SCC Court File No. 37209 & 37318 in the SUPREME COURT of CANADA

S.C.C. Court File No. 37209 & 37318

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO AND THE BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL)

BETWEEN:

TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY and BRAYDEN VOLKENANT APPELLANTS (Appellants) -and-

LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA RESPONDENT (Respondent) -and-

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO INTERVENER AND BETWEEN:

LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA APPELLANT (Appellant) -and-

TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY and BRAYDEN VOLKENANT RESPONDENTS (Respondents)

MOTION RECORD OF THE PROPOSED INTERVENER (CHRISTIAN LEGAL FELLOWSHIP) (Pursuant to Rules 47 and 55-59 of The Rules of Supreme Court of Canada, S.O.R./2002-156)

CHRISTIAN LEGAL FELLOWSHIP SUPREME ADVOCACY LLP 470 Weber Street 340 Gilmour Street Suite 202 Suite 100 Waterloo, Ontario N2L 6J2 Ottawa, ON K2P 0R3

Derek B.M. Ross Eugene Meehan, Q.C. Deina Warren Marie-France Major Tel: (519) 208-9200 Tel: (613) 695-8855 Fax: (519) 208-3600 Fax: (613) 695-8580 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Proposed Intervener Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Proposed Christian Legal Fellowship Intervener, Christian Legal Fellowship

BENNETT JONES LLP BENNETT JONES LLP Suite 3400, PO Box 130 World Exchange Plaza One First Canadian Place 1900-45 O’Connor Street Toronto, ON M5X 1A4 Ottawa, ON K1P 1A4

Robert W. Staley Mark Jewett, Q.C. Ranjan Agarwal Tel: (613) 683-2328 Jessica M. Starck Fax: (613) 683-2323 Tel: (416) 777-4857 Email: [email protected] Fax: (416) 863-1716 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

Counsel for the Appellants in SCC File Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Number 37209, Trinity Western University Appellants in SCC File Number 37209, and Brayden Volkenant Trinity Western University and Brayden Volkenant

BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP Suite 3400, PO Box 130 100 Ottawa Street, Suite 1300 One First Canadian Place Ottawa, ON K1P 1J9 Toronto, ON M5X 1A4 Nadia Effendi Guy Pratte Tel: (613) 237-5160 Nadia Effendi Fax: (613) 230-8842 Tel: (416) 367-6000 Email: [email protected] Fax: (416) 367-6749 Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent in SCC File Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Number 37209, Law Society of Upper Respondent in SCC File Number 37209, Canada Law Society of Upper Canada

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO BURKE-ROBERTSON 720 Bay Street, 4th Floor 441 MacLaren Street, Suite 200 Toronto, Ontario M7A 2S9 Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2H3

S. Zachary Green Robert E. Houston, Q.C. Josh Hunter Tel: (613) 236-9665 Tel: (416) 326-8517 Fax: (613) 235-4430 Fax: (416) 326-4015 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the General of Ontario Intervener, Attorney General of Ontario

GALL LEGGE GRANT & MONROE LLP POWER LAW 10th Floor, 1199 West Hastings Street Suite 1103 – 130 Albert Street Vancouver, BC V6E 3T5 Ottawa, ON K1P 5G4

Peter A. Gall, Q.C. Mark C. Power Donald R. Munroe, Q.C. Tel: (613) 702-5560 Benjamin J. Oliphant Fax: 1(888) 404-2227 Tel: (604) 891-1152 Email: [email protected] Fax: (604) 669-5101 Email: [email protected]

Counsel for the Appellants in SCC File Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Number 37318, Law Society of British Appellants in SCC File Number 37318, Law Columbia Society of British Columbia

KUHN & COMPNAY BENNETT JONES LLP 320 – 900 Howe Street World Exchange Plaza Vancouver, BC V6Z 2M4 1900-45 O’Connor Street Ottawa, ON K1P 1A4 Kevin Boonstra Jonathan Maryniuk Mark Jewett, Q.C. Tel: (604) 684-8668 Tel: (613) 683-2328 Fax: (604) 684-2887 Fax: (613) 683-2323 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Counsel for the Respondents in SCC File Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Number 37318, Trinity Western University Respondents in SCC File Number 37318, and Brayden Volkenant Trinity Western University and Brayden Volkenant

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TAB PAGE

1. Notice of Motion ...... 1

2. Affidavit of Ruth A.M. Ross, dated June 16, 2017 ...... 8

3. Memorandum of Argument ...... 37

PART I: OVERVIEW...... 37

PART II: STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS IN ISSUE ...... 37

PART III: STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT ...... 37

A. Interest in the Proceeding ...... 37

B. Submissions are Relevant, Useful and Different ...... 40

Conclusion ...... 42

PART IV: SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING COSTS ...... 42

PART V: ORDER SOUGHT ...... 42

PART VI – TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...... 44

S.C.C. Court File No. 37209 & 37318

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO AND THE BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL)

BETWEEN:

TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY and BRAYDEN VOLKENANT APPELLANTS (Appellants) -and-

LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA RESPONDENT (Respondent) -and-

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO INTERVENER AND BETWEEN:

LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA APPELLANT (Appellant) -and-

TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY and BRAYDEN VOLKENANT RESPONDENTS (Respondents)

NOTICE OF MOTION OF THE PROPOSED INTERVENER, (CHRISTIAN LEGAL FELLOWSHIP) (Pursuant to Rules 47 and 55-59 of The Rules of Supreme Court of Canada, S.O.R./2002-156)

TAKE NOTICE that CHRISTIAN LEGAL FELLOWSHIP (“CLF”) applies to a Judge of the Court, pursuant to Rules 47 and 55 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, as amended, for an Order 1. Granting CLF leave to intervene in these appeals;

a. allowing CLF to file a single factum of no more than 10 pages addressing both

Appeals; 2

b. permitting CLF to present oral arguments of no more than 5 minutes or any such

other length of time this Honourable Court deems appropriate;

c. ordering that no costs will be awarded for or against it; and

d. such further grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit.

UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE, INTEREST IN APPEAL AND EXPERTISE

2. This Appeal raises matters which will have a profound impact on CLF’s members and that transcend the immediate interests of the parties.

3. CLF is an association of over 650 lawyers, legal scholars, law students, prospective law students, and others, drawn from diverse Christian traditions. CLF represents lawyers from over 30 Christian denominations with a broad spectrum of Christian legal thought, whose views are not necessarily represented by the parties or other proposed interveners.

4. CLF is well suited to make a substantial contribution to this case because of the expertise of its membership, because of its intervention in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the British Columbia Court of Appeal, the Divisional Court of Ontario, the Ontario Court of Appeal of the Appeals at issue, and in similar litigation in Nova Scotia at both the Nova Scotia Supreme Court and Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, together with its well-established history of involvement in matters of public interest involving human rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

5. CLF has a unique and useful perspective to contribute to the issues engaged in this appeal, as outlined below.

6. CLF has a long history of active involvement in matters of public policy and law, especially with respect to matters that involve the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and particularly the fundamental freedoms of conscience and religion, the right to equality, the principles of fundamental justice, and the principles of a free and democratic society. CLF has also developed an institutional legal knowledge and expertise on these matters generally, as well as on the more specific matters of the public interest and the rights of religious minorities in the

3 context of regulated professions relevant to the questions of the applications of ss.2(a), (b), (d) and s.15(1) raised by these Appeals.

7. CLF is the only religious association of legal professionals seeking to participate in these proceedings, and the only lawyers’ association taking the position that the Law Societies’ decisions unjustifiably violate Charter rights. CLF’s proposed intervention thus gives voice to legal professionals who are otherwise unrepresented in, yet are greatly impacted by, the instant Appeal.

8. The issues in this claim are public issues of interest to all Canadians and CLF can bring a useful perspective to the public issues engaged in this appeal. Members of CLF are frequently called upon to advise their clients and others regarding the nature and limits of constitutional rights, including, as in this case, rights surrounding religious freedom, the right to associate on the basis of shared religious values, and the scope of a regulatory body’s authority to unjustifiably limit these rights. Members of CLF contribute to peer-reviewed, scholarly legal journals (in Canada and internationally) on matters of constitutional law, and moral, legal and political philosophy, including the ethics and constitutionality of legal prohibitions of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED SUBMISSIONS

9. If given the opportunity to intervene, CLF will respectfully submit the following anticipated arguments: a. The public interest is not a freewheeling deus ex machina to subvert Charter rights, nor is it a tool to enforce moral conformity with the Law Societies’ approved values. The need for Charter scrutiny of Law Societies’ decisions cannot be subverted by mere appeal to the public interest. The public interest - and the “Charter values” that are said to inform it - must be interpreted in a way that makes their meaning and application predictable and understandable. Otherwise the Law Societies’ authority is too vague and too uncertain so as to be “prescribed by law”.

their current definition of the public interest. Such a test cannot be found within the Law Societies’ statutory authority, no matter how broadly defined. c. It is not contrary to the public interest to approve TWU and its graduates. Rather, it is contrary to the public interest to violate their Charter rights by rejecting them. The meaning of the public interest must account for and uphold the Charter rights of religious students like Mr. Volkenant (such as student members of CLF) who seek to attend TWU, including freedom of religion and conscience, equality on the grounds of religion, and freedom of association. d. It is contrary to the public interest to place Charter rights in hierarchy, yet the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision results in impermissible hierarchy. The scope and nature of the Charter infringements against prospective TWU students, who have been denied the opportunity to study law in a Christian environment for the purpose of becoming a practicing lawyer, were not adequately addressed. e. The public interest must not be interpreted so as to require associations of law students and/or lawyers who belong to minority religious communities – such as those at TWU and CLF – to be open to those who do not affirm their mission or be obliged by a regulatory body to amend their mission. Such an interpretation undermines the very possibility of meaningful association guaranteed by s. 2(d) of the Charter, a freedom which harmoniously co-exists with s. 15 equality rights. f. The Law Societies’ decisions, if upheld, will limit and unjustifiably infringe the rights of all religious lawyers. The Law Societies cannot enact rules which unreasonably undermine public confidence in lawyers. By publicly condemning the religious- informed views of TWU and its graduates, the Law Societies have undermined public confidence in all lawyers who share those beliefs, including members of CLF. Declaring that licensing of TWU graduates is contrary to the public interest is to cast aspersions on the professionalism and capabilities of like-minded lawyers and their ability to impartially practice law. g. The Law Societies’ decisions imperil the ability of legal professionals to hold and manifest religious and conscientious beliefs that do not conform to the majoritarian viewpoint. If signing TWU’s Community Covenant is enough to justify rejecting a prospective licensee, the same might be said of membership in a church or any religious association such as CLF. This is inconsistent with the nature of a free and democratic society, which protects diversity of opinion and independence of thought within the legal profession. It is also inconsistent with the pursuit of diversity and state neutrality. It is an unconstitutional and manifestly unjust exercise of statutory

authority - however defined - for Law Societies to sanction or deny a license to a lawyer based on their religious beliefs or those of the institutions with which they associate, be that a university, law school, church, or professional association such as CLF.

10. If granted leave to intervene in these Appeals, CLF seeks:

a. to file a single factum of no more than 10 pages addressing both Appeals;

b. to present oral arguments of no more than 5 minutes or any such other length of time

this Honourable Court deems appropriate;

c. to have no costs awarded for or against it.

d. such further grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit.

Dated at Waterloo, Ontario, this 19th day of June, 2017.

SIGNED BY

Counsel for the Proposed Intervener Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Proposed Christian Legal Fellowship Intervener, Christian Legal Fellowship

CHRISTIAN LEGAL FELLOWSHIP SUPREME ADVOCACY LLP 470 Weber Street 340 Gilmour Street Suite 202 Suite 100 Waterloo, Ontario N2L 6J2 Ottawa, ON K2P 0R3 Derek B.M. Ross Eugene Meehan, Q.C. Deina Warren Marie-France Major Tel: (519) 208-9200 Tel: (613) 695-8855 Fax: (519) 208-3600 Fax: (613) 695-8580 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] [email protected]

ORIGINAL TO: THE REGISTRAR OF THIS COURT

COPIES TO:

BENNETT JONES LLP BENNETT JONES LLP Suite 3400, PO Box 130 World Exchange Plaza One First Canadian Place 1900-45 O’Connor Street Toronto, ON M5X 1A4 Ottawa, ON K1P 1A4

Robert W. Staley Mark Jewett, Q.C.

