Posts by search

2

Canadian Constitution Foundation granted intervener status in Supreme Court freedom of association case

by jw news 2017 in

http://www.wireservice.ca/index.php?module=news&func=display&sid=21781.

"media release: canadian constitution foundation granted intervener status in supreme court freedom of association case.

today, the supreme court of canada granted the ccf's motion to intervene in a case that will have profound implications for all private civil society organizations, and particularly religious congregations... .

search

There remains one intervenor application undecided. The following have been approved:

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH IN CANADA, THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS IN CANADA, CANADIAN COUNCIL OF CHRISTIAN CHARITIES, THE ASSOCIATION FOR REFORMED POLITICAL ACTION CANADA, THE BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION, THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION FOUNDATION, CHRISTIAN LEGAL FELLOWSHIP, EVANGELICAL FELLOWSHIP OF CANADA, THE CATHOLIC CIVIL RIGHTS LEAGUE, WORLD SIKH ORGANIZATION OF CANADA, THE JUSTICE CENTRE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS

43

New Announcement At The 2017 - DF'd People To Sit At The Back Of The Hall

by pale.emperor in

has anyone else heard this?

a poster on another thread said it's a new rule brought in at this years convention.. last year they were told to shun even non df people and now this?

a religion cant force someone where to plonk their ass surely?.

search

OK - it was longer ago than I thought but here is the article about where DF'ed ones can sit.
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20130815/disfellowshipped-child-seating-location/
Although the title refers to children it is clear that a DF'ed person of any age can sit anywhere just so long as they respect where they are.

konceptual99
I should add that the above article has a footnote to confirm it updates previous direction in The Watchtower of April 1, 1953, page 223.
This is referenced by Blondie in this thread...

Believe it or not, this innocuous seeming outdated policy and an egomaniacal elder started a chain of events leading WT to Supreme Court.

3

Canadian Article: Disfellowshipping is Hard to Do (Randy Wall case)

by AndersonsInfo in

jw
friends

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0b84577c-6c04-4259-af99-669a0ca6e41a.

disfellowshipping is hard to do .

drache aptowitzer llp .

search

They are trolling for intervenors.

No further comment for now.

As an aside, the schedule is:

Highwood factum - July 4

My factum - Sept 4

Hearing - Nov 2.

The hearing should be televised on CPAC.

6

Hopefully a Commonwealth Precedent - DF'ing Reviewable by a Court

by search in

well, it's been a very long road, so far, but, for the greater good.. appeal decision posted today.. http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2016/2016abca255/2016abca255.html?autocompletestr=highwood%20congr&autocompletepos=1.

search

The Supreme Court has set November 2, 2017 as the hearing date.

My lawyer's bio is here:

https://www.mccarthy.ca/lawyer_detail.aspx?id=5549

43

How long has it been since you have seen your family?

by Christian Gutierrez in

jw
friends

howdy guys!

so how long has it been since you have seen your jw family or friends?

or do you even care to have them in your life anymore?

search

2 years, 7 months, 10 days

48

Disfellowshipping decision to go before Canadian Supreme Court

by Simon in

high court will examine whether judicial review applies to membership decisions made by religious groups.

the supreme court of canada has agreed to hear an appeal involving a calgary man who was kicked out of his jehovah's witness church.. randy wall, a real estate agent was "disfellowshipped" from the highwood congregation for being drunk on two occasions and allegedly verbally abusing his wife.. as a result, he says his clients refused to do further business with him, so he argued his property and civil rights were affected.. after losing three internal church appeals of his expulsion, wall made an application with the court of queen's bench in calgary which ordered a hearing to first determine if there was jurisdiction for the court to hear the application.. decisions and appeals.

a judge decided the superior court did have jurisdiction to hear the application.. the church then appealed wall's decision to the alberta court of appeal, which upheld the court of queen's bench, affirming the court has jurisdiction to hear the matter.. one of the three appeal court judges dissented — arguing that congregations are private organizations akin to bridge clubs, whose decisions "are not enforceable promises and have limited, if any, impact outside its small circle.".

search

very incomplete

very

it's up to the opposing counsel to object

"A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for his client" - Guilty as charged.

who the "Coordinators Committee" is

Every Committee is chaired by a Governing Body member, with other Governing Body members and helpers.
This photo has Sanderson as the chair of this committee, 3 other GB members, and at least 12 helpers in attendance.

