Developments in Religious Freedom: What Saguenay and Loyola Tell Us -- and Don't -- About the Trinity Western University Law School Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada made two significant decisions about freedom of conscience and religion: Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General) and Mouvement laique quebecois v. Saguenay (City). Around the same time, Trinity Western University (“TWU”), an Evangelical Christian institution, sought accreditation for its proposed law school from the various provincial law societies. Many in the Canadian legal community saw this as engaging questions of religious freedom and equality rights. This is principally because students and faculty at TWU must sign a community covenant which, among other things, prohibits sexual intimacy outside of a marriage between one man and one woman. This article assesses the implications of the 2015 religious freedom cases for the ongoing litigation surrounding TWU’s proposed law school. It argues that the 2015 cases develop the jurisprudence in three relevant ways: (a) by addressing the issue of whether institutions can hold religious freedom rights, (b) by expanding upon the state’s duty of religious neutrality and secularism, and (c) by identifying three “core national values” that can justify limitations of religious freedom. While each of these developments is likely to play an important role in the TWU controversy, there is significant interpretive scope within them, leaving important questions unanswered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".