Ranjan Agarwal Tel: (613) 683-2328 Jessica M. Starck Fax: (613) 683-2323 Tel: (416) 777-4857 Email: [email protected] Fax: (416) 863-1716 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

Counsel for the Respondent in SCC File Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Number 37209, Law Society of Upper Respondent in SCC File Number 37209, Canada Law Society of Upper Canada

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO BURKE-ROBERTSON 720 Bay Street, 4th Floor 441 MacLaren Street, Suite 200 Toronto, Ontario M7A 2S9 Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2H3

S. Zachary Green Robert E. Houston, Q.C. Josh Hunter Tel: (613) 236-9665 Tel: (416) 326-8517 Fax: (613) 235-4430 Fax: (416) 326-4015 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the General of Ontario Intervener, Attorney General of Ontario

GALL LEGGE GRANT & MONROE LLP POWER LAW 10th Floor, 1199 West Hastings Street Suite 1103 – 130 Albert Street Vancouver, BC V6E 3T5 Ottawa, ON K1P 5G4

Peter A. Gall, Q.C. Mark C. Power Donald R. Munroe, Q.C. Tel: (613) 702-5560

Benjamin J. Oliphant Fax: 1(888) 404-2227 Tel: (604) 891-1152 Email: [email protected] Fax: (604) 669-5101 Email: [email protected]

Counsel for the Appellants in SCC File Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Number 37318, Law Society of British Appellants in SCC File Number 37318, Law Columbia Society of British Columbia

NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENT TO THE MOTION: A respondent to the motion may serve and file a response to this motion within 10 days after service of the motion. If no response is filed within that time, the motion will be submitted for consideration to a judge or the Registrar, as the case may be.

S.C.C. Court File No. 37209 & 37318

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO AND THE BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL)

BETWEEN:

TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY and BRAYDEN VOLKENANT APPELLANTS (Appellants) -and-

LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA RESPONDENT (Respondent) -and-

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO INTERVENER AND BETWEEN:

LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA APPELLANT (Appellant) -and-

TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY and BRAYDEN VOLKENANT RESPONDENTS (Respondents)

AFFIDAVIT OF RUTH A.M. ROSS

I, Ruth A.M. Ross of the city of London in the Province of Ontario, barrister and solicitor, MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am Special Advisor and former Executive Director and General Counsel for Christian Legal Fellowship ("CLF"). CLF seeks leave to intervene in this proceeding and has authorized me to make this Affidavit in support of its application.

2. I have held the position of Special Advisor since mid-2016. Prior to that, I was Executive Director and General Counsel for CLF from 2000-2012, Interim Executive Director from 9 - 2 -

November 2013 to May 2014, and prior to 1996 was a member ofCLF's Board of Directors for several years. As such, I have knowledge of the facts and matters herein set forth, except where stated to be on information and belief and where so stated, I believe them to be true.

Christian Legal Fellowship

3. CLF, founded in the mid-1970s and incorporated in 1978, is a national non-profit association of over 650 lawyers, law students, law professors, retired judges, pre-law students, and other legal professionals who share the Christian faith and support its work.

4. CLF was founded out of the conviction that for the Christian lawyer, the practice of law is a vocation, a calling from God. As Christian lawyers, we are heirs to a tradition of legal thought that bears on many of the most pressing legal and constitutional questions facing our profession and the broader community. We believe it is our responsibility as Christian lawyers to continue to develop that tradition and work with others to determine what justice requires in a free and democratic society.

5. CLF members elect a ten-member Board of Directors representative of Canada's provinces, regions and law schools. It has a staff and support team of eight, including two lawyers. In addition, it has many volunteers and supporters who help CLF fulfill its mandate. It has over 14 local chapters meeting in cities across Canada and over a dozen law student chapters, representing most law schools in Canada.

6. Willie having no direct denominational affiliation, CLF has over 650 active members from more than 30 Christian denominations working in association together. The denominations include, but are not limited to : Anglican; Apostolic; Armenian Brotherhood; Baptist; Brethren in Christ; Christian Missionary Alliance; Chinese Alliance; Evangelical; Evangelical Missionary; Free Methodist; Greek Orthodox; Lutheran; Mennonite Brethren; Non-Denominational; Pentecostal; Presbyterian; Reformed; Roman Catholic; Salvation Army; Seventh-day Adventist; United Reformed; and Wesleyan.

7. CLF includes among its current law student, articling student, and lawyer members, those who hold undergraduate degrees from Trinity Western University ("TWU"). 10 - 3 -

8. One of CLF's obj ects is a commitment 'to encourage and facilitate among Christians in the vocation of law the integration of a biblical faith with contemporary legal, moral, social and political issues' . CLF thus examines the complex relationships among the practice of law, the Christian religious faith, and the tradition of Christian moral, legal, and political philosophy.

9. CLF fulfills its mandate by educating its members through national conferences and seminars, publishing newsletters and journals, establishing and supporting local groups and chapters, as well as participating in public .life through education and advocacy. This includes, where appropriate, intervening in litigation as a friend of the court in those cases where the public good can be advanced ·by presenting principles of law and moral, legal, and political philosophy that are consistent with, and illuminated by, Christianity.

10. For the past seven years, CLF has presented the Christian Legal Institute, a week-long academic program in which pre-law and law students study law - as well as moral, legal, and political philosophy - with an underlying Christian viewpoint. Over 90 CLF law students and pre-law students have participated in this program, which is taught by CLF's lawyer and academic members, among others. I believe, based on student response to the program and my own participation in it as a Faculty member, that there are members of CLF who would choose, as an expression of their religious faith, to further study and teach law in a religiously-associated community such as the proposed TWU faculty.

11. Other important aims of CLF include assisting Christians in the vocation of law, articulating the relevance of Christian faith to the legal community and society at large, and encouraging and supporting Christian students in preparation for their professional careers. One of the objects of CLF is to encourage its members ' to do justice and show compassion' . In so doing, it seeks to further the public good by articulating how legal, moral, and religious principles can be applied to particular social and legal problems in Canada.

12. CLF's quarterly Christian Legal Journal ("CLJ") provides information about and analysis of legal, political, and social issues which are of concern or interest to legal practitioners and scholars who identify with the Christian faith. The CLJ focuses on recent developments in Canadian law and often includes legal analysis on religious freedom, human rights, constitutional law, and other issues affecting the Christian community. Past CLJ publications 11 - 4-

have included infom1ation and analysis of the legal issues surrounding TWU's proposed law school as well as religious education generally and the religious freedoms of self-regulated professionals. The CLJ frequently includes articles by law students addressing the challenges that they face in seeking to lead authentically Christian lives as students of law.

13. CLF has a well-established history of active involvement in matters of public policy and law, especially matters that involve the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("the Charter"), and particularly the fundamental freedoms of conscience and religion, the right to equality, the principles of fundamental justice, and the principles of a free and democratic society, such as those at issue in this matter.

14. In particular, CLF has developed an institutional legal knowledge and expertise - both through its formal educational programs and scholarly endeavours and through the experiences of its membership - as to how the regulation of the practice of law and legal education in Canada can place limits on the rights to religious freedom held by Christian lawyers and law students.

15. Members of CLF are regularly called upon to advise their clients and other persons regarding freedom of religion and conscience, religious discrimination, as well as constitutional and human rights protection. Members of CLF have also contributed to peer-reviewed scholarly legal journals (in Canada and internationally) on matters of constitutional law, religion, and moral, legal, and political philosophy.

16. CLF is an NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. As part of its NGO status, CLF has presented written submissions in consultations before the United Nations on issues of religious defamation and the protection of religious minorities and incitement laws (i.e. blasphemy, hate-speech).

17. CLF has appeared before Parliamentary committees and has made representations to provincial governments and regulators on issues of conscience, religious freedom, human rights and other issues affecting the family and society.

18. As Canada' s largest association of Christian lawyers, CLF is uniquely positioned to comment on the issues being considered by the court in this matter. 12 - 5 -

Experience in Other Proceedings

19. In the past, CLF has been an intervener in matters involving freedom of religion and conscience, related provisions in Human Rights Codes, as well as issues affecting the human family.

20. Significantly, CLF was an intervener in the decisions giving rise to the current appeals at both trial and appellate courts in Ontario and British Columbia: Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONSC 4250, Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2016 ONCA 518, Trinity Western University v. The Law Society ofBritish Columbia, 2015 BCSC 2326, Trinity Western University v The Law Society of British Columbia, 2016 BCCA 423.

21. CLF was an intervener in parallel litigation in Nova Scotia, where there existed very similar facts and issues to those raised in the present appeals: Trinity Western University v. Nova Scotia Barristers ' Society, 2015 NSSC 25 , Nova Scotia Barristers ' Society v. Trinity Western University, 2016 NSCA 59. CLF also intervened in the 2001 case Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College ofTeachers, 2001 SCC 31.

22. In granting CLF's application for leave to intervene in TWU v. LSUC, Justice Nordheimer of the Superior Court of Justice· (Divisional Court) noted: "In my view, CLF, given its membership, has a more direct role in the issues raised and more directly addresses some of the broader issues that the court will have to consider. I note, in particular, that CLF includes within its membership current law students who hold undergraduate degrees from TWU. They are a group that are directly affected by the issues raised in this judicial review application." (2014 ONSC 5541 , at para. 46).

23. The Supreme Court of Canada and other courts have granted CLF intervener status, either individually or with others, in a variety of other cases, including:

a. E. T v Hamilton- Wentworth District School Board, arguments to be heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal in June, 2017; which will consider the freedom of religion and conscience of parents who seek religious accommodation for their children within the public education system; 13 - 6-

b. Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada et. al. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, arguments heard by the Ontario Divisional Court in June, 2017; which considered the freedom of religion and conscience and equality rights of physicians who have conscientious objections to providing or referring for various procedures and pharmaceuticals, and obligations of professionals' regulatory bodies whose decisions impact Charter rights and freedoms;

c. Ktunaxa Nation Council v. Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, arguments heard by the Supreme Court of Canada December 1, 20 16; which considered an Aboriginal religious freedom claim, and obligations of administrative decision makers whose decisions impact Charter rights and freedoms;

d. D 'Amico et. Saba c. Procureure Generate Du Quebec (2015 QCCS 5566, 2015 QCCA 2138, and ongoing); which considers the constitutionality of Quebec's assisted dying legislation and its impact on health care providers' conscience rights;

e. Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12; which considered the right to freedom of religion of institutions and individuals without interference of the state;

f. Carter V. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 sec 5; Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 BCCA 435; and Carter v. Canada, 2012 BCSC 886; which considered the constitutionality of s. 241(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada, RSC 1985 c C-46 ("Criminal Code"), the criminal prohibition against physician-assisted dying; g. Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72; and Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2012 ONCA 186; which considered the constitutionality of portions of the Criminal Code, designed to protect victims of prostitution; h. Ginette Leblanc v. Le Procureur General du Canada et a!. , no. 400-17-002642-110, Superior Court for the District of Trois-Rivieres; which considered the constitutionality of s. 241 (b) of the Criminal Code, the criminal prohibition against physician-assisted dying;

1. Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11; which considered freedom of expression and the constitutionality of the enforcement of statutory hate speech prohibitions against religious speech; J. SL v. Commission Scolaire DesChenes, 2012 SCC 7; which considered whether the right to freedom of religion and conscience includes the freedom of parents to bring up their children in the religion oftheir choice without interference from the state; k. Reference re: Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada, 2011 BCSC 1588; relating to the criminal prohibition against polygamy; 14 - 7 -

I. Marriage Commissioners Appointed Under The Marriage Act (Re) , 2011 SKCA 3; concerning the constitutional validity of proposed legislation to accommodate marriage commissioners; m. Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37; which considered the inviolability of freedom of religion and freedom of association for individuals and religious communities; n. A.A. v. B. B., 2007 ONCA 2; which considered the redefinition of parentage and the traditional family; o. R. v. Spratt, 2004 BCCA 367; which considered the constitutionality ofss. 2(1)(a) and (b) of the Access to Abortion Services Act, RSBC 1996, c 1; p. Owens v. Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, 2006 SKCA 41; which considered freedom of expression and the use of sacred texts; q. Kempling v. British Columbia College of Teachers, 2005 BCCA 327; which considered the extent to which a teacher's professional association can discipline a member for out of-classroom expression and whether the fundamental freedoms guaranteed in the Charter extend to teachers in this context; r. Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v. Scott Brockie, [2002] OJ No 2375 (SC); which considered whether business owners have a right of conscientious objection under the Ontario Human Rights Code;

s. Trinity Western University V. British Columbia College ofTeachers, 2001 sec 31 ; which considered whether it is within the jurisdiction of a teachers' regulatory body to determine that a private university's community standards embody discrimination; and t. Vriend v. Alberta, [ 1998] 1 SCR 493 ; which considered whether sexual orientation should be a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Individual Rights Protection Act of Alberta.

