction to review a religious tribunal's decision.

In a submission to the Court of Queen's Bench, Wall said that his real estate clients -- about half of whom belonged to Jehovah's Witness congregations -- refused to conduct business with him any longer.

A judge concluded the court had jurisdiction to hear the case on the grounds that being shunned had an economic impact on Wall.

The provincial Court of Appeal upheld the decision, and the congregation then took its arguments to the Supreme Court.

In its decision, the high court said the purpose of judicial review is to ensure the legality of state decision-making. However, in this case, the congregational committee was not exercising statutory authority.

"Private parties cannot seek judicial review to solve disputes that may arise between them."

Courts may only interfere to address procedural fairness concerns about the decisions of religious groups or other voluntary associations if legal rights are at stake, Rowe wrote. Yet there was no evidence that Wall and the congregation had a contractual relationship.

Finally, the decision said, it is not appropriate for the courts to make decisions about religious tenets.

Wall's lawyer, Michael Feder, called the ruling disappointing because it gives religious groups and other voluntary associations "a very wide berth even though their decisions can and often do profoundly affect their members' lives."

"No matter how grave the effect of the group's decision, and no matter how unfair the procedure followed, the courts cannot ordinarily interfere."

David Gnam, a lawyer for the congregation, welcomed the decision, saying the Supreme Court "swept aside years of uncertainty and conflicting court decisions" on a fundamental matter.

 

[Bebe]

Think does that put up this kind of articles are usually non JWs. They want to make a point that JWs are usually uneducated, they don't do research when they read something. They usually don't have understood what they read. They don't like questioning information. Not strange watchtower magazine are simplified the hole time.

[Bible Speaks]

3 hours ago, enrique said:

Think does that put up this kind of articles are usually non JWs. They want to make a point that JWs are usually uneducated, they don't do research when they read something. They usually don't have understood what they read. They don't like questioning information. Not strange watchtower magazine are simplified the hole time.

@enrique

Yes! We Know! Jehovah teaches Us!

Jehovah is our Teacher! He sent His Son to accurately teach us so we won’t fall. They don’t know Jehovah or Our Lord Christ Jesus. We vindicate Jehovah’s Name just as Our Lord Christ Jesus did. Thank you for your support. 

[Bible Speaks]

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17101/index.do

 

https://www.jw.org/en/news/jw/

 

[Queen Esther]

BREAKING NEWS | Supreme Court of Canada Rules in Favor of Jehovah’s Witnesses

In a unanimous decision released on May 31, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the disfellowshipping arrangement should remain free from court intervention. We rejoice in this vindication of Jehovah’s righteous standards.—Isaiah 33:22.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17101/index.do

[Jack Ryan]

Meanwhile....JW Org "rejoices" over the disfellowshipping "arrangement"

After condemning the Catholic practice of Excommunication back in 1947, The Jehovah's Witness organization reversed direction and decided that disfellowshipping and shunning are very powerful tools for maintaining control over the activities and behavior of members.

Cloaking their practice as "Christian" and "loving" - Witnesses have fallen in line like minions for fear of losing the one thing precious to all humans - their family.

[Srecko Sostar]

In the light of the doctrine that JW teaches; "God permits that good and bad things are happening  on earth" - Can we comment on such judgment of this Court, as God's permission on/for secular authorities to decide about the life of Mr Wall, and also about the life of the assembly and the elders??

Does this "victory" is victory of JHVH ("vindication of JHVH righteous standards" as JWorg website has explaining) or the victory of WTJWorg lawyers or is this the victory of Satan who is the real god of this world, as Bible quotes?

Who really won?? What god won in Canada? And what god won in Russia? :))))