In an appeal from judicial review proceedings, the appellants challenged a law society decision refusing accreditation to a proposed law school because of a mandatory covenant restricting sexual intimacy to marriage between a man and a woman.
The majority held that the regulator had statutory authority to consider the covenant’s impact on equal access, diversity in the profession, and potential harm to LGBTQ prospective students.
Applying the Doré/Loyola framework, the Court found the decision proportionately balanced freedom of religion with statutory public-interest objectives and was reasonable.
The appeal was dismissed, with concurring reasons and a dissent that would have allowed the appeal.