24. CLF has an interest in the constitutional and legal issues raised in this appeal. The issues in this appeal are public law and constitutional issues that go beyond the effect on TWU and the law students and faculty who wish to study and teach there. Any judgment in this case will have a profound effect on public life for Canadians whose understanding of religious faith and association are consistent with the religious beliefs manifested by TWU, particularly on lawyers and law students who have sincerely held religious beliefs, including current and future members of CLF. 15 - 8-

25 . CLF represents legal professionals from over 30 Christian denominations, within which there is a broad spectrum of legal thought and whose views are not necessarily represented by either of the parties in this case. As stated above, CLF has developed an expertise in many of the issues being discussed in this appeal, particularly the scope of the constitutional protection of freedom of religion within regulated professions such as law. Relying on this expertise and extensive experience in similar matters, CLF can provide resources to assist the Court by presenting a perspective not available to the main parties.

26. CLF has a longstanding interest in how the freedom of religion and freedom of religious association bear on the practice of law, an interest which predates its intervention in TWU v. BC College of Teachers, 2001 SCC 31 . The accreditation of the proposed faculty of law at TWU, and how the Law Societies would respond to the freedom of religion of lawyers and law students, has been a matter of great concern and direct relevance to CLF and its membership.

27. Prior to its proceedings on TWU's approval, the Law Society of British Columbia invited written submissions from the public. CLF made a written submission on February 28 , 2014, which was endorsed by some 175 of its members, including lawyers, law students, professors, and retired judges. A copy of that submission is attached as Exhibit A (the "CLF Submission to LSBC").

28. Prior to its proceedings on TWU's approval, the Law Society of Upper Canada invited written submissions from the public. CLF made a written submission on March 26, 2014, which was endorsed by over 200 of its members, including lawyers, law students, professors, and retired judges. A copy of that submission is attached as Exhibit B (the "CLF Submission to LSUC").

29. In addition to CLF Submissions noted above, several of CLF's members made individual written submissions. CLF and some of its individual members also made written submissions to the Law Societies of Upper Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and

Labrador, and the Northwest Te~itories on the same matter. 16 - 9-

Proposed Arguments

30. I believe that CLF can provide the Court with unique information, insight and perspective that would be useful to the Court's consideration of the issues raised, as well as the broader impact that the Court's decision in this case may have. Set forth below is an outline of CLF's anticipated arguments:

a. The public interest is not a freewheeling deus ex machina to subvert Charter rights, nor is it a tool to enforce moral conformity with the Law Societies' approved values. The need for Charter scrutiny of Law Societies' decisions cannot be subverted by mere appeal to the public interest. The public interest- and the "Charter values" that are said to inform it - must be interpreted in a way that makes their meaning and application predictable and understandable. Otherwise the Law Societies' authority is too vague and too uncertain so as to be "prescribed by law".

b. Law Societies must not be permitted to create a system of religious testing whereby licenses are granted on the condition that licensees demonstrate their religious views and affiliations align with whatever "values" the Law Societies decide falls within their current definition of the public interest. Such a test cannot be found within the Law Societies' statutory authority, no matter how broadly defined.

c. It is not contrary to the public interest to approve TWU and its graduates. Rather, it is contrary to the public interest to violate their Charter rights by rejecting them. The meaning of the public interest must account for and uphold the Charter rights of religious students like Mr. Volkenant (such as student members ofCLF) who seek to attend TWU, including freedom of religion and conscience, equality on the grounds of religion, and freedom of association.

d. It is contrary to the public interest to place Charter rights in hierarchy, yet the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision results in impermissible hierarchy. The scope and nature of the Charter infringements against prospective TWU students, who have been denied the opportunity to associate and study law in a Christian environment for the purpose of becoming a practicing lawyer, were not adequately addressed.

e. The public interest must not be interpreted so as to require associations of law students and/or lawyers who belong to minority religious communities - such as those at TWU and CLF - to be open to those who do not affirm their mission or be obliged by a regulatory body to amend their mission. 17 - 10-

f. The Law Societies' decisions, if upheld, will limit and unjustifiably infringe the rights of all religious lawyers. The Law Societies cannot enact rules which unreasonably undermine public confidence in lawyers. By publicly condemning the religious informed views of TWU and its graduates, the Law Societies have undermined public confidence in all lawyers who share those beliefs, including members of CLF. Declaring that licensing of TWU graduates is contrary to the public interest is to cast aspersions on the professionalism and capabilities of like-minded lawyers and their ability to impartially practice law.

g. The Law Societies' decisions imperil the ability of legal professionals to hold and manifest religious and conscientious beliefs that do not conform to the majoritarian viewpoint. If signing TWU' s Community Covenant is enough to justify rejecting a prospective licensee, the same might be said of membership in a church or any religious association such as CLF. This is inconsistent with the nature of a free and democratic society, which protects diversity of opinion and independence of thought within the legal profession. It is also inconsistent with the pursuit of diversity and state neutrality. It is an unconstitutional and manifestly unjust exercise of statutory authority - however defined - for Law Societies to sanction or deny a license to a lawyer based on their religious beliefs of those of the institutions with which they associate, be that a university, law school, church, or professional association such as CLF.

31. I believe that CLF can provide the Court with unique information, insight and perspective that would be useful to the Court's consideration of the issues raised by TWU's appeal, as well as the broader impact that the Court's decision in this case may have.

32. I swear this Affidavit in support of CLF's application for intervener status at the Supreme Court of Canada for these Appeals.

SWORN (OR AFFI ME at the City of ... h~~~i..- Province of day of June, 2

A 18

This is Exhibit "{i_" referred to in the

affidavit of Ruth A.M. Ross

sworn before me at Waterloo thisl ~

A Commissioner for taking Affidavits for Ontario 19 CHRISTIAN LEGAL FELLOWSHIP --Alliance des chretiens en droi~ --

I NTEGRATING CHRISTIAN fAITH & LAW SINCE 1978

1235 Fairview St., Suite 223, Burlington, ON, L7S 2K9 • Ph. 905-332-0597 • Fax 905-319-2940 • www.Christian Lega!Fellowship.org

February 28, 2014 Via Email to: [email protected] The Law Society of British Columbia 845 Cambie Street Vancouver, BC Y6B 4Z9 ATTN: Executive Director Timothy E. McGee, Q.C.

Dear Mr. McGee: RE: Trinity Western University Consultation

The Law Society of British Columbia is reviewing the approval of the Trinity Western University (TWU) application for a law school and in so doing, has stated that the Benchers have the final say in whether any faculty of law is an approved faculty of law for the purpose of meeting the academic qualification of the Law Society's admission process. And further that the Benchers take very seriously their obligation to ensure that any decision regarding a new law school at TWU is done with the utmost attention to openness and fairness and to a process that is thorough, thoughtful, and fair.

The society has invited submissions from members of the profession and from the public. The Christian Legal Fellowship (CLF) appreciates the opportunity to make submissions to the Law Society of British Columbia in this matter.

Much of the attention surrounding Trinity Western University's (TWU) proposed school of law has to do with sensitivity to concerns about discrimination. In particular, in connection with the TWU Community Covenant Agreement, for example, the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society is reviewing the issue of whether they will permit graduates of Trinity Western University's (TWU) proposed school of law to acquire membership in their society.

lt is noted that the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, to whom the power of approval was granted, has already considered this issue and approved TWU's application. TWU also received approval from the British Columbia Ministry of Advanced Education to grant the degree Juris Doctor (J.D.).

The CLF is a national charitable association that exists to serve the legal profession by deepening and strengthening the spiritual life of its members, and to encourage and facilitate among Christians in the vocation of law the integration of a biblical faith with contemporary legal, moral, social and political issues. The CLF' s membership consists of nearly 600 lawyers, law students, professors, and others who support its work. It has 14 chapters in cities across Canada and student chapters in most Canadian law schools. While having no direct denominational affiliation, CLF's members represent more than 30 Christian denominations working in association together.

NGO in Special Consultati-ve Status with the Economic & Social Council of tlte United Nations HOARD OF DIRECTORS Robert Reynolds, President- Quebec B.J:,.~FF ~._Y.ou:1\_T..&r:;P,§ Michael Menear, Vice President- Ontario Calvin (Cal) Beresh- Director, Student Mi11istries- 905-357-5555 Josh Tong, Secretary- Outario Rev. Reid Cooke- C1wplaincy- 905-228-0324 Tim Sinnott, Treasurer- 011tario Mary-Lou Houlik- Administrative Support- 905-332-0597 Shannon Davis- Alberta Shawn Knights- Student Mi11istry Su]?port- 905-332-0597 Philip Fourie - Saskrztdtewtllt Janine Van Nus- Office Ma~tager/Legal Researcher- 905-332-0597 Philip Milley, Student Rep. - Newfouudlattd & Labrador Ruth A.M. Ross- l11teri:m E.-.:ew.tive Dil·ector - 519-859-8850 Shawn Smith- British Columbia Tim Stonhouse - Regional Director, West - 780-458-7690 Rev. Greg Sumner- British Colnml>ia Charlene Thomas- Man.ito/Ja Sheldon Wood- Outa·rio 20

... CLF Page 2

The CLF was founded out of the conviction that the practice of law is a vocation, a calling from God. As Christian lawyers, we are heirs to a tradition of legal thought that bears on many of the most pressing legal and constitutional questions facing our profession, as well as our broader community. We believe it is our responsibility as Christian lawyers to continue to develop that tradition, and to articulate what we understand to be required by justice in a free and democratic society.

As Canada' s largest association of Christian lawyers, CLF is uniquely positioned to comment on some of the issues being considered by The Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC) in this matter.

Our starting point is that, in a multicultural society such as Canada, there can be no single conception of sexual morality and marriage that all must be compelled to believe. Indeed, even within CLF's own membership, there is a divergence of individual beliefs on this matter. However, our members stand united in the conviction that individuals should be free to formulate and adhere to their own understanding of the good, and live according to their individual conscience and religious beliefs. These principles are not only entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom s, but in this particular context, they are specifically affirmed in the preamble to the Civil Marriage Act, which states that 'it is not against the public interest to hold and publicly express diverse views on marriage'. 1

CLF would be concerned if TWU refused to admit gay students, but it does not. It does require that all of its students live according to an evangelical Christian code of conduct while in attendance at TWU, including an evangelical Christian understanding of marriage and sexuality.