48

Disfellowshipping decision to go before Canadian Supreme Court

by Simon in

high court will examine whether judicial review applies to membership decisions made by religious groups.

the supreme court of canada has agreed to hear an appeal involving a calgary man who was kicked out of his jehovah's witness church.. randy wall, a real estate agent was "disfellowshipped" from the highwood congregation for being drunk on two occasions and allegedly verbally abusing his wife.. as a result, he says his clients refused to do further business with him, so he argued his property and civil rights were affected.. after losing three internal church appeals of his expulsion, wall made an application with the court of queen's bench in calgary which ordered a hearing to first determine if there was jurisdiction for the court to hear the application.. decisions and appeals.

a judge decided the superior court did have jurisdiction to hear the application.. the church then appealed wall's decision to the alberta court of appeal, which upheld the court of queen's bench, affirming the court has jurisdiction to hear the matter.. one of the three appeal court judges dissented — arguing that congregations are private organizations akin to bridge clubs, whose decisions "are not enforceable promises and have limited, if any, impact outside its small circle.".

search

There are elements in the news articles that are inaccurate - both ways.

As a background, I have been baptized for over 30 years.

The things that I have seen, heard, and experienced in this particular congregation stunned even a veteran JW such as myself.

Yes, there is a major difference between US and Canadian views toward the issue at hand.

The average person making comments about the trial court decision, as well as the appeal decision, seem to think that the judges simply pulled a decision out of their rear end. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Justice Wilson is sharp as a tack. Both parties had submitted their factums and books of authorities according to court timelines, as per normal. It was a 2.5 hour hearing.

Likewise, appeal court had regular, full submissions, and a full hearing of some 2 hours.

Highwood's lawyer made a number of, ah-hem, "misrepresentations," that stood uncorrected. The dissenting appeal court judge made particular reference to these inaccuracies, viewing them as facts in his dissenting remarks. These inaccuracies will not stand uncorrected before the Supreme Court.

I will be posting online the factums and books of authorities in the future.

Please be aware that his journey was not undertaken to "strike back" at the Society. The actions of certain elders were extremely over the top, harming many members of the congregation. These elders have tenure, so the branch turned a blind eye.

I would estimate that less than 5% of the relevant information has been released to date. After Highwood files their Supreme Court filings, further information will be released. After the conclusion of the Supreme Court hearing, and the release of their decision, everything will be released.

This has been a 3-year journey, and there is about 3 years to go.

It is of note that the Governing Body directly approved, both the Alberta Appeal, and the Supreme Court Appeal. (Branch Manual - chapter 3, paragraph 27) "In the event of an adverse ruling or decision, the Branch Committee should immediately inform the Coordinators' Committee and specify the time limit for making an appeal. The Coordinators' Committee will want to know the opinion of the branch Legal Department about the advisability of appealing, the reasons for or against making an appeal, as well as the costs. The letter to the Coordinators' Committee should also state any possible negative effects on the legal status of the Kingdom work if the matter is not appealed or if the appeal is lost."

Trivia: I was in the same congregation as John MacEwan (now on Canada's Branch Committee) back in the day. I had great admiration and respect for John. Jayden was still in short-pants, as one says.

48

Disfellowshipping decision to go before Canadian Supreme Court

by Simon in

high court will examine whether judicial review applies to membership decisions made by religious groups.

the supreme court of canada has agreed to hear an appeal involving a calgary man who was kicked out of his jehovah's witness church.. randy wall, a real estate agent was "disfellowshipped" from the highwood congregation for being drunk on two occasions and allegedly verbally abusing his wife.. as a result, he says his clients refused to do further business with him, so he argued his property and civil rights were affected.. after losing three internal church appeals of his expulsion, wall made an application with the court of queen's bench in calgary which ordered a hearing to first determine if there was jurisdiction for the court to hear the application.. decisions and appeals.

a judge decided the superior court did have jurisdiction to hear the application.. the church then appealed wall's decision to the alberta court of appeal, which upheld the court of queen's bench, affirming the court has jurisdiction to hear the matter.. one of the three appeal court judges dissented — arguing that congregations are private organizations akin to bridge clubs, whose decisions "are not enforceable promises and have limited, if any, impact outside its small circle.".

search

Just to add clarity:

This case is about two simple things:

- Did the Judicial Committee follow the "principles of natural justice"? - A requirement in Canada.

