The courts did not have the power to review the disfellowship decision of a private, religious organization. Mr. Wall didn’t have a right to the Congregation members’ business. He also didn’t have a right to membership in the Congregation that courts could enforce, like a contract
Emmanuel Ukudolo l MONDAY, June 04, 2018
CALGARY, Canada – The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that it cannot interfere with the rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses to discipline earring members. Randy Wall, a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses was disfellowshipped by Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Calgary, Canada in line with scriptural injunction found at I Corinthians 5:9-13 for unrepentant attitude after congregation members tried without success to readjust him.
Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide we gathered discipline erring members in line with the holy scriptures to protect the congregation from unwholesome influence, usually when the affected person is unrepentant. Besides, they view discipline as an act of love and not hatred. They believe so much in Proverbs 13:24, which says: “The one holding back his rod is hating his son, but the one loving him is he that does look for him with discipline.” … In this context, the rod of discipline represents a means of correction, whatever form it may take”, the JWS said on their website.
Randy Wall who was baptised 1980 was disfellowshipped but instead of humbling himself and allowing the discipline to effect the needed changes, chose to go to court to challenge the decision in 2014, when his appeals failed.
Mr. Wall asked the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench to review the decision.
Mr. Wall argued through his lawyer that the Judicial Committee acted unfairly. He said that the decision caused him to lose money because Jehovah’s Witness clients avoided his real estate business. The lower courts first had to decide whether they had any power (or legal authority) to review the Judicial Committee’s disfellowship decision.In a unanimous decision, Supreme Court, Justice Malcolm Rowe said the court cannot review the decision of a religious body.
“The courts did not have the power to review the disfellowship decision of a private, religious organization. Mr. Wall didn’t have a right to the Congregation members’ business. He also didn’t have a right to membership in the Congregation that courts could enforce, like a contract”, he said.
Justice Rowe confirmed that courts can only review the decisions of public decision-makers and that private decision-makers don’t have to follow fair procedures unless an enforceable legal right is at stake. He also confirmed that disagreements about religious principles are “non-justiciable”—that is, not appropriate for courts of law to get involved in.
This decision confirmed that religious groups can decide their own membership and rules. Courts cannot interfere with their decisions, except when needed to resolve an underlying, “justiciable” legal dispute.
NB: Love is sharing, please support us by sharing this story