The current campaign, although directed against TWU specifically, has implications for all those in the legal profession Christian or otherwise - who understand marriage and sexuality in the same way as TWU, as well as for any lawyer who opposes certain laws, even while abiding by them and advising their clients to do likewise. The message is that it is not enough to accept gay and lesbian colleagues and clients as colleagues and clients and to serve them impartially. The thrust of the opposition to the TWU proposal would prohibit lawyers, judges and law professors from articulating or endorsing, either in the public square, the academy, or the marketplace, a religious understanding of marriage and sexuality which differs from what is defined by the civil law for secular purposes. TWU is not training its students to accept an erroneous understanding of the civil law or provide inaccurate legal advice about the legal impact of the Civil Marriage Act - if so, the LSBC would have every right to be concerned. To the contrary, Christian lawyers, like all lawyers, understand the difference between providing accurate, sound legal advice in their professional practices, and formulating personal comprehensive belief systems which may differ from the state's official position.

The implications of refusing TWU accreditation on these grounds will be felt by Christian lawyers- indeed lawyers of all faiths and those of no faith who hold similar conscientious views - throughout Canada. Law deans, law firm diversity committees, corporate counsel initiatives, law student councils, and others with power over lawyers and law students will take from such a refusal a mandate not to tolerate any dissent from their view on matters of sexual morality or marriage.

Canadian society is robust enough to live with the tension of divergent understandings of marriage and sexuality, just as it is robust enough to live with the tension of divergent understandings of the divine. Canadian society can handle disagreements about the morality of sexual practices and the nature of marriage, just as it handles di sagreements about the value of religious practices.

... CLF Page 3 required to conform their personal beliefs to someone else's view of what marriage ought to be and what its purpose is. But that will be the message if the TWU application fails.

The legal profession is one that has always promoted independence from the state, diversity of opinion, and freedom from mental and religious coercion. Its existence is predicated on the ability of its members to maintain that independence, and that starts with respecting their freedom to form their own beliefs. Law societies exist to regulate professional conduct and competence, not to police the personal beliefs and convictions of its members. To impose a blanket prohibition on all TWU graduates would be to pre-emptively judge a candidate as unworthy of the profession simply because he or she adheres to certain religious beliefs. Such a ban would violate the very principles of independence, diversity, and natural justice that the profession exists to protect, and would be egregious in the absence of any evidence that the individual candidate would actually engage in unlawful discrimination in his or her practice.

2 To paraphrase the findings of the Supreme Court of Canada in BCCT v. TWU , although members of the legal profession may have reasons to object to TWU' s Community Standards, they are not sufficient to deny TWU graduates admission to the bar. Indeed, if TWU's Community Standards could be sufficient in themselves to justify such denial, it is difficult to see how the same logic would not result in the denial of admission to the bar to members of a particular church, or to any future candidate who might hold dissenting and unpopular views on a given political, social, or moral matter. The diversity of Canadian society is partly reflected in the multiple religious and other non-governmental organizations that mark the societal landscape, and this diversity of views should be respected.

As a quasi-governmental body, the LSBC must exercise its authority in a manner consistent with the values enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The LSBC must take into account the Charter value of freedom of religion. As the SCC concluded in its careful review of this very issue, where rights appear to be in conflict the appropriate reconciliation involves the toleration of divergent beliefs and respect for the freedom of individuals to adhere to those beliefs.

As the Supreme Court of Canada concluded in BCCT v. TWU, tolerance of divergent beliefs is a hallmark of a democratic society. The CLF submits that such tolerance must begin with lawyers themselves, as the guardians of the rule of law.

Please note the 175 endorsements including judicial (retired) that follow. CLF would be pleased to provide further assistance in any way the LSBC believes would be appropriate. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Ruth A.M. Ross, B.A., LL.B. Interim Executive Director Called to the LSBC 1983 (Ruth Ann Mix); member of the Ontario Bar CHRISTIAN LEGAL FELLOWSHIP I Alliance des chretiens en droit www .christian legalfellowship.org Suivez- nous sur I Follow us on www.twitter.comiCLF Canada In the Crossroads Centre, 1295 North Service Road, Burlington, ON Mailing Address: Suite 223 , 1235 Fairview St., Burlington, ON, L 7S 2K9 Telephone: 905-332-0597 Ext 253 ; Fax: 905-319-2940 22

... CLF Page 4

ENDORSED BY: I. John E. Humphries, Barrister & Solicitor, Peachland, BC 2. Philip J. Dougan, Lawyer, Vancouver, BC 3. Gerald Kent, Lawyer, Cranbrook, BC 4. T. Charles De Jager, Barrister & Solicitor, Surrey, BC 5. Donald L. Wilkinson, Partner, Porter Ramsay LLP, Kelowna, BC 6. Geoffrey Trotter, Lawyer, Vancouver, BC (intends to file an additional, individual submission) 7. Stanley Leo, Lawyer, Vancouver, BC 8. Oloff Beirmann, Barrister & Solicitor, Langley, BC 9. David Gileff, Lawyer, Vancouver, BC I 0. Ken Volkenant, Barrister & Solicitor, Surrey, BC 11. Ronald J. Smith, QC, Barrister and Solicitor, Kelowna BC 12. Peter J. Anderson, Barrister & Solicitor, Vancouver, BC 13 . Shawn M. Smith, Partner, Cleveland Doan LLP, Barrister and Solicitor, White Rock, BC 14. I. Stanley Osobik J.D., Lawyer, Victoria, B.C. 15 . Marie-Louise Fast, Barrister & Solicitor, Richmond, BC 16. George Gunnink, Lawyer, Surrey, BC 17. Michael Dieleman, Lawyer, Richmond, BC 18. Carmelle Dieleman, Articling Student, Richmond, BC 19. Geoff Severide, Barrister & Solicitor, Penticton, BC 20. Candace Cho, Lawyer, Vancouver, BC 21. Rev. Greg Sumner, Pastor, New Life Community Baptist Church, Duncan, BC 22. Jeffrey S. Lowe, Lawyer, Vancouver, BC 23 . Luke Johnson, Barrister & Solicitor, Surrey, BC 24. Sandra M. Jennings, Lawyer, BC 25. Thomas J. Johnson, B.A., LL.B., Lawyer, Summerland, BC 26. Alastair Rees-Thomas, Barrister & Solicitor, Richmond, BC 27. Kallen Fong, Barrister & Solicitor, Vancouver, BC 28. Masao Morinaga, Lawyer, Richmond, BC (intends to file an additional, individual submission) 29. Sean Hedley, Second-year Law Student, UBC Faculty of Law, Vancouver, BC 30. Robert z. Donick, Barrister & Solicitor, Kelowna, BC 31. Nardia Chemawsky, Articling Student, Vancouver, BC 32. Christopher A. Becker, Lawyer, Abbotsford, BC (intends to file an additional, individual submission) 33. Brad E.L. Douglas, Barrister & Solicitor, Prince George, BC 34. Lee Sawatzky, Lawyer, Langley, BC 35. Jamie A. Bleay, Lawyer, Vancouver, BC 36. Marie Burgoyne, J.D. (Candidate for Admission to the BC Bar), Vancouver, BC 37. Scott Macfarlane, Lawyer, North Vancouver, BC 38. Dan Draht, Student-at-law, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC 39. John B. MacDonald, B. Com., LL.B. (UBC), M.A. (Regent College), D. Min. (TWU). 40. J. DavidS. Avren, Director of Legal Services, BC Hydro, Vancouver, BC 41. Jeannette Savoie, Lawyer, Yellowknife, NT 42. Tom Schuck, Lawyer, Weyburn, SK 43. Thomas G. Dean, Lawyer, London, ON 44. Kelly P. Hart, B.A., LL.B., Barrister & Solicitor, Ottawa, ON 45. Karen Gee, B.A. , J.D., LL.M ., Barrister & Solicitor, Richmond, BC 46. John C. Knibbe, Barrister, Solicitor, and Notary, Calgary, AB 47. Kathleen Pinno, Student-at-Law (University of Alberta), Edmonton, AB 48. Renee E. Short, Barrister & Solicitor, Calgary, AB 23

... CLF Page 5

49. Daniel J. Mol, B.A., M.Sc.Econ., J.D., Barrister & Solicitor, Edmonton, AB 50. Ryan McConaghy, Lawyer, Toronto, ON 51. Waldy Derkson, Lawyer, Winnipeg, MB 52. Barbara F. VanBunderen, Lawyer, London, ON 53 . Christine Lowe, Student-at-Law (Osgoode Hall Law School), Toronto, ON 54. Danny Gurizzan Jr. , Student-at-Law, Woodbridge, ON 55. Rob Wildeboer, Lawyer, Toronto, ON 56. Grace Mcintosh, Legal Counsel, Seventh-day Adventist Church of Canada, Oshawa, ON 57. Monick L. Grenier, Barrister & Solicitor, Ottawa, ON 58. Simone Samuels, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B., B.C.L., Montreal, QC 59. Charles Graham Wallis King, B.A., M.Sc., J.D., Barrister and Solicitor, Toronto, ON 60. David St. Clair Bond, Barrister and Solicitor, Hubbards, NS 61. Kristin Debs, Lawyer, Halifax, NS 62. Changoo Jung, Student-at-Law (Queen's University), Kingston, ON 63. Fr. Evo DiPierro, Member of the N.S. Bar since 2003 64. Denis Grigoras, Lawyer, London, ON 65. Geoffrey F. Cauchi LL.B ., Lawyer, Mississauga, ON 66. Lakin Afolabi, Lawyer, London, ON 67. Deborah Santema Olthof, Lawyer, Leduc, AB 68. Paul D. Faris LL.B., Lawyer, Called to the Bars of Ontario and Alberta, London, ON 69. John Sikkema, Law Student, Queen's University, Kingston, ON 70. Murielle Harkema, Second-year Law Student, University of Alberta 71 . Janine Van Nus, completed 2 years of law school at the University ofNew Brunswick 72. David McMath, Lawyer, Fredericton, NB 73. Clifford G. Pyle, Saskatoon, SK 74. James CS Lam, Lawyer, Markham, ON 75. Chantal Desloges, LL.B. (Osgoode), C.S., Lawyer, Toronto, ON (Certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada as: Specialist in Citizenship and Immigration Law & Specialist in Refugee Law) 76. Michael Menear, Lawyer, London, ON 77. Dennis Shannon, Fenelon Falls, ON 78. Elizabeth Swarbrick, Lawyer, Almonte, ON (Member ofthe NS Barristers' Society for 10 years, Attended Dalhousie University) 79. Catherine Duncan, Law Student, Western University, London, ON 80. James F. Reich, Lawyer, Calgary, AB 81. Richard M. Harding B.A., J.D., R.F.M, Barrister and Solicitor, Calgary, AB 82. Elizabeth F.C. Davis-Dagg, J.D., Deputy Mayor, Municipality of Lambton Shores, Ontario 83 . Joel Reinhardt, Student-at-Law, Ottawa, ON 84. Barry W. Bussey LL.M., LL.B., Lawyer, Elmira, ON (Newfoundland 1993, Ontario 1996) 85. Genna A. S. Evelyn, Lawyer, New Brunswick (2007), Ontario (2009), Quebec (2014) 86. Andre Schutten, LL.B., LL.M., Ottawa, ON 87. Paul D. Mack, Lawyer, Oshawa, ON 88. Derek B.M. Ross, LL.B., LL.M., Lawyer, Elmira, ON 89. Jonathan Ng, Lawyer, Toronto, ON, Dalhousie Law alumnus 90. Jessie Legaree, Second-year Law Student, University of Toronto (also submitted independently as a TWU alumnus) 91 . Walter Thiessen, Lawyer, Winnipeg, MB 92. Joshua Tong, Barrister and Solicitor, Toronto, ON 93. Dr. Thomas M.J. Bateman, Associate Professor Political Science, St. Thomas University, Fredericton, NB 24