- Did the Judicial Committee follow its own internal rules (eg. in The Shepherd the Flock of God book)?

The statements made by Gnam and MacEwan as to freedom to associate, etc. are superfluous, strawman statements.

(And, no, Richard Oliver, I am not a wife-beater).

Randy

44

Canadian Appeal Court decision made the news: Judges can overturn unfair church edicts

by AndersonsInfo in

jw
friends

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/religion/alberta-appeal-court-rules-judges-can-overturn-unfair-church-edicts.

the other day, this court decision was posted on jwn along with a link to the court document, but few expected the media to pick up the story.

so to all involved, i understand it was a surprise to see the story in print.

search

Ironic and historically significant...I think this case has the potential to shift power significantly in favor of individual rights.

Canada's Charter has always been about the individual - WT is trying to shift it to corporations

From the Appeal

ISSUE SIX - Does a foreign corporation have Canadian Charter Rights and Freedoms?
67. For the most part, the Watch Tower Pennsylvania Corporation has had its way with American courts. The Appellants ask for support in Canada in the same way that the American Constitution allows religions to oppress their members if they desire.
68. Does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms give unfettered and unchecked actions to an American Corporation? Justice O’Sullivan specifically addressed this very issue.
Much has been said in this case about freedom of religion as if the Charter of Rights protected religious bodies in their freedom to oppress their members. What the Charter, as distinguished from the American First Amendment, protects is not freedom of a religious group to conduct itself in whatever manner it pleases, but rather the freedom of the individual to liberty of conscience and religion. [1]
69. There is no ambiguity in Justice O’Sullivan’s words. Yet, Watch Tower is arguing that the Canadian Charter of Rights gives it “freedom to oppress their members.” The Canadian Charter does not give the Watch Tower Corporation such freedom. The Canadian Charter gives freedom to the individuals. The Watch Tower Corporation does not have the right to extinguish the individual’s freedom.
70. In Constitutional Law of Canada, Peter Hogg writes that parliament deliberately chose the word “individual” to remove confusion around the word “person.” Furthermore, if ever some type of right were obtainable by a corporation, it would exclude foreign corporations, of which is Watch Tower Pennsylvania Corporation. [2]

[1] Lakeside Colony of Hutterian Brethren v. Hofer (Man. C.A.) [1991] M.J. No. 27

[2] Constitutional Law of Canada at 37.1 ( c )

Constitutional Law of Canada - Peter Hogg

Section 15 confers its equality rights on "every individual". This is a more specific term than "everyone", "any person" or "anyone", and it probably excludes a corporation, at least in the context of an instrument which also contains the more general terms. The word "individual" was substituted for "everyone" during the parliamentary committee's deliberations on the Charter, and the explanation given to the committee was that the change was intended "to make it clear that this right would apply to natural persons only". Within s. 15, the reference to "discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability" also reinforces the exclusion of corporations: the listed attributes are all personal characteristics of human beings, and only "natural origin" could apply to corporations as well. But in that company, national origin should probably be read down to exclude foreign corporations.

6

Hopefully a Commonwealth Precedent - DF'ing Reviewable by a Court

by search in

well, it's been a very long road, so far, but, for the greater good.. appeal decision posted today.. http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2016/2016abca255/2016abca255.html?autocompletestr=highwood%20congr&autocompletepos=1.

search

Well, it's been a very long road, so far, but, for the greater good.

Appeal decision posted today.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2016/2016abca255/2016abca255.html?autocompleteStr=highwood%20congr&autocompletePos=1