The question before the court is not disfelowshipping anyone can bar anyone from an association. The problem is shunning social isolation does a group have a right to enforce upon its members social isolation upon a citizen of any country who has a business relationship with other private citizens who happen to be part of a group that practices social isolation that is cruel and violates civil rights of the citizen.
Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada
by poopie 106 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
poopie
And does that group have the right to punish citizens of the country because they refuse to participate in social isolation of a person that had a previous business relationship.
-
OrphanCrow
Poopie, have you read the court documents and watched the video that Terry linked to?
-
John Davis
The case before the Canadian Supreme Court is actually whether civil courts even have the right and authority to hear cases and resolve disputes in voluntary organizations.
-
TerryWalstrom
– POSITION ON THE APPELLANTS’ QUESTIONS 23. The appellants assert that two questions are in issue. Mr. Wall’s position on those issues— which this factum addresses in reverse order—is as follows: (i) Is the Highwood Congregation’s membership decision subject to judicial review? Yes, in a limited way. Courts can review the fairness of the procedure followed by the Congregation. This procedural review differs from the public law remedy of judicial review. A long line of case law shows courts’ jurisdiction to review voluntary associations’ decisions to ensure consistency with natural justice. Mr. Wall’s application falls within this well-established jurisdiction: it challenges the procedure followed by the Congregation in reaching a decision that significantly affected Mr. Wall’s economic interests. (ii) Is the Highwood Congregation’s membership decision justiciable? Yes, it is. Mr. Wall seeks a review of the Congregation’s decision for procedural fairness alone. His application does not ask the court to resolve a dispute about or to enforce religious doctrine as such. The common law of procedural review for religious organizations is consistent with the various Charter values and interests at stake.
-
OrphanCrow
JD: The case before the Canadian Supreme Court is actually whether civil courts even have the right and authority to hear cases and resolve disputes in voluntary organizations
JD, have you read the court documents and watched the video that Terry linked to?
Whether or not civil courts have that right and authority has already been established in previous cases. They do. And they have. It has already been done.
Have you not watched the video?? The lawyers specifically bring up and address points from the 1992 Lakeside Colony case.
-
John Davis
I have not watched the video yet. But I have read the documents including the intervene briefs filed by the outside groups. The summary lists the questions that the Supreme Court has agreed to consider and to answer.
-
Fisherman
There are 3 elements that the Appeals Courts will decide before it will hear the case: 1 Subject matter 2 Justicability 3 Natural Justice
Case law establishes that secular Courts while remaining religiously neutral have a yellow light to proceed with cases of a religious nature but have a green light to go ahead with religious cases that involve distribution of property and assets. The Appellants argue that there is a contractual relationship between church and member that can be secularly adjudicated pointing to natural justice.
Everything considered, it the Court decides to take the case, it cannot compel the JW community to fellowship with the shunned member and it cannot regulate JW membership. But it can -just as it did with Conti- compel WT to follow its own standards or Religious process and it can look at damages resulting from wt failure to do so ( If Court determines that it did) in this particular case because it involves a financial loss.
-
Fisherman
They do. And they have. It has already been done.
Wrong again. The case law referred to in the appeal does not authorize the Court to adjudicate disputes of Religious process.
-
poopie
The case before the court should be mr walls civil rights were violated because shunning caused him to allow members to have there free speech violated which happened when they were forced to shun him by a group. Causing him harm as a result of the violation of members free speech rights under constitution