... CLF Page 6

94. C.E. Taucar, Ph.D., LL.M., LL.B., B.A., Barrister & Solicitor, Bradford, ON 95. Tyler Koverko, JD, Articling Student, London Crown Attorney's Office (Ontario) 96. Rhoda Adetunji, Articling Student, Toronto, ON 97. Dr BrianD Scott. HBA; LLB; D. Min, Retired Lawyer, Pastor, Consultant, London, ON 98. Robert E. Reynolds, Avocat, Montreal, QC 99. Wayne L. Bernakevitch, Partner, Deer, McDougall Gauley LLP, Barrister and Solicitor 100. Daniel J. Whittal, Lawyer, Chatham, Ontario I 01. Angie Redecopp LLB, MBA, Director of Development Prairie Region, International Justice Mission; former partner, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP 102. Jeffrey Wyngaarden, Master's candidate, Philosophy of Law, McMaster University 103. Philip Milley, Articling clerk, St. John's, Newfoundand 104. Timothy J. Sinnott, Lawyer, Partner, Bereskin & Parr LLP 105. Philip Fourie, Lawyer, Partner, Kirkby Fourie Law Firm 106. Shawn Knights, Articling Student, Niagara Falls, Ontario 107. Peter Trieu, Lawyer, Calgary, AB 108. Roger Song, Student-at-Law AB, Member ofNew York Bar, JD University of Calgary, LL.M. New York University, USA, LL.B, LL.M, Peking University, China 109. Jessica Lo, Lawyer, Vancouver, BC 110. Anthony N. Schratz, Member of the Quebec Bar 111. Valerie Dye (PhD), Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Public, 100 Sheppard Avenue West., Toronto, ON, Adjunct Professor (Business Law) Ryerson University. 112. Christian Ferraro, Law Student/ MBA Student: Osgoode Hall Law School, Schulich School of Business 113. Nicolas Francis - Osgoode Hall Law School, JD Candidate 2015, Toronto, ON 114. Jordan Bierkos, Law Student, University of Calgary, Calgary. AB 115. John S. Lockhart, Lawyer, Mississauga, ON 116. Nancy Bergstrom, Lawyer, Red Deer, AB 117. Andrea Dickinson, CPA, CA, LL.B., Lawyer, Toronto, ON 118. Joseph P. Hamon B.A., LL.B., C.S. (Family Law), FMC Cert. CFM, Combermere, ON 119. Walter Kubitz, Lawyer, Calgary, AB 120. Andrew Loewen, Winnipeg MB, Lawyer 121. Theodoric Derek Nowak, BA, BEd, LLB, Called to the Newfoundland and Labrador Bar 2009 122. Ted Newell, Associate Professor, Crandall University, Moncton, NB 123. Darren L. Richards, Barrister & Solicitor, Edmonton, AB 124. Terry Prockiw, B.Comm., LL.B., Barrister and Solicitor, Smoky Lake, AB 125. Heather Hughes, CLF Supporter and Associate Member, Fredericton, NB 126. Gary Hoftyzer, Lawyer, Mississauga ON 127. Donald Edward Lionel Hutchinson, In-House Counsel, Ottawa, ON (1990) 128. Albertos Polizogopoulos, Lawyer, Ottawa, ON 129. Faye Sonier, Legal Counsel, Centre for Faith and Public Life, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada 130. David L. Campbell, Lawyer, Windsor, ON 131. Teanna Lobo, 2nd year Law Student, Western University, London, ON 132. Michael H. Murray, Lawyer, London, Ontario 133. Ginny Li, Law Student at Osgoode Hall Law School, J.D. Candidate 2015, Mississauga, ON 134. Jennifer Park, Barrister and Solicitor, BA, JD 135. Shayna Beeksma, Lawyer, Burlington, ON 136. Marcia Smith, LLB (U.K.) NCA (UNB) 137. Jad Debs, Law Student, Schulich School of Law, Halifax, NS 138. Dennis J. Reeve B.Sc., J.D., Hobson & Reeve Barristers, Newmarket, ON 139. Miyoun Oh, Law student, Toronto, Ontario 140. Chris Markou, Lawyer, Brampton, Ontario 141. Lesley L' Heureux, Counsel, Department of Justice, Ontario Regional Office, Tax Law Services Section 25

... CLF Page 7 W:

142. George P.L. Filliter, Arbitration and Mediation Services, Fredericton, NB 143. Marcus Beesley, Student- at-law, Fredericton, NB 144. Andrew Nicol, JD Student, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie, Halifax, NS 145. Andrew Loewen, Lawyer, Winnipeg, MB 146. Timothy W.U. Bayly, Lawyer, Partner, KMSC Law LLP, Grande Prairie, AB 147. Hilery T. Hargrove, Barrister & Solicitor, Plaster Rock, New Brunswick 148. Dawson McKay, Law Student, Halifax, NS 149. Ian Mahood, J.D. Candidate 2016, Schulich School ofLaw, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS 150. Peter Vlaar, Law student, Osgoode Hall Law School 151 . Peter Luttmann, Dalhousie-Schulich School of Law, South Farmington, NS 152. Serena Singh, Student-at-Law, Toronto, ON 153. J. Allen Howard, Barrister & Solicitor, Calgary, AB 154. Ashley Gnys, Lawyer, Partner with Sharpe, Beresh and Gnys, Niagara Falls, ON 155. Calvin Beresh, Lawyer, Partner with Sharpe, Beresh and Gnys, Niagara Falls, ON 156. Jeannette Klekta, Winnipeg, MB 157. Brian K. Worrad, Lawyer, Partner with Menear Worrad & Associates, London, ON 158. Charlene Thomas, Lawyer, Winnipeg, MB 159. Ann Seidenberg, Oakville, ON 160. Richard L. Wright, Barrister, Solicitor, & Notary Public, Belleville, ON 161. Lisa Wight, Lawyer, Plattsville, ON 162. Rev. Reid Cooke, Niagara, ON, Ordained by the United Baptist Churches Maritimes (1974) 163. Edward Choi, Law Student (JD candidate, University ofNew Brunswick), LLM (Arb&DR), LLB, BBA, Dip Acct 164. Jonathan Ku1athungam, Partner, Teplitsky, Colson LLP, Toronto, ON 165. James S Kitchen, Law Student (University ofNew Brunswick), BA, Fredericton, NB 166. Frank de Walle, Lawyer, BA, LLB (U ofT 1980), Lethbridge, AB 167. Gwenyth S Stadig, BSc, MA, JD (cand.) (UNB), Fredericton, NB 168. Nicola P. Mulima, Lawyer, Brampton, ON 169. Sam Lp (Articling Student), JD/MBA (Western University) 170. Craig Lewis, B.A., LLB., Lawyer, RZCD Law Firm LLP, Mississauga, ON 171. Eugene Meehan, Q.C. LL.B., LL.M., LL.B., D.C.L., Practising member of the Bar of Ontario & Alberta, all three Northern Bars (Yukon, N.W.T., Nunavut), and the U.S. State Bar of Arizona 172. Bradley W. Miller, DPhil (Oxon), Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario 173. Timothy A. Stonhouse B.A. J.D., Former presiding Justice of the Peace in Alberta, Member of Alberta bar, presently practising in BC 174. The Honourable Ernest A. Marshall QC 175. The Honourable George W. Baynton, retired Justice, Queen's Bench Court for Saskatchewan: "As a recently retired Justice of the Queen's Bench Court for Saskatchewan, I strongly endorse the CLF submission for the reasons that follow.

"The constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of religion, which are stated by the Charter to be 'fundamental freedoms' , have come under attack these days in a manner that could not have been anticipated a few years ago. One has no real value in the absence of the other. Traditionally the legal profession has fought hard to uphold and protect the constitutionally protected rights of Canadians even though in some cases the views of the individuals or groups in issue may not be those held by a majority of Canadians or those in the legal profession. As a former judge, I often rendered judgments to uphold the ri ghts of litigants despite the fact that I did not endorse their views or agendas. 1 in turn felt secure that the courts would uphold my constitutionally protected rights, if they were ever violated, even though the court might not endorse my views or agendas. If a judge made hi s or her rulings 26

... CLF Page 8

involving fundamental rights on the basis of his or her views or opinions rather than in accordance with the rights protected by the Charter, the judge would not only be seriously in error, but would also bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

"The justice system as a whole in a constitutionally protected democracy is responsible to uphold and do what it can to protect and uphold these fundamental rights. A democracy is kept healthy by the ability of its citizens to freely express their views and opinions. This stimulates debate which in turn fosters new ideas and solutions. Conversely a democracy that does not tolerate free speech on the basis that it must be confined to the views and opinions held by another segment of society, will become rigid and stagnant and will cease to remain a constitutionally protected democracy. Canadian society, with its multicultural make up, acknowledges the value of and necessity for tolerance. If I attempted to stifle or restrict the rights of others to express their views, just because those views differed from my own views which I maintained were constitutionally protected, I would be intolerant and possibly even bigoted. As long as our public institutions are not swayed by such intolerance, our freedoms will remain unscathed. But if such intolerance is supported by any segment of our justice system, including the legal profession and its governing bodies, our freedoms will be seriously undermined.

" In my respectful view, our society is at a crossroads. Either we choose to affirm the need to continue to be ever vigilant in protecting our constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights of freedom of speech and religion, or we choose to turn a blind eye to them in our intolerant zeal to stifle all views that differ from or challenge our own. The latter choice will inevitably lead to the disintegration of our democracy and the substitution of some form of dictatorship or mob rule. For almost a half century of service in the legal profession and in the judiciary, I have attempted to uphold the rule of law and the constitutional principles that have shaped our society. I sincerely trust that we will make the right choice and preserve the unique and wonderful society and nation in which we are so fortunate to live."

FOOTNOTES: 1Civil Marriage Act, S.C. 2005, c. 33 . 2 Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers, 200 I SCC 3 I. 27

This is Exhibit "..B_" referred to in the

affidavit of Ruth A.M. Ross

sworn before me at Waterloo

this 16th day of June, 2017 ~ A Commissioner for taking Affidavits for Ontario 28 CHRISTIAN LEGAL FELLOWSHIP - - Alliance des chretiens en droi~--

INTEGRATING CHRISTIAN fAITH & LAW SINCE 1978

1235 Fairview St., Suite 223, Burlington, ON, L7S 2K9 • Ph. 905-332-0597 • Fax 905-319-2940 • www.ChristianLegalFellowship.org

March 26, 2014 Via Email to: [email protected] TWU Submissions Policy Secretariat Law Society of Upper Canada Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West Toronto, ON M5H 2N6

Dear Policy Secretariat:

RE: Trinity Western University Consultation

On April 10 and April 24, 2014, Convocation will meet to determine the accreditation of Trinity Western University's (TWU) proposed law school program and to answer the following question:

Given that the Federation Approval Committee has provided conditional approval to the TWU law program in accordance with processes Convocation approved in 20 l 0 respecting the national requirement and in 20 II respecting the approval of law school academic requirements, should the Law Society of Upper Canada now accredit TWU pursuant to section 7 of By-Law 4?

The society has invited written submissions from the profession and the public on this matter. The Christian Legal Fellowship appreciates this opportunity and answers the question in the affirmative.

The Christian Legal Fellowship (CLF) has also made written submissions to the Law Society of British Columbia (February 28) and the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society (February II) in response to similar consultations.

It is noted that the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, to whom the power of approval was granted, has already considered this issue and approved TWU's application. TWU also received approval from the British Columbia Ministry of Advanced Education to grant the degree Juris Doctor (J.D.).

Much of the attention surrounding Trinity Western University's (TWU) proposed school of law has to do with sensitivity to concerns about discrimination, and thus the perceived need of the Law Society to ask the above question. lt is our understanding that the question arises in connection with the TWU C01mnunity Covenant Agreement, as has been the case in British Columbia and Nova Scotia. For example, the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society is reviewing the issue of whether they will permit graduates of Trinity Western University's (TWU) proposed school of law to acquire membership in their society.

