What the court is going to do in this case is put the elders' JC process under scrutiny.
The court will look at whether or not the JWs' judicial process follows natural justice principles.
The judicial hearings that the elders hold do not pass the sniff test and I think they will have a difficult time in court proving that their process is fair and unbiased.
The principles of natural justice concern procedural fairness and ensure a fair decision is reached by an objective decision maker. Maintaining procedural fairness protects the rights of individuals and enhances public confidence in the process.
The shunning is a consequence of the elders' actions in their JC and it is the JC itself that will come under the microscope. This is a very good thing as we all know that the JCs that the elders hold are kangaroo courts that do not give the accused the right of full disclosure, the right of representation, and the right to an objective decision maker.
This court case is happening in Canada, not the States. We are not governed by the constitution of the United States, we are governed by the Charter of Rights and Freedom. The Canadian Charter does not give a religion the freedom to oppress.
This case will have less to do with the shunning that arose from the JC and more to do with whether or not Mr. Wall's civil rights were upheld in the elders' judicial process itself. The elders will be held responsible for the consequences of their action of disfellowshipping based on whether or not their process to arrive at that decision followed natural justice rules.