Bars to the Bar: Diversity in the Legal Profession Before the Canadian Supreme Court – Michael Rhimes

21 June 2018 by

On 15th June 2018 the Canadian Supreme Court handed down two interesting and closely related judgments involving Trinity Western University: Law Society of British Columbia v Trinity Western University and Brayden Volkenant 2018 SCC 32 and Trinity Western University and Brayden Volkenant v Law Society of Upper Canada 2018 SCC 32

Trinity Western University (TWU) is a Christian University – indeed, in its own words, it is “a distinctly Christian university” (here, page 2). It takes “the Bible as the divinely inspired, authoritative guide for personal and community life” (here, page 1) and seeks“to develop godly Christian leaders”.

Prospective TWU students must sign a ‘Community Covenant’. That Covenant requires them to commit to “reserve sexual expressions of intimacy for marriage” and abstain from“sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman” (here, page 3). This rule applies both on and off campus(the Abstinence Rule, see paras [1] and [319]).

The Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC) refused to approve TWU’s faculty of Law because of the Abstinence Rule (I will call this the Decision). The question before the Supreme Court of Canada was whether this was lawful. The issue in Law Society of Upper Canada dealt with a similar decision of the Law Society of another province(Ontario)to approve the TWU law school.  

The majority (7 to 2) held that the decision was lawful. I leave to the side the interpretation of the statute underpinning the LSBC and constitutional issues particular to the Canadian legal system and focus more specifically on the “balancing” of the fundamental rights at stake in this case.

Majority reasoning and two concurring opinions 

The majority reasoning, consisting of Justices Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner and Gascon,first concluded that TWU’s right to religious freedom under the  Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was engaged. Evangelical Christians believe that they should carry their beliefs into educational communities [65]. TWU sought to foster spiritual growth by insisting on a Christian code of conduct,the Covenant, in TWU [69], [71].

However, the majority found that the interference with the right to religious freedom was minor. The Abstinence Rule is not “absolutely required” to ensure the provision of legal education in a spiritually appropriate environment for evangelical Christians [87]. So much was supported by evidence to the effect that the Covenant enhanced previous students’experiences but was not a necessary precondition of their attendance [88]. This was not a situation of “forced apostasy” where a requirement was imposed in direct contradiction to a tenet of their faith (contrast with the requirement to have a photo taken for a driving license, contrary to the Hutterian belief that the taking of such likeness violates the Second Commandment Hutterian Brethren) [90]

In addition, the restriction in the Decision furthered the objectives of LSBC by “maintaining equal access to and diversity in the legal profession”. The 60 law schools seats proposed by TWU would be effectively barred to LGBTQ students, who could only take up a place at TWU at considerable personal cost – foregoing any sexual relations (outside a heterosexual marriage) during their time at TWU [93]. The fact those students could apply elsewhere was not germane; the point of substantive equality is the elimination of discriminatory barriers, not the mere availability of alternative options [95].

Two justices agreed with the majority in concurring opinions.

Justice Rowe went further and concluded that the right to religious freedom was not engaged, (i.e. at issue)in the present case.Heheld, assuming that a sincere belief had been demonstrated, that the Abstinence Rule sought to impose the religious beliefs of evangelical Christians on non-believers. However, the coercion of others into religious beliefs is not protected by the Charter [242].

Chief Justice McLachlin goes less far and concluded (like the majority)that the right to religious freedom is engaged but (unlike the majority)  that the infringement of that religious freedom was not minor) but substantial. She stressed that the right in issue was not simply the right to study in a religious environment, but to study in a religious environment where all members of the community adhere to common ethical standards [130]. In effect, there was an acute denial of the right to express religious beliefs in an institutional form [134].

She nevertheless agreed with the majority that the effect of the Abstinence Rule puts LGBTQ persons to a choice, namely to either “attend TWU or enjoy equal treatment” [138]. The LSBC, operating under a “unique statutory mandate” [150] could not, at the same time, give its blessing to the TWU law school by approving it and combat discrimination against LGBTQ persons, as it was required. It was therefore not unreasonable for it to refuse the approval of TWU.

Minority reasoning

A minority of two, Justices Côté and Brown,held that the decision was unlawful. Their reasoning shows three principal differences from that of the majority.

As a preliminary point, I note that the minority held that the LSBC’s Decision was ultra vires the statute governing the LSBC [281] [285]. The focus should have been solely on whether TWU graduates met the ethical and competency requirements to practice at the Barand not on broader questions of LGBTQ representation in law schools [267], [273].

The first point of difference is that the minority stressed that the LSBC is a state body. Given that the LSBC made it clear that they were prepared to approve the law school if it dropped the Abstinence Rule, the LSBC, as a state body, was forcing TWU to manifest their Christian Evangelism in a certain way, in contradiction of the principle of state neutrality [324]. It was not TWU’s duty, as a private body against whom the Charter does not apply, to facilitate greater diversity at the Bar.

The second point of difference is that  the minority held that it was misguided to place emphasis on LGBTQ diversity at the Bar given that the decision entailed a concomitant restriction on evangelical Christians’ access to the Bar [269]. The inequality stemming from the Abstinence Rule (LGBTQ persons being less likely to apply to TWU as a result of the Rule) promoted the religious freedom of evangelical Christians to associate in educational environments conducive to their spiritual beliefs. This contributes to a more pluralistic society [328]. Tolerance involves “allowing for difference” (i.e. evangelical Christians and their communal modes of association), not a “forced choice between conformity with a single majoritarian norm and withdrawal from the public square” [332] [333].