NCO in St?ecial Consultative Status with the Economic & Social Council ojtlte United Nations HQ~BD OF 12IF~I..Q.Rf.?. Robert Reynolds, President- Quebec: S~:r~J:J::..{k_ Y.Q,Lu_.:.:mBB2 Michael Menear, Vice President- Out·ario Calvin (Cal) Beresh- Director, Sturlent Ministries- 905-357-5555 Josh Tong, Secretary- Ontrwio Rev. Reid Cooke - Owplaincy ···· 905-228-0324 Tim Sinnott, Treasurer- Ontario Mary-Lou. Hou.Iik- Administrative Support- 905-332-0597 Shannon Davis- Alberta Shawn Knights- Stwleut Ministry Sll]1pm·t- 905-332-0597 Philip Fourie - Saskatchewan Janinc Van Nus- O!Jke Administrat-or/Legal Researcher- 905-332-0597 l'hilip Milley, Student Rep.- Newfonudla1ld & Labrador Ruth A.M. Ross- Interim Exewtive Director- 905-332-0597 Shawn Smith -British Columbia Tim Stonhouse- Regicmal Directm~ West- 780-458-7690 Rev. Greg Sumner- British Columbia Charlene Thomas- Mtmitol1a Sheldon Wood- Ontario 29

... CLFPage2~

The CLF is a national charitable association that exists to serve the legal profession by deepening and strengthening the spiritual life of its members, and to encourage and facilitate among Christians in the vocation of law the integration of a biblical faith with contemporary legal, moral, social and political issues. The CLF's membership consists of nearly 600 lawyers, law students, professors, and others who support its work. It has 14 chapters in cities across Canada and student chapters in most Canadian law schools. While having no direct denominational affiliation, CLF's members represent more than 30 Christian denominations working in association together.

The CLF was founded out of the conviction that the practice oflaw is a vocation, a calling from God. As Christian lawyers, we are heirs to a tradition of legal thought that bears on many of the most pressing legal and constitutional questions facing our profession, as well as our broader community. We believe it is our responsibility as Christian lawyers to continue to develop that tradition, and to articulate what we understand to be required by justice in a free and democratic society.

As Canada's largest association of Christian lawyers, CLF is uniquely positioned to comment on some of the issues being considered by The Law Society of Upper Canada (LS UC) in this matter.

Our starting point is that, in a multicultural society such as Canada, there can be no single conception of sexual morality and marriage that all must be compelled to believe. Indeed, even within CLF's own membership, there is a divergence of individual beliefs on this matter. However, our members stand united in the conviction that individuals should be free to formulate and adhere to their own understanding of the good, and live according to their individual conscience and religious beliefs. These principles are not only entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but in this particular context, they are specifically affirmed in the preamble to the Civil Marriage Act, which states that 'it is not against the public interest to hold and publicly express diverse views on marriage'. 1

CLF would be concerned if TWU refused to admit gay students, but it does not. lt does require that all of its students live according to an evangelical Christian code of conduct while in attendance at TWU, including an evangelical Christian understanding of marriage and sexuality.

The current campaign, although directed against TWU specifically, has implications for all those in the legal profession - Christian or otherwise - who understand marriage and sexuality in the same way as TWU, as well as for any lawyer who opposes certain laws, even while abiding by them and advising their clients to do likewise. The message is that it is not enough to accept gay and lesbian colleagues and clients as colleagues and clients and to serve them impartially. The thrust of the opposition to the TWU proposal would prohibit lawyers, judges and Jaw professors from articulating or endorsing, either in the public square, the academy, or the marketplace, a religious understanding of marriage and sexuality which differs from what is defined by the civil law for secular purposes. TWU is not training its students to accept an erroneous understanding of the civil law or provide inaccurate legal advice about the legal impact of the Civil Marriage Act - if so, the LSUC would have every right to be concerned. To the contrary, Christian lawyers, like all lawyers, understand the difference between providing accurate, sound legal advice in their professional practices, and formulating personal comprehensive belief systems which may differ from the state' s official position.

The implications of refusing TWU accreditation on these grounds will be felt by Christian lawyers - indeed lawyers of all faiths and those of no faith who hold similar conscientious views - throughout Canada. Law deans, law firm diversity committees, corporate counsel initiatives, law student councils, and others with power over lawyers and law students will take from such a refusal a mandate not to tolerate any dissent from their view on matters of sexual morality or marriage.

Canadian society is robust enough to live with the tension of divergent understandings of marriage and sexuality, just as it is robust enough to live with the tension of divergent understandings of the divine. Canadian society can handle disagreements about the morality of sexual practices and the nature of marriage, just as it handles disagreements about the value of religious practices. 30

... CLFPage3$

There exist, in the courts, law faculties, and firms, Christian lawyers who accept the moral theology behind the TWU code of conduct. They have not, to this point, been viewed as unfit to practice and to teach. But if the TWU application is denied, we can expect that pressure will be brought to bear on them as well. It is intolerable that lawyers should be required to conform their personal beliefs to someone else's view of what marriage ought to be and what its purpose is. But that will be the message if the TWU application fails.

To paraphrase the findings ofthe Supreme Court of Canada in BCCTv. TWU 2, although some members of the legal profession may have reasons to object to TWU's Community Standards, they are not sufficient to deny TWU graduates admission to the bar. Indeed, ifTWU's Community Standards could be sufficient in themselves to justify such denial, it is difficult to see how the same logic would not result in the denial of admission to the bar to members of a particular church, or to any future candidate who might hold dissenting and unpopular views on a given political, social, or moral matter. The diversity of Canadian society is partly reflected in the multiple religious and other non-governmental organizations that mark the societal landscape, and this diversity of views should be respected.

As a quasi-governmental body, the LSUC must exercise its authority in a manner consistent with the values enshrined in the Canadian Charter ofRights and Freedoms. The LSUC must take into account the Charter value of freedom of religion. As the SCC concluded in its careful review of this very issue, where rights appear to be in conflict the appropriate reconciliation involves the toleration of divergent beliefs and respect for the freedom of individuals to adhere to those beliefs.

Please note the 206 endorsements including judicial (retired) that follow. CLF would be pleased to provide further assistance in any way the LSUC believes would be appropriate. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Ruth A.M. Ross, B.A., LL.B.

Interim Executive Director Member of the LSUC since 1985 (Member # 25650C) CHRISTIAN LEGAL FELLOWSHIP I Alliance des chretiens en droit www.christianlegalfellowship.org Suivez- nous sur I Follow us on www.twitter.com/CLF Canada In the Crossroads Centre, 1295 North Service Road, Burlington, ON 31

... CLFPage4-

ENDORSED BY: 1. Andre Schutten, LL.B., LL.M., Ottawa, ON 2. Christopher E. Taucar, Lawyer, Toronto, ON 3. Timothy J. Sinnott, Lawyer, Partner, Bereskin & Parr LLP, Kitchener, ON 4. Dr. Brian D. Scott. HBA; LLB; D. Min, Retired Lawyer, Pastor, Consultant, London, ON 5. Paul D. Faris LL.B., Lawyer, Called to the Bars of Ontario and Alberta, London, ON 6. James CS Lam, Lawyer, Markham, ON 7. Chantal Desloges, LL.B. (Osgoode), C.S., Lawyer, Toronto, ON (Certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada as: Specialist in Citizenship and Immigration Law & Specialist in Refugee Law) 8. Michael Menear, Lawyer, London, ON 9. Lakin Afolabi, Lawyer, London, ON 10. Barbara F. VanBunderen, Lawyer, London, ON 11. Paul Fletcher, Lawyer, Locust Hill, ON 12. Jocelyn S. Kraayenbrink, B.A. (Hons), J.D., Lawyer, Chatham, ON 13. Monick L. Grenier, Barrister & Solicitor, Ottawa, ON 14. Denis Grigoras, Lawyer, London, ON 15 . John Sikkema, Law Student, Queen's University, Kingston, ON 16. Geoffrey F. Cauchi LL.B., Lawyer, Mississauga, ON 17. Algernon Phillip, Student-at-Law, Toronto, ON 18. Changoo Jung, Student-at-Law (Queen's University), Kingston, ON 19. Ryan McConaghy, Lawyer, Toronto, ON 20. Carlton Thorne, Barrister and Solicitor, Toronto, ON 21. Stacey Huxtable, M.A., LL.B ., Barrister and Solicitor, Sanua, ON 22. Charles Graham Wallis King, B.A., M.Sc., J.D., Barrister and Solicitor, Toronto, ON 23. Thomas G. Dean, Lawyer, London, ON 24. Christine Lowe, Student-at-Law (Osgoode Hall Law School), Toronto, ON 25. Danny Gurizzan Jr., Student-at-Law, Woodbridge, ON 26. Geoffrey Wong, Law Student, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON 27. Rob Wildeboer, Lawyer, Toronto, ON 28. Grace Mcintosh, Legal Counsel, Seventh-day Adventist Church of Canada, Oshawa, ON 29. Kelly P. Hart, B.A., LL.B., Barrister & Solicitor, Ottawa, ON 30. Dennis Shannon, Fenelon Falls, ON 31. Julie Ralhan, B.A., LL. B., LL. M. , Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto, ON 32. Elizabeth Swarbrick, Lawyer, Almonte, ON (Member of the NS Barristers' Society for 10 years, Attended Dalhousie University) 33. Elizabeth F.C. Davis-Dagg, J.D., Deputy Mayor, Municipality ofLambton Shores, ON 34. Joel Reinhardt, Student-at-Law, Ottawa, ON 35. Paul D. Mack, B.A. (Sydney), LL.B. (Western), LL.M. (Osgoode), Lawyer, Oshawa, ON (Intends to submit an additional, independent letter for consideration) 36. Derek B.M. Ross, LL.B., LL.M., Lawyer, Elmira, ON 37. Jonathan Ng, Lawyer, Toronto, ON 38. Jessie Legaree, Second-year Law Student, University of Toronto 39. Joshua Tong, Barrister and Solicitor, Toronto, ON 40. C.E. Taucar, Ph.D., LL.M., LL.B., B.A., Barrister & Solicitor, Bradford, ON 41. Tyler Koverko, JD, Articling Student, London Crown Attorney's Office (Ontario) 42. Rhoda Adetunji, Articling Student, Toronto, ON 43. Catherine Duncan, Law Student, Western University, London, ON 44. Barry W. Bussey LL.B., LL.M., Lawyer, Elmira, ON (Newfoundland 1993, Ontario 1996) 32

