A law school seemed like the “natural next step”1 in the evolution of programs offered at Trinity Western University (TWU), a private Christian university
in Langley, British Columbia, Canada aims to be a tolerant, multicultural society that celebrates diversity. A Christian law school could serve to broaden
and enrich Canada’s diversity. However, this turned out not to be the case. Despite the fact that there are about 18 secular English common law schools in
Canada, with no faith-based alternative, the prospect of having one faith-based law school caused a level of opposition and rancor not seen before in
Canadian legal history—and it is not over yet, not by a long shot. This debate will, in all likelihood, make it to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The furor against TWU has arisen in response to its “Community Covenant Agreement,” 2 a code of conduct that, among other expectations, requires all
students to abstain from “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.” 3 TWU’s definition of marriage stands in
contrast to the “any two persons” definition of Canadian legislation.4 According to prominent lawyer Clayton Ruby, “this alone makes it [TWU] incompetent
to deliver legal education in the public interest.”5

TWU has maintained that it does not discriminate against anyone, including those in the LGBTQ community. In fact, TWU accepts LGBTQ students, as they do
all prospective students, on the basis of entrance requirements. However, TWU will expect all law students to abide by the “Community Covenant Agreement”
during their course of study—it is required of the entire student body. This criterion, however, is not acceptable to the LGBTQ community, who demand
nothing less than TWU’s complete capitulation on the matter.

The animosity toward TWU’s law school proposal did not prevent the Federation of Law Societies of Canada (FLSC) giving its “preliminary approval” for the
law school to go ahead.6 Only a few days later the British Columbia government also gave its approval.7 So too, did the Law Society of British Columbia.8
However, the opposition within the legal profession became so intense that both the Law Society of British Columbia and the British Columbia government
withdrew their approvals. Two other law societies refused to accept TWU law graduates: the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society9 (NSBS) and the Law Society of
Upper Canada (Ontario) (LSUC).10 TWU was left with no choice but to seek judicial review of these decisions and has commenced legal action against the
three law societies.

The first jurisdiction to hold a hearing on TWU’s argument was the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia in December 2014. In January 2015 Justice Jamie Campbell
released his decision.11 His was a damning indictment against the Barristers’ Society attempt to regulate TWU. He rejected the NSBS argument that the
Community Covenant was “unlawful discrimination.” “It is not unlawful,” said Campbell. “It may be offensive to many, but it is not unlawful. TWU is not the
government. Like churches and other private institutions, it does not have to comply with the equality provisions of the Charter [of Rights and Freedoms].”
He continued that TWU “was not in breach of any human rights legislation that applies to it.”12

Justice Campbell recognized that Canadians have the right to attend a religious university that imposes a religiously based code of conduct, even if that
code excludes or offends others who will not or cannot comply. “Learning in an environment with people who promise to comply with the code is a religious
practice and an expression of religious faith. There is nothing illegal or even rogue about that. That is a messy and uncomfortable fact of life in a
pluralistic society.”13 To demand that right to be sacrificed for state recognition of professional education was an infringement of religious freedom that
could not be justified.

Though Canada is a secular society and becoming more so, Justice Campbell made it clear that the state must remain neutral on matters of religion and not
favor one religion or no religion. “[The state] has not purged religiously informed moral consciences from the public sphere nor does it accord them more
weight than others,” he noted. “The society is secular, but the state does not have a secularizing mission.”14 “The Charter is not a blueprint for moral
conformity. Its purpose is to protect the citizen from the power of the state, not to enforce compliance by citizens or private institutions with the moral
judgments of the state.”15 “The Charter does not apply to TWU. TWU is not engaging in unlawful discrimination. The fact that the NSBS and the Nova Scotia
Human Rights Commission do not like it does not make it unlawful.”16

The Court reviewed the role of marriage as being a central institution to the faith and practice of Evangelical Christians.17 The codes of conduct
incorporating such faith communicate the identity and ethos of the university. They “are seen as establishing a community ‘conducive to spiritual growth in
the context of Christian colleges and universities.’ The environments are intended to be protected from influences that are detrimental to personal
spiritual growth.”18

He noted that the NSBS’s jurisdiction only begins once an application is made to practice law in Nova Scotia. At that stage the NSBS has the authority to
make the determination whether the applicant is qualified. The Barristers’ Society agreed that the TWU graduate would be no less willing to comply with the
ethical standards regarding LGBT equality rights than anyone else. As to the law degree, the NSBS has no authority to define what is or is not a law
degree,19 but it could prevent a person from practicing law if their degree did not properly train them for practice in Nova Scotia.20

