Alberta court weighs in on jurisdiction over religious groups following expulsion of Jehovah's Witness member

Alberta courts arewading into the controversial territory ofjurisdiction over religious organizations after the Alberta Court of Appeal decided to allow the Court of Queen's Bench to hear an application relating to the 2014 expulsion of a member of theHighwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.

The appellate courtsided withRandy Wall, a local real estate agent and member of theCongregation whofaced expulsion after admitting to being drunk on two occasions and verbally attacking his wife.

Two of the three appeal judges dismissed the application from the congregationwith a dissenting opinion fromThomas W.Wakeling, who wrote that the congregation is a private organization that is"like a bridge club."

"The decisions the bridge club makes when and where to meet, the obligations of the host, the duration of a session, who may be invited as a guest when a regular is unavailable are not enforceable promisesand have limited, if any, impact outside its small circle."

"I'm very impressed with the dissenting judge," said David Gnamwho represents the congregation.

Gnam says the decision on whether to appealis still in the hands of his clients.

"I'm still in process of formulating my recommendations to my clients and will leave it to them to make that decision," saidGnam.

It's been nearly 25 years since the country's top court visitedthe issue of judicial jurisdiction over religious organizations.

In 1992, the courtruled that religious groups had to givedetails relating to the reasons for expulsion to members in order to give them an opportunity to respond.

'Alleged wrongdoing involves drunkenness'

In 2014, Wall was accused of"alleged wrongdoing involves drunkenness" and was directed to appear before theJudicial Committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. That committee was composed of four elders.

Wall told the panel his behaviour stemmed from stress related to theexpulsionof his 15-year-old daughter who he and his wife were required by the church to shun.

The congregation had already kicked the teen out of the community and as a result, even though she was a dependent child living with her parents, thefamily was pressured to evict the girl from the home, leading to "much distress."

At the meeting, Wall admitted he'd been drunk twice that he'd verbally abused his wife once.

The judicial committee found Wall was "not sufficiently repentant" and hewas disfellowshipped, a decision that then compelled his wife, children and otherJehovah's Witnesses to shun him.

Wall appealed that decision and a panel of three elders wasselected and asked toconsider"the mental and emotional distress he and his family were under" following his daughter's disfellowship but the committee sided with the original panel's decision.

Church's appeal avenues exhausted

Finally, Wall sent a letter of appeal to the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society of Canada but he was told the Canadian Branch would not overturn the decision.

After exhausting the church's appealavenues, Wall made an application with the Court of Queen's Bench in Calgary which ordered a hearing to first determine if there was jurisdiction for the court to hear the application.

A judge decided that the superior court did have jurisdiction to hear the application because "he was satisfiedthe disfellowship had an economic impact on [Wall]."

The congregation and its judicial committee then appealed Wall's right to have a Court of Queen's Bench judge hear his application.

One of the congregation's arguments was that the Court of Queen's Bench judge erred when he foundthe religious practice of shunning infringes civil and property rights.

1992 Supreme Court of Canada decision

That was one of the grounds for the judge finding the court did have jurisdiction to "review the merits of a membershipdecisionof a voluntary religious association."

Wall said his clients refused to do business with him following his expulsion because they were from the Jehovah's Witness congregation. For that reason, he arguedhis property and civil rights were affected by the disfellowship so the court had jurisdiction to hear the application.

The1992 Supreme Court decision regarding aHutterite man who was expelled from his Manitoba colonynoted that the courts "areslow to exercise jurisdiction over the question of membership in a voluntary association, especially a religious one."

The exception was when property or civil right hinged on membership.

Since 1992, there have been other cases that set the precedent for courts to have jurisdiction when "there has been a breach of the rules of natural justice or the complainant has exhausted the organization's internal processes."

Wall argued the internal process was unfairthat the church's framework for expulsion was unclear.

He submitted that he wasn't told whether he could retain a lawyer, if there would be a record of the proceedings, the details of the allegations against him or whether there would be written reasons for the committee's decision

On the basis of those allegations, and because Wall had exhausted all avenues of internal appeal, the panel found the Court of Queen's Bench has jurisdiction to hear the application.

Wall, who represented himself could not be reached for comment.

• MORE COURTNEWS |Should 'knees together' judge Robin Camp keep his job? Inquiry hears final arguments
• MORE COURTNEWS |Defence lawyers deciding whether to call underage witness in 1st-degree murder trial of Radita parents