Here is one excerpt for you, found on page 34 of the decision.
[133] However, Canadian courts have held that freedom of religion is not absolute. Where the exercise of religious beliefs adversely affects the rights of others, the courts can and will intervene: R v. Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 SCR 295; P. (D). v. S.(C), [1993] 4 SCR 141; Young v Young, [1993] 4 SCR 3
[134] ... Canadian courts have not been reluctant to find a fiduciary relationship between a minister or a priest and a member of the congregation, provided the usual tests for the existence of suca relationship are met. The fact that the relationsip arises in a religious setting has not been a seen as a bar to imposing a fiduciary duty of care. Deiwick v Frid, [1991] O.J. No 1803 (Gen Div); W.K. v Pornbacher [1997] BCJ No 57 (BCSC)
[139] The leading cases in this area have arisen when the religious values of parents have been found to be harmful to children. However there is no reason to restrict the principles established in these cases to cases involving children. Laws, both statutory and common law, whose purpose is to protect the vulnerable cannot be thwarted by a claim that the conduct harming the vulnerable person is permitted, or even mandated, by the perpetrator's religious convictions.In extreme situations, such a restriction on religious freedom is necessary to prevent violence against others in the name of religion. Further I can see no principled reason to restrict the protection to intentional torts; it should have equal application to other causes of actions such as negligence. My starting point therefore, is that a tort committed by a person in the course of what he or she sincerely believes to be a religious duty is not automatically shielded from the scrutiny by the courts by operation of the constitutional protection for freedom of religion. Where the rights of an individual are in conflict with the religious freedom rights of another, the courts can and will balance the competing rights in considering what if any remedy is appropriate.
[140] That is not to say that courts are entitled to disregard issues of religious freedom entirely in deciding cases of this nature. On the contrary principles of religious freedom will beintegral to such decisions. However, the fact that a principle of religious freedom may be involved will not necessarily be a bar to a litigant's right to a remedy before the courts. The extent to which the rights of the individual will take priority over the principles of religious freedom will depend on the circumstances of each case. As is demonstrated by the cases to which I have referred above, courts will commonly favour the health and safety of children over the religious values of their parents if their religious practices are harmful to their children. The same would hold true for other vulnerable persons who are harmed as a result of the religious belief of others. The free will of competent adults to choose their own religious faith must be recognized. Having chosen a particular religion or voluntarily elected to remain a member of it, a person will not be heard to complain later that he was injured in some way as a result of the application of the principles of that faith. Likewise, matters of a purely internal nature such as membreship or discipline within a congregation would rarely, if ever, be subject to review by the courts. In each case the court must consider the nature of the religious principle relied upon, the context in which it arises, the circumstances of the person harmed, and the nature of the harm in the course of determining where the rights of the Plaintiff should be recognized notwithstanding the impact on the religious freedom of the defendant.
[157] in the Jehovah's Witness faith, there is an even closer and more dependant relationship between members of the congregation and the clergy than is the case in most religions. For members of the Jehovah's Witnesses, religion is a pervasive and dominant influence in everyday life. Social contact with others outside the faith is discouraged and adherence to the instructions of the elders is required. Although the relationship between Ms. Boer and the elders of her congregation did not involve quite the same degree of control and dependency as described in FSM v Clarke (Uzzah: this was Anglican orphanage case) neither was it a mere counselling relationship between minister and parishioner where the parishioner returns home to theinfluence of family and others. Many of the aspects of dependancy noted by Dillon, J in FSM v. Clarke were also present here: eg a closed society isolated from outside influence, the pervasive nature of the religious influence and the requirement for blind obedience. It was within this context that the relationship between the Plaintiff and the defendents arose. Vicki Boer went to Sheldon Longworth because she was troubled and needed advice. She barely knew him. She consulted him solely in his capacity as an elder of her faith. She had been raised in her faith to put complete trust in the elders. Obedience was required. To the knowledge of the elders and Watch Tower she relied entirely upon the advice she was given and felt she had no option but to comply. Mr. Longworth was fully aware of her vulnerable emotional state. He was also aware that she dreaded the confrontation with her father which he counselled her was required. In this situation there was a close and direct relationship between the elders and the plaintiff in which there was every expectation that she would rely upon and follow the advice she was given. Further, given her emotional state, it was readily foreseeable that the course of action recommeded would likely cause further emotional harm to the plaintiff, the very type of harm which did occur. In these circumstances, I find that a duty of care did arise as between the elders and the plaintiff.
More to follow........
I am trying to give you the flavour of the decision as well as some of the interesting quotes in their context. I'm trying to avoid personal commentary on my part while doing so. But reserve the right to do so later