Two and a half years ago, The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled unanimously in Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Judicial Committee) v. Wall that membership decisions of religious associations are not reviewable or justiciable by courts, absent an underlying legal right. Multiple religious and religiously-affiliated organizations (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Sikh, Muslim) and secular advocacy groups (like Canadian Constitution Foundation and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association) intervened in that important case, all - if I remember it correctly - supporting the position of the org.
That mostly correct judgment has been widely accepted by lawyers, scholars and courts. But there were also challenges to that precedent, and one of them was accepted by the Ontario Court of Appeal which allowed a lawsuit filed by expelled members against an Ethiopian Orthodox church to proceed. In short, it decided that written constituion and by-laws of a religious association constitute a contract and give members enforceable contractual rights that may be adjudicated by courts. Read more here, here and here.
Now the case is before the Supreme Court of Canada which will hear it on December 9. Again, multiple religious and non-religious groups intervened in that case, and Watch Tower Canada was among them. Its amicus brief is available here: https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/39094/FM040_Intervener_Watch-Tower-Bible-and-Tract-Society-of-Canada.pdf (all case briefs: https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/af-ma-eng.aspx?cas=39094), and during the hearing its representative will be given five minutes to present its position.
It should be noted that most interveners, including Canadian Civil Liberties Association, support the position of defendant (the church) while two, namely British Columbia Humanist Association and Egale Canada Human Rights Trust (an "LGBTQI2S" advocacy group), unsurprisingly oppose church autonomy and, more broadly, associations' autonomy in general.
Finally, a word of caution against sensationalism: intervening as an amici curiae isn't about supporting any party (Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Jimmy Swaggart or someone else), it's about influencing a future precedent to protect or advance amici's interests or agenda. This is how amicus curiae works.