The first is the issue of LGBTQ rights, which were not directly involved in the specific substance of the case but which could be effected by the precedents set regarding an employer's power to allow personal religious principles to determine employee rights. (firstthings.com)
Citing Loveridge, Saunders J.A. explained the appellant was entitled to correct consideration of the full substance of his case. (supremeadvocacy.ca)
But bewilderment about that initial verdict says more about public understanding of conflict of interest than it does about the substance of this case. (canadianbusiness.com)