... CLFPage5~

45. Valerie Dye (PhD), Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Public, I 00 Sheppard Avenue West., Toronto, ON, Adjunct Professor (Business Law) Ryerson University. 46. John S. Lockhart, Lawyer, Mississauga, ON 47. L. Frank Molnar, QC, MIR, Partner, Field LLP, Called to the Bars of Alberta and Ontario 48. Andrea Dickinson, CPA, CA, LL.B., Lawyer, Toronto, ON 49. Christian Ferraro, Law Student/ MBA Student: Osgoode Hall Law School, Schulich School of Business 50. Janine Van Nus, Burlington, ON (Completed 2 Years of Law School) 51 . Nicolas Francis - Osgoode Hall Law School, JD Candidate 2015, Toronto, ON 52. Shawn Knights, Articling Student, Niagara Falls, Ontario 53. Joseph P. Hamon B.A., LL.B., C.S. (Family Law), Certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada as a specialist in Family Law, Combermere, ON 54. Reuben Zaramian, Law Student, Osgoode Hall, Toronto, ON 55. Katherine Ernst, Law Student, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON 56. Tatiana Emanuel, I L J.D. Student, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON 57. Matthew Feil, Lawyer, Kincardine, ON 58. Paulette S. Haynes, Lawyer, Haynes Law Firm, Toronto, ON 59. Trevor Owen, Lawyer, Barrie, ON 60. Marty Klein, Mediator, Barrister, and Adoption Licensee, Mississauga, ON 61. Kenneth Koprowski, Lawyer, Strathroy, ON 62. J. Scott Kennedy, Lawyer, Oakbank, MB 63. Kyle Morgan, Law Student, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB 64. Karen Gee, B.A., J.D., LL.M., Barrister & Solicitor, Richmond, BC 65. David Macphail, Barrister and Solicitor, Calgary, AB 66. John C. Knibbe, Barrister, Solicitor, and Notary, Calgary, AB 67. Kathleen Pinno, Student-at-Law (University of Alberta), Edmonton, AB 68. Renee E. Short, Barrister & Solicitor, Calgary, AB 69. Vina E. Sayson, Lawyer, Richmond, BC 70. Daniel J. Mol, B.A., M.Sc.Econ., J.D., Barrister & Solicitor, Edmonton, AB 71. Nathan Wiebe, Lawyer, Edmonton, AB 72. Waldy Derkson, Lawyer, Winnipeg, MB 73. Simone Samuels, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B., B.C.L., Montreal, QC 74. Tom Schuck, Lawyer, Wcyburn, SK 75. David St. Clair Bond, Barrister and Solicitor, Hubbards, NS 76. Kristin Debs, Lawyer, Halifax, NS 77. Fr. Evo DiPierro, Member of the N.S. Bar since 2003 78. Deborah Santema Olthof, Lawyer, Leduc, AB 79. Murielle Harkema, Second-year Law Student, University of Alberta 80. David McMath, Lawyer, Fredericton, NB 81. Clifford G. Pyle, Saskatoon, SK 82. James F. Reich, Lawyer, Calgary, AB 83. Thomas Spraggs, Lawyer, Coquitlam, BC 84. Richard M. Harding B.A., J.D., R.F.M, Barrister and Solicitor, Calgary, AB 85. Genna A. S. Evelyn, Lawyer, New Brunswick (2007), Ontario (2009), Quebec (20 14) 86. Walter Thiessen, Lawyer, Winnipeg, MB 87. Dr. Thomas M.J. Bateman, Associate Professor Political Science, St. Thomas University, Fredericton, NB 88. Robert E. Reynolds, Avocat, Montreal, QC 89. Wayne L. Bernakevitch, Partner, Deer, McDougall Gauley LLP, Barrister and Solicitor 90. Daniel J. Whittal, Lawyer, Chatham, Ontario 91. Angie Redecopp LLB, MBA, Director of Development Prairie Region, International Justice Mission; former partner, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP 33

... cLPPage6W

92. Jeffrey Wyngaarden, Master's candidate, Philosophy of Law, McMaster University 93. Philip Milley, Articling clerk, St. John's, Newfoundand 94. Philip Fourie, Lawyer, Partner, Kirkby Fourie Law Firm (Intends to submit a separate, independent submission for consideration) 95. Peter Trieu, Lawyer, Calgary, AB 96. Roger Song, Student-at-Law AB, Member ofNew York Bar, JD University of Calgary, LL.M. (NYU), LL.B, LL.M, Peking University, China 97. Jessica Lo, Lawyer, Vancouver, BC 98. Anthony N. Schratz, Member of the Quebec Bar 99. Jordan Bierkos, Law Student, University of Calgary, Calgary. AB I 00. Nancy Bergstrom, Lawyer, Red Deer, AB I 0 I. Walter Kubitz, Lawyer, Calgary, AB I 02. Theodoric Derek Nowak, BA, BEd, LLB, Called to the Newfoundland and Labrador Bar 2009 103. Ted Newell, Associate Professor, Crandall University, Moncton, NB I 04. Darren L. Richards, Barrister & Solicitor, Edmonton, AB I 05. Terry Prockiw, B.Comm., LL.B., Barrister and Solicitor, Smoky Lake, AB 106. Heather Hughes, CLF Supporter and Associate Member, Fredericton, NB 107 . Gary Hoftyzer, Lawyer, Mississauga ON I 08. Donald Edward Lionel Hutchinson, In-House Counsel, Ottawa, ON (1990) 109. Albertos Polizogopoulos, Lawyer, Ottawa, ON 110. Faye Sonier, Legal Counsel, Centre for Faith and Public Life, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada 111. David L. Campbell, Lawyer, Windsor, ON 112. Teanna Lobo, 2nd year Law Student, Western University, London, ON 113. Michael H. Murray, Lawyer, London, Ontario 114. Ginny Li, Law Student at Osgoode Hall Law School, J.D. Candidate 2015, Mississauga, ON 115. Jennifer Park, Barrister and Solicitor, BA, JD 116. Shayna Beeksma, Lawyer, Burlington, ON 117. Marcia Smith, LLB (U .K.) NCA (UNB), Toronto, ON 118. Peter Vlaar, Law student, Osgoode Hall Law School 119. Serena Singh, Student-at-Law, Toronto, ON 120. Ashley Gnys, Lawyer, Partner with Sharpe, Beresh and Gnys, Niagara Falls, ON 121. Calvin Beresh, Lawyer, Partner with Sharpe, Beresh and Gnys, Niagara Falls, ON 122. Brian K. Worrad, Lawyer, Partner with Menear Worrad & Associates, London, ON 123. Ann Seidenberg, Oakville, ON 124. Richard L. Wright, Barrister, Solicitor, & Notary Public, Belleville, ON 125. Lisa Wight, Lawyer, Plattsville, ON 126. Rev. Reid Cooke, Ordained by the United Baptist Churches Maritimes (1974), Niagara, ON 127. Dennis J. Reeve B.Sc., J.D., Hobson & Reeve Barristers, Newmarket, ON 128. Jonathan Kulathungam, Partner, Teplitsky, Colson LLP, Toronto, ON 129. Miyoun Oh, Law student, Toronto, Ontario 130. Craig Lewis, B.A., LLB., Lawyer, RZCD Law Firm LLP, Mississauga, ON 131 . Nicola P. Mulima, Lawyer, Brampton, ON 132. Sean Oostdyk, Lawyer, Burlington, ON 133. Chris Markou, Lawyer, Brampton, ON 134. Lesley L' Heureux, Counsel, Department of Justice, Ontario Regional Office, Tax Law Services Section, ON 135. George P.L. Filliter, Arbitration and Mediation Services, Fredericton, NB 136. Marcus Beesley, Student- at-law, Fredericton, NB 137. Jad Debs, Law Student, Schulich School of Law, Halifax, NS 138. Andrew Nicol, JD Student, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie, Halifax, NS 139. Andrew Loewen, Lawyer, Winnipeg, MB 140. Timothy W.U. Bayly, Lawyer, Partner, KMSC Law LLP, Grande Prairie, AB 34

... CLFPage7$

141 . Hilery T. Hargrove, Barrister & Solicitor, Plaster Rock, NB 142. Dawson McKay, Law Student, Halifax, NS 143. Andrew Hnatuik, B.A., CIP, Law Student, Robson Hall Law School, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB 144. Ian Mahood, J.D. Candidate 2016, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS 145. Peter Luttmann, Dalhousie-Schulich School of Law, South Farmington, NS 146. J. Allen Howard, Barrister & Solicitor, Calgary, AB 147. Jeannette Klekta, Winnipeg, MB 148. Charlene Thomas, Lawyer, Winnipeg, MB 149. Edward Choi, Law Student (JD candidate, University ofNew Brunswick), LLM (Arb&DR), LLB, BBA, Dip Acct 150. James S Kitchen, Law Student (University ofNew Brunswick), BA, Fredericton, NB 151. Frank de Walle, Lawyer, BA, LLB (U ofT 1980), Lethbridge, AB 152. Gwenyth S Stadig, BSc, MA, JD (cand.) (UNB), Fredericton, NB 153. Sam 1p (Articling Student), JD/MBA (Western University) 154. Eugene Meehan, Q.C. LL.B., LL.M., LL.B., D.C.L. , Practising member of the Bar of Ontario & Alberta, all three Northern Bars (Yukon, N.W.T., Nunavut), and the U.S. State Bar of Arizona 155. John E. Humphries, Barrister & Solicitor, Peachland, BC 156. Philip J. Dougan, Lawyer, Vancouver, BC 157. Gerald Kent, Lawyer, Cranbrook, BC 158. T. Charles De Jager, Barrister & Solicitor, Surrey, BC 159. Donald L. Wilkinson, Partner, Porter Ramsay LLP, Kelowna, BC 160. Reid A. Wilkie, Barrister and Solicitor, Medicine Hat, AB 161. Geoffiey Trotter, Lawyer, Vancouver, BC 162. Stanley Leo, Lawyer, Vancouver, BC 163 . Oloff Beinnann, Barrister & Solicitor, Langley, BC 164. David Gileff, Lawyer, Vancouver, BC 165. Ken Volkenant, Barrister & Solicitor, Surrey, BC 166. Ronald J. Smith, QC, Barrister and Solicitor, Kelowna BC 167. Peter J. Anderson, Barrister & Solicitor, Vancouver, BC 168. Shawn M. Smith, Partner, Cleveland Doan LLP, Barrister and Solicitor, White Rock, BC 169. I. Stanley Osobik J.D., Lawyer, Victoria, B.C. 170. Marie-Louise Fast, Barrister & Solicitor, Richmond, BC 171. George Gunnink, Lawyer, Surrey, BC 172. Michael Dieleman, Lawyer, Richmond, BC 173. Carrnelle Dieleman, Articling Student, Richmond, BC 174. GeoffSeveride, Barrister & Solicitor, Penticton, BC 175. Candace Cho, Lawyer, Vancouver, BC 176. Rev. Greg Sumner, Pastor, New Life Community Baptist Church, Duncan, BC 177. JeffreyS. Lowe, Lawyer, Vancouver, BC 178. Luke Johnson, Barrister & Solicitor, Surrey, BC 179. Linda Yang, Law Student, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS 180. Sandra M. Jennings, Lawyer, BC 181. Thomas J. Johnson, B.A., LL.B., Lawyer, Summerland, BC 182. Alastair Rees-Thomas, Barrister & Solicitor, Richmond, BC 183. Kallen Fong, Barrister & Solicitor, Vancouver, BC 184. Masao Morinaga, Lawyer, Richmond, BC 185. Sean Hedley, Second-year Law Student, UBC Faculty of Law, Vancouver, BC 186. Robert Z. Donick, Barrister & Solicitor, Kelowna, BC 187. Nardia Chernawsky, Articling Student, Vancouver, BC I 88. Christopher A. Becker, Lawyer, Abbotsford , BC 189. Brad E.L. Douglas, Barrister & Solicitor, Prince George, BC 190. Arlene Blake, Barrister, Solicitor, C.Arb., and Notary Public, Calgary, AB 35

... cLFPagesW

191. Lee Sawatzky, Lawyer, Langley, BC 192. Richard Vincente Arpin, Law Student, University ofManitoba, Winnipeg, MB 193. Jamie A. Bleay, Lawyer, Vancouver, BC 194. Marie Burgoyne, J.D. (Candidate for Admission to the BC Bar), Vancouver, BC 195. Scott Macfarlane, Lawyer, North Vancouver, BC 196. Dan Draht, Student-at-law, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC 197. John B. MacDonald, B. Com., LL.B. (UBC), M.A. (Regent College), D. Min. (TWU). 198. J. DavidS. Avren, Director of Legal Services, BC Hydro, Vancouver, BC 199. Jeannette Savoie, Lawyer, Yellowknife, NT 200. Cornelis Van Dam, Th.D., Emeritus Professor of Old Testament, Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary 20 I. Timothy A. Stonhouse B.A. J.D., Former presiding Justice of the Peace in Alberta, Member of Alberta bar, presently practising in BC 202. Peter Bowal, Professor of Law, University of Calgary, former Presiding Justice of the Peace (AB), Calgary, AB. 203. Dr. Charles I. M. Lugosi, J.D. LL.M. M.B.E. S.J.D.(Doctor of Juridical Science) Barrister-at-Law, Adjunct Professor of Law, Laurier University, Brantford, ON (Intends to submit a separate, independent letter for consideration) 204. Bradley W. Miller, DPhil (Oxon), Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario 205. The Honourable Ernest A. Marshall QC 206. The Honourable George W. Baynton, retired Justice, Queen's Bench Court for Saskatchewan:

"As a recently retired Justice of the Queen's Bench Court for Saskatchewan, I strongly endorse the CLF submission for the reasons that follow.