Justice Campbell ruled that the NSBS was not regulating the graduate or the law degree, but was attempting to regulate the law school itself. Its decision
had nothing to do with the qualifications of the students or the quality of the degree.21 It was clearly outside of its mandate. “The NSBS has no authority
whatsoever to dictate directly what a university does or does not do,” said Campbell. Indeed, it could not require TWU to change its Community Covenant any
more than it could regulate which professors should be granted tenure, what fees should be charged, or which admissions policies should be implemented.22

In short, the Barristers’ Society “cannot do indirectly what it has no authority to do directly.”23 TWU, like any other law school, can do what it wants
and not worry about NSBS regulations. NSBS used its arbitrary definition of “law degree” to impose a penalty on the TWU graduate. The Community Covenant is
a nonacademic policy subject to the British Columbia regulatory regime and “is unrelated to, irrelevant to and extraneous to the practice of law in Nova
Scotia.”24

Despite the resounding loss, the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society has decided to appeal. In its announcement of the appeal the society gave as justification
for its appeal the following rationale: “If left unchallenged, this ruling may significantly restrict the scope of the society’s authority to uphold and
protect the public interest in regulating the legal profession. It may also prohibit the society from continuing to take on a wider role in the promotion
of equality in all aspects of its work, including in the administration of justice.”25

That statement speaks volumes of what is motivating the society.

They claim Campbell’s ruling would restrict the scope of the society’s authority. Justice Campbell made it very clear that the society has absolutely no
legal authority to regulate law schools—especially those in another province. Even if it did, it was unreasonable in its lack of concern for the religious
freedom issues. However, the society does not want to be limited by the current state of the law—it has much grander plans.

NSBS is wanting “a wider role in the promotion of equality in all aspects of its work, including in the administration of justice.” That remarkable
statement helps us to see more clearly what Canadian society—and the religious community in particular—is up against. The issue is no longer about the
law—it is well beyond that point. The NSBS has unapologetically proclaimed in its rationalization that it is an advocate for taking on “a wider role in the
promotion of equality in all aspects of its work.” That is an incredible statement of admission. A law society has now deemed its public interest to be the
“advocate in chief” (my words) in promoting equality (as it understands equality) at the expense of religious freedom. We are indeed entering a very scary
time when, under the guise of a Charter “freedom,” the Charter is now being used as “a blueprint for moral conformity.”

This statement of the NSBS not only reveals Justice Campbell’s wisdom in upholding the rule of law and rejecting the NSBS’s overreach, but also shows his
prescience about how far NSBS’s radical ideas would go in trampling other Charter freedoms. The very radical nature of the NSBS agenda has been laid bare.
Religious freedom of a religious university is clearly in the crosshairs of the Nova Scotia Barrister’s Society as it takes on “a wider role” to promote
equality.

In other words, “Step aside! Mere religious freedom will not stop in our attempt to make Trinity Western University free!” Have we arrived at the point
where our law societies can flagrantly disregard the law to push their own agendas forward? This isn’t as far-fetched as it seems. After all, a bencher of
the Law Society of British Columbia was clear about his perspective on the law when he said, “We are the law!”26 This is a no-holds-barred attempt at the
very moral conformity Campbell warned against.

Justice Campbell stated that the NSBS decision against TWU “amounts to a quota system by which TWU graduates who are more likely to be Evangelical
Christians are discouraged from applying so that the proportion of LGBT lawyers is raised. A more direct approach would be to directly limit the number of
heterosexual articled clerks to reduce the disparity. That is every bit as strange as it sounds. That is not how social progress is achieved in a liberal
democracy.”27

It is strange—more than strange—for a law society to be so willing to take on the role of promoting one right (equality) over another (freedom of
religion).

The rule of law is society’s protection against exactly what NSBS is now doing. The rule of law carries within itself recognition that the law has its
limits. The law was never meant to interfere with civil society and destroy the organizations and communities that make a liberal democracy a place where
we can mutually live lives in accordance with our deep moral and ethical commitments. Without the rule of law, those in power will inevitably use the
rubric of “law” to do whatever they want—including the forceful interference in our religious and personal space.

At one point the secularists said, in effect, “As long as religionists stay to themselves we will leave them alone.”28 The religious community that founded
TWU tried to do that—establish its own religious university as permitted by law and guaranteed by the Charter. Such universities are not new—they have been
around for about 1,500 years.29 Now, unfortunately, the tables have turned—the law is being disregarded by those who claim to operate in the “public
interest” as they seek “a wider role;” ensuring those universities are not left alone despite the fact that they follow the law and want to be left alone.