Finally, the minority took a more sanguine view of the effect of the Abstinence Rule. It affected heterosexual non-married couples as well; was not directed against LGBTQ persons; and sought to ensure the vitality of the TWU community [335]. More broadly, LSBC’s approval of TWU would not amount to condoning TWU’s viewson sexual morality. The LSBC role is to govern the legal profession and the accreditation of a particular law school; thisdoes not mean LSBC endorses that law school’s views[338].


It is not the purpose of this summary to take a position on the complex balancing issues that were explored in the TWU judgments. But in the current climate of seeking greater representation of minorities at the Bar, the following passage from Law Society of Upper Canada, the “sister” case to Law Society of British Columbia handed down on the same day, is particularly telling(emphasis in the original):

[20]… the [Law Society of Upper Canada] was entitled to conclude that equal access to the legal profession, diversity within the bar, and preventing harm to LGBTQ law students were all within the scope of its duty to uphold the public interest in the accreditation context, which necessarily includes upholding a positive public perception of the legal profession.


[23]The [Law Society of Upper Canada] was also entitled to interpret the public interest as being furthered by promoting a diverse bar. Access to justice is facilitated where clients seeking legal services are able to access a legal profession that is reflective of a diverse population and responsive to its diverse needs. Accordingly, ensuring a diverse legal profession, which is facilitated when there are no inequitable barriers to those seeking to access legal education, furthers access to justice and promotes the public interest.

This is a ringing endorsement of the value of LGBTQ diversity at the Bar, and one which merits careful reflection. Considerable progress has been achieved in the promotion, and visibility, of gay persons at the Bar and Bench. In that regard, I note that the Master of the Rolls of the United Kingdom, Sir Terence Etherton, is openly gay. There are other senior judges in other jurisdictions who are also openly gay, such as Justice Edwin Cameron of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, who publicly announced in 1997 that he was HIV positive. There are 11 openly gay State Supreme Court justices who currently serve in the United States of America, 8 of whom are women.

This acceptance is to be welcomed, but not taken for granted.To put it in context, it has been nearly 60 years since the film Victim was released in 1961, when homosexual acts were still criminalized. It tells the story of a barrister, Melville Farr, on the cusp of taking silk. Although married, he has a clandestine relationship with a man. While the film makes a clear plea for the decriminalization of homosexual acts, it effectively accepted the diametrical opposition between a life at the Bar, and life as an openly gay man.

Nowadays, we are fortunate that FARR IS QUEER, the slogan scrawled on Farr’s garage, would no longer be an epitaph for a career at the Bar. This is due to decisions of people like Sir Terence Etherton and Justice Edwin Cameron to come out, publicly, as gay. It is also due to broader social shifts, which the majority in the Canadian Supreme Court tellingly highlighted in the TWU cases.

Michael Rhimes is the fourth référendaire to Judge Christopher Vajda at the Court of Justice of the European Union. The opinions expressed in this piece are strictly personal. While the author has attempted to summarise salient features of this case, he does not have a background in Canadian law. The author wishes to thank Azeem Ahmed for drawing this case to his attention and William Moody for his comments.



  1. I have simply skimmed the contents. If only Society as a whole understood the benefits of celibacy, the entire world would be a better place. It is vital to reserve sexual intimacy for marriage of male & female. Virgins from both sexes bring forth healthy as well as spiritual off spring.This furthermore prevents divorce.
    This is a non religious practice. It is a practice forgotten in modern society. Neither is it based on any faith.
    Any ‘proper’ individual refrains from sexual contact.
    Celibacy can be enforced while on ones premises.
    Benefits of Celibacy if highlighted may caution others. Numerous sexual diseases in todays society are on the increase.Attach a stigma to those with these diseases.
    Celibacy is more a matter of a principled individual rather than religion or any faith.
    Further it supports non-attachment whereby one can focus on ones ambition rather than be distracted due to sexual pleasure. Besides, a sexual partner under such circumstances will only bring heart ache at some point.
    Privy parts are for procreation & not pleasure.
    All which is man made and gives pleasure, must give pain.
    Observance of Celibacy strengthens the immune system, provides vitality to the entire body, enabling the energy centres to operate so one can make contact with our inner spirit. This has no connection with any religion nor faith.
    In fact, I have published a booked called ‘Cosmic Human Beings’ which is basically to prove to every Human Being that they are connected to the Cosmos. It is recommeded for every Human Being so that we can all make our Spiritual contact.
    The word Spirtual is from Spirit.
    We are all Spirit Beings cloaked in flesh and bones.
    It is Spirit which keeps us alive.
    Spirit is Breath.
    Spirit is Life.
    Without Spirit you do not DIE but are transformed back to Flesh and Bones — recycled. Read my other book in this connection ‘Key to Heaven’ try ‘’ to understand more.
    The world will be a better place if only we understood reality.
    Peace to your Mind for reading this.

  2. Wei Chong a lawyer from Malaysia says:

    The Law Society of British Columbia’s main concern should be whether the course works taught by the University is of the standard which is acceptable and all other considerations should be irrelevant.
    I am sure there are hundreds of other recognised Law Schools in and outside of Canada which could cater for all kinds of people.
    It is sad to see that every circumstance is now being examined on whether it is politically correct to do so.

  3. tureksite says:

    Master of the Rolls of England and Wales. Not the UK.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: