by kwintestal 9 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Taken from: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2004/vol2/html/2004scr2_0650.html
I stumbled accross this the other day, at this site: The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and found it interesting. Does it appear that the WTS got the help from this group, as well as the Seventh Day Adventists for this court case? It lists both groups as "Interveners" in the case.
Kwin
Interesting that they are claiming "procedural unfairness" in how the municipality dealt with their second and third re-zoning submission.
Isn't that what the local JW elders did to you when they DFd you, kwin? That's exactly how they managed to announce that Mr Scully DA'd himself, when he did no such thing.
André Carbonneau and David M. Gnam, for the appellants.
Hey André and David... when is the WTS going to print an article in the Awake! magazine about your losing this court case and blame it on Satan the Devil for controlling the Superior Authorities™?
It seems given the case heading that the Seventh Day Adventists etc are listed as interveners which I think is someone who is opposed to the action (appeal) brought by the congregation.
DB74
Skully....it is ironic that they complain about the procedural unfairness they suffered when many suffer just the same miscarriages of justice at the hands of their so called leaders; spot on.
I was however comiserating because I thought they won the appeal? Didnt I read this right? Did they actually lose?
DB74
They only won the Appeal to the extent that the 2nd and 3rd refusal to re-zone property were dismissed. They were allowed to resubmit their request to re-zone, but the Municipality was only charged with reviewing their request and giving appropriate reasons for refusing to re-zone if that was the decision of the Municipality.
IV.Remedy31 I would allow the appeal, set aside the second and third rezoning refusals, and remit the matter to the Municipality for reconsideration of the Congregation's rezoning application.
32 The Congregation argues that this remedy is inadequate because it fears that the Municipality will once again refuse its application, this time with proper reasons. Accordingly, it asks this Court to order the Municipality to grant its rezoning application. But such an order presupposes that the Congregation is entitled to a favourable decision by the Municipality in the proper exercise of its discretion. Having already discussed the broad scope of the municipal power to pursue its urban planning program with fairness, in good faith and with a view to the public interest, I take no position on this matter.
33 It may be that in appropriate cases, high-handed or outrageous conduct as that of the Municipality in this appeal might support an order for solicitor-and-client costs or punitive damages: Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595, 2002 SCC 18; Young v. Young, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3. Although the Congregation has made no such request to this Court, we nevertheless retain the right to issue an order for solicitor-and-client costs where circumstances so warrant: Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, s. 47. However, in light of our inability to conclude on the facts whether the Municipality acted in bad faith in denying the Congregation's second and third rezoning applications, I would decline to award solicitor-and-client costs in this appeal.
34 It is also unnecessary to consider the constitutionality of the impugned provisions of the Act respecting land use planning and development and to answer the constitutional questions.
V.Conclusion
35 I would allow the appeal with costs to the Congregation and remit the Congregation's rezoning application for the property located at 2373 Labelle Boulevard to the Municipality, to be considered in accordance with these reasons and in observance of the lawful exercise of discretionary authority.
The following are the reasons delivered by
36M AJOR J. (dissenting) -- I agree with the result in the judgment of LeBel J. but restrict my reasons to his conclusions on the findings of fact of the trial judge and the absence of any infringement to freedom of religion.
English version of the reasons of Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ. delivered by
L E B EL J. (dissenting) --
I.Introduction
37 This appeal concerns a municipal zoning problem
I just realized the utter CHEEK of the WT legal team: they request to be reimbursed for solicitor-client costs, when the WTS's legal team is made up of VOLUNTEERS.
Nice way to rake in more dough at the taxpayers expense, WTS.
Isn't that what the local JW elders did to you when they DFd you, kwin? That's exactly how they managed to announce that Mr Scully DA'd himself, when he did no such thing.
Yes, that is what they did to me, but my appeal worked and I didn't have to go to the supreme court of Canada! It went as far as WTS legal, and they knew that they didn't have a leg to stand on!
No wonder no-one knows about this, they didn't win! I wonder though if when they do their stats (ex. "We've been to the supreme court and won 25 out of 30 times) if they'll include this, or if they'll say that it was an individual cong, and not the WTS that fought it?
Kwin
it was an individual cong, and not the WTS that fought it
Actually, when André Carbonneau and David Gnam are involved, it is the WTS Legal Team that is involved.
***This finding, which was based on an assessment of witnesses' credibility, should be restored and it justifies dismissing the Jehovah's Witnesses' application, since it precludes a conclusion that their freedom of religion was infringed.
(me) Hey..Judge? Your Honor? Ask the whining WTS how THEY "infringe upon" the relgious freedoms of those who wish to quietly LEAVE their organization! Ask them about how they demand their members not even SPEAK or associate with anyone wh chooses to leave; friends, relatives, etc.
***In refusing to justify its decisions, the Municipality breached its duty of procedural fairness. It acted in a manner that was arbitrary and straddled the boundary separating good from bad faith.
(me) Sounds like WTS procedure to ME! Guess it didn't go over too well.
***The Municipality did not fulfill its duty of procedural fairness in responding to the second and third rezoning applications brought by the Congregation because the Municipality gave no reasons for its denial.
***Although the Municipality's first denial of permission to rezone complied with the law, the second and third did not, in my view, because the Municipality gave no reasons for its denial, instead taking the position that it enjoyed absolute discretion to refuse the zoning variance with no explanation to the Congregation.
(me) Wouldn't it be nice if the WTS would be as forthright as they demand others to be. Sounds like a case of the old "conduct unbecoming a Christian" rutine in reverse. Guess thay can't take it when the same is pulled on THEM.
***Furthermore, the rights protected by s. 2(a) of the Charter are not absolute. First, freedom of religion is limited by the rights and freedoms of others. The diversity of opinions and convictions requires mutual tolerance and respect for others.
(me) You know what? I can't read any more of this. It absolutely makes me sick. The WTS is always ready, willing and able to jump in with both feet when THEY feel that THEIR "rights" are being stepped on......but have NO qualms about stepping ALL OVER the "little guy", the JW who merely wants "out" of their evil cult and makes him pay for the rest of his life for doing so.
Annie
BTTT for those who missed it this morning.
Kwin
