The country’s top court has declined to hear the appeal of a private Calgary school that was found to have discriminated against two Muslim students who were denied prayer space on campus.
The Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling Thursday ends a 12-year legal battle to overturn an Alberta Human Rights Commission (HRC) decision that resulted in a $26,000 fine against Webber Academy.
As is the SCC’s practice, no reasons were given for the court’s refusal to hear the appeal.
On Dec. 1, 2011 two 14-year-old students enrolled at Webber Academy.
For their first two weeks at the school, different staff members found empty classrooms and office space so the students could perform their prayers.
But 17 days into their enrolment at the school, president Neil Webber learned that the students were praying on campus and contacted their parents to advise them the practice would no longer be allowed.
The president also informed the two families that the students would not be allowed to attend the school the following year.
This is pretty common. They are letting the lower court ruling stand.
Most people don’t know that an appeal to a higher court is an exercise in “did the lower court follow procedure” rather than I want to re-litigate the case.
Yes, the title said it pretty clearly.
No, the title is subjective. It would be something like “court upholds fine”, nof “not hear out a party” since there’s often no room for a defence.
Highest courts are usually acting upon a “this judgement is faulty, because they didn’t allow x” or “… didn’t consider y”. Not “… they disagreed with my opinion”.