"The constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of religion, which are stated by the Charter to be 'fundamental freedoms', have come under attack these days in a manner that could not have been anticipated a few years ago. One has no real value in the absence of the other. Traditionally the legal profession has fought hard to uphold and protect the constitutionally protected rights of Canadians even though in some cases the views of the individuals or groups in issue may not be those held by a majority of Canadians or those in the legal profession. As a former judge, I often rendered judgments to uphold the rights of litigants despite the fact that I did not endorse their views or agendas. r in turn felt secure that the courts would uphold my constitutionally protected rights, if they were ever violated, even though the court might not endorse my views or agendas. If a judge made his or her rulings involving fundamental rights on the basis of his or her views or opinions rather than in accordance with the rights protected by the Charter, the judge would not only be seriously in error, but would also bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

... CLFPage9~

"In my respectful view, our society is at a crossroads. Either we choose to affirm the need to continue to be ever vigilant in protecting our constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights of freedom of speech and religion, or we choose to turn a blind eye to them in our intolerant zeal to stifle all views that differ from or challenge our own. The latter choice will inevitably lead to the disintegration of our democracy and the substitution of some form of dictatorship or mob rule. For almost a half century of service in the legal profession and in the judiciary, I have attempted to uphold the rule of law and the constitutional principles that have shaped our society. I sincerely trust that we will make the right choice and preserve the unique and wonderful society and nation in which we are so fortunate to live."

FOOTNOTES: 'Civil Marriage Act, S.C. 2005, c. 33. 2 Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers, 200 I SCC 31 . 37

PART I: OVERVIEW

1. On this motion, Christian Legal Fellowship (“CLF”) seeks leave to intervene with the right to file a factum and present oral argument at the hearing of these Appeals.

2. Specifically, CLF seeks to intervene on the question of how regulatory bodies exercising statutory authority ought to interpret and apply the “public interest” in decision making, and how the Charter rights to freedom of religion, conscience, and association must inform the understanding of the public interest in these Appeals. CLF will also speak to the implications for all religious lawyers if regulatory bodies are authorized to reject individuals and institutions on the basis that their beliefs do not conform with the regulator’s definition of the “public interest”.

PART II: STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS IN ISSUE

3. The question at issue in this motion is whether CLF be granted leave to intervene in these two appeals, having met the requirements for an intervention order as set out in Rule 57 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Rules requires CLF to demonstrate (a) its interest in the proceeding and (b) that its submissions will be relevant, useful and different from those of other parties. PART III: STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT A. Interest in the Proceeding CLF, the Proposed Intervener

4. CLF is a national non-profit association of over 650 lawyers, legal scholars, law students, prospective law students, and others, drawn from diverse Christian traditions. CLF represents lawyers from over 30 Christian denominations with a broad spectrum of Christian legal thought, whose views are not necessarily represented by Trinity Western University (“TWU”), the Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”), the Law Society of British Columbia (“LSBC”) or other proposed interveners.1

5. Like TWU, CLF is a community of people freely associating for a religious purpose. It was founded out of the conviction that for the Christian lawyer, the practice of law is a vocation,

1 Affidavit of Ruth A.M. Ross, sworn June 16, 2017 [“Ross Affidavit”], at paras 6, 25. 38

2 a calling from God. As an association of Christian lawyers, CLF is concerned with legal and constitutional questions facing both the legal profession and the broader community, particularly communities of religious minorities.2

CLF’s Interest in the Appeal

6. Given its membership of Christian lawyers, law students and pre-law students, CLF has a direct stake in the issues raised in this Appeal, the resolution of which will directly impact all of CLF’s members. It will have a potentially greater impact on particular CLF members, namely the law students, articling students and lawyers who hold undergraduate degrees from TWU.3 As Justice Nordheimer of the Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) noted in granting CLF’s application for leave to intervene in TWU v LSUC: “In my view, CLF, given its membership, has a more direct role in the issues raised and more directly addresses some of the broader issues that the court will have to consider. I note, in particular, that CLF includes within its membership current law students who hold undergraduate degrees from TWU. They are a group that are directly affected by the issues raised in this judicial review application.”4

7. Any judgment in this Appeal will immediately impact participation in public life for Canadians whose understanding of sexuality and marriage are consistent with the religious beliefs manifested by TWU, particularly those who work in regulated professions, including CLF members.

8. The outcome will then impact more broadly the role of religious minorities in Canadian public life and their inclusion in a diverse and pluralistic society. These appeals speak to how statutory authorities and religious minorities interact, and whether and on what basis those statutory authorities can exclude religious minorities from full participation in a variety of regulated spheres.

2 Ibid at para 4. 3 Ibid at para 7. 4 2014 ONSC 5541, at para 46.

CLF’s Unique Position

9. As set out in CLF’s Notice of Motion, CLF is the only religious association of legal professionals participating in these proceedings, and the only lawyers’ association taking the position that the Law Societies’ decisions unjustifiably violate Charter rights. CLF’s proposed intervention thus gives voice to legal professionals who are otherwise unrepresented in, yet are greatly impacted by, the instant Appeal.

10. Unique to CLF is its understanding that the study and practice of law are important, practical expressions of a religious commitment and a Biblical mandate to advance justice as captured in CLF’s objective “to encourage and facilitate among Christians in the vocation of law the integration of a biblical faith with contemporary legal, moral, social and political issues.”5

11. CLF combines an intimate understanding of faith and law, from the perspective of practicing lawyers who share a common faith and associate together on that basis. By its very nature CLF understands the broader implications and effects of any decision in these Appeals in a way and from a perspective that other interveners simply cannot articulate.

12. CLF has a particular interest in how the regulation of the practice of law and legal education impacts rights to religious freedom and has developed an expertise in the issues raised in this appeal, including the scope of religious freedom as it bears on the regulation of the practice of law.6

13. CLF has a long history of responsible and useful interventions involving the Charter, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of expression, equality rights, and/or related provisions in human rights legislation.

14. CLF has been actively engaged in issues of religious freedom as they relate to TWU and its proposed law school, intervening at every level of court in every province in which this matter has been litigated, and making written submissions to LSUC and LSBC during their respective

5 Ross Affidavit at para 8. 6 Ibid at paras 14-18.

4 deliberations as to TWU’s proposed law school. CLF also intervened in the 2001 case Trinity Western University v British Columbia College of Teachers, 2001 SCC 31. CLF has been an intervener both independently and in coalition with other organizations in many other Charter cases, including: Ktunaxa Nation Council v Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources, Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada v College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Loyola High School v Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12, Carter v Canada, 2015 SCC 5, and Alberta v Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37.7

15. CLF has developed deep institutional legal knowledge and expertise on matters that involve the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the principles of a free and democratic society generally, as well as on the more specific matters of the public interest and the Charter rights of religious minorities in the context of regulated professions.

16. CLF thus has a demonstrable interest in these Appeals, satisfying the first necessary criterion.

B. Submissions are Relevant, Useful and Different

17. CLF will offer a useful and unique perspective by arguing that the “public interest” is not a freewheeling deus ex machina to subvert Charter rights,8 nor is it a tool to enforce moral conformity with LSUC and LSBC’s (collectively the “Law Societies”) approved values. It is not contrary to the public interest to approve TWU and its graduates; rather, it is contrary to the public interest to violate their Charter rights by rejecting them. Permitting the Law Societies to reject TWU and its graduates will severely infringe the rights of all religious lawyers.

18. If granted leave to intervene, CLF will expand on its unique perspective by making the following arguments:

a. The need for Charter scrutiny of Law Societies’ decisions cannot be subverted by mere appeal to the public interest. The public interest - and the “Charter values” that

7 Other interventions are highlighted at para 23 of the Ross Affidavit. 8 The application of the “public interest” shares the same interpretative limitations of “Charter values” outlined in R v Gomboc, 2010 SCC 55 at para 87.

are said to inform it - must be interpreted in a way that makes their meaning and application predictable and understandable. Otherwise the Law Societies’ authority is too vague and too uncertain so as to be “prescribed by law”. b. Law Societies must not be permitted to create a system of religious testing whereby licenses are granted on the condition that licensees demonstrate their religious views and affiliations align with whatever “values” the Law Societies decide falls within their current definition of the public interest. Such a test cannot be found within the Law Societies’ statutory authority, no matter how broadly defined. c. It is not contrary to the public interest to approve TWU and its graduates. Rather, it is contrary to the public interest to violate their Charter rights by rejecting them. The meaning of the public interest must account for and uphold the Charter rights of religious students like Mr. Volkenant (such as student members of CLF) who seek to attend TWU, including freedom of religion and conscience, equality on the grounds of religion, and freedom of association. d. It is contrary to the public interest to place Charter rights in hierarchy, yet the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision results in impermissible hierarchy. The scope and nature of the Charter infringements against prospective TWU students, who have been denied the opportunity to associate and study law in a Christian environment for the purpose of becoming a practicing lawyer, were not adequately addressed. e. The public interest must not be interpreted so as to require associations of law students and/or lawyers who belong to minority religious communities – such as those at TWU and CLF – to admit those who do not affirm their mission or be obliged by a regulatory body to amend their mission. Such an interpretation undermines the very possibility of meaningful association guaranteed by s. 2(d) of the Charter, a freedom which harmoniously co-exists with s. 15 equality rights. f. The Law Societies’ decisions, if upheld, will limit and unjustifiably infringe the rights of all religious lawyers. The Law Societies cannot enact rules which unreasonably undermine public confidence in lawyers. By publicly condemning the religious- informed views of TWU and its graduates, the Law Societies have undermined public confidence in all lawyers who share those beliefs, including members of CLF. Declaring that licensing of TWU graduates is contrary to the public interest is to cast aspersions on the professionalism and capabilities of like-minded lawyers and their ability to impartially practice law. g. The Law Societies’ decisions imperil the ability of legal professionals to hold and manifest religious and conscientious beliefs that do not conform to the majoritarian

viewpoint. If signing TWU’s Community Covenant is enough to justify rejecting a prospective licensee, the same might be said of membership in a church or any religious association such as CLF. This is inconsistent with the nature of a free and democratic society, which protects diversity of opinion and independence of thought within the legal profession. It is also inconsistent with the pursuit of diversity and state neutrality. It is an unconstitutional and manifestly unjust exercise of statutory authority - however defined - for Law Societies to sanction or deny a license to a lawyer based on their religious beliefs or those of the institutions with which they associate, be that a university, law school, church, or professional association such as CLF.

19. CLF thus submits its proposed arguments are relevant, useful and different, satisfying the second necessary criterion.

Conclusion

20. CLF has a direct stake in the outcome of these Appeals. CLF has been actively engaged in the legal controversy surrounding TWU and its proposed law school for many years, and it represents an association of individuals and interests that will assuredly be impacted by the outcome of these Appeals. For both the people CLF represents and the institutional mandate it seeks to uphold, CLF has an interest in ensuring that the interpretation of the “public interest” and Charter rights and freedoms are consistent with the preservation of issues within its mandate, including religious freedom and religious equality within the legal profession.9 CLF has a unique perspective and useful arguments, and submits it should accordingly be granted intervener status.

PART IV: SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING COSTS

21. CLF requests that no costs be awarded either for it or against it.

PART V: ORDER SOUGHT

22. CLF requests that the motion for intervention in these Appeals be allowed on the same terms as requested in CLF’s Notice of Motion, namely that CLF be permitted:

9 R v Finta, [1993] 1 SCR 1138 (motions for leave to intervene).

a. to file a single factum of no more than 10 pages in which both Appeals will be

addressed;

b. to present oral arguments of no more than 5 minutes or any such other length of time

this Honourable Court deems appropriate;

c. to have no costs awarded for or against it; and

d. such further or other Order as this Honourable Court may deem appropriate.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 19th day of June, 2017.

______Derek B.M. Ross Deina Warren

PART VI – TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases at Para R v Finta, [1993] 1 SCR 1138 ...... 20 R v Gomboc, 2010 SCC 55 ...... 17