Reading P2/3

Religion and Rights in Canada: Charter & Courts

Introduction

This study guide explores the intersection of religion and rights in Canada, focusing on constitutional protections, landmark Supreme Court cases, and the evolving balance between religious freedom and other fundamental rights. It is designed for psychology students interested in legal, social, and cultural dimensions of religious freedom and state neutrality.

Provincial and Federal Developments

Early Provincial Bills of Rights

Before the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, several provinces enacted their own Bills of Rights to protect fundamental freedoms, including religious liberty.

• Alberta Bill of Rights (1946): Early provincial legislation affirming basic rights.

• Saskatchewan Bill of Rights (1947): Recognized freedoms of religion, speech, and association.

• Manitoba Bill of Rights (1947): Similar protections for fundamental freedoms.

Federal Initiatives

• Canadian Bill of Rights (1960): The first federal statute to protect rights and freedoms, including freedom of religion, conscience, speech, and assembly.

• Canadian Human Rights Act: Prohibits discrimination on various grounds, including religion.

• Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982): Constitutionally entrenched rights, including Section 2(a) – freedom of conscience and religion.

Fundamental Freedoms under the Charter

Section 2: Fundamental Freedoms

Section 2 of the Charter guarantees the following fundamental freedoms to everyone in Canada:

• Freedom of conscience and religion

• Freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression (including freedom of the press and other media)

• Freedom of peaceful assembly

• Freedom of association

Landmark Supreme Court Cases on Religious Freedom

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. (1985)

This case established the principle of state neutrality in matters of religion and clarified the scope of religious freedom under the Charter.

• Background: Big M Drug Mart was charged under the Lord's Day Act, which prohibited Sunday business operations. The Act was challenged as violating freedom of religion.

• Decision: The Supreme Court struck down the Act, ruling that laws rooted in religious doctrine cannot be justified in a secular society. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religious compulsion.

• Key Principle: Laws must have a secular purpose to be constitutionally valid.

Example: The Lord's Day Act was found to impose Christian standards on all Canadians, violating the Charter's protection of religious minorities.

Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers (2001)

This case addressed the balance between institutional religious freedom and equality rights.

• Background: TWU required students to sign a covenant prohibiting sexual intimacy outside heterosexual marriage. The BC College of Teachers denied accreditation, citing concerns about discrimination.

• Decision: The Court ruled in favor of TWU, emphasizing that beliefs alone, without evidence of discriminatory conduct, cannot justify denial of accreditation.

• Key Principle: Tolerance of divergent beliefs is a hallmark of a democratic society.

Example: The Court affirmed religious institutional autonomy, but later cases (2018) shifted this balance.

Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem (2004)

This case clarified the definition of religious belief and the role of sincerity in legal protection.

• Background: Orthodox Jewish residents wished to erect sukkahs on their balconies during Sukkot, contrary to condo bylaws.

• Decision: The Court ruled in favor of the residents, holding that freedom of religion protects sincerely held personal beliefs, not just those mandated by religious authorities.

• Key Principle: Individual autonomy in religious observance must be respected, even in private contractual settings.

Example: Sincerity of belief is assessed by personal conviction, not by expert testimony or religious authorities.

Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys (2006)

This case examined the limits of religious accommodation in public institutions.

• Background: A Sikh student was prohibited from wearing a kirpan (ceremonial dagger) at school due to safety concerns.

• Decision: The Court ruled in favor of Multani, finding that reasonable accommodation for religious practices is required unless there is a real and substantial risk to safety.

• Key Principle: Religious freedom may be limited only when necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or the rights of others.

Example: Multani was allowed to wear the kirpan under secure conditions, as a total ban was disproportionate.

Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony (2009)

This case addressed the balance between religious freedom and administrative efficiency.

• Background: Hutterites objected to mandatory photo identification for driver's licenses, citing religious beliefs.

• Decision: The Court held that the infringement was justified under Section 1, emphasizing the importance of a universal photo requirement for security and identity verification.

• Key Principle: Charter rights can be limited when the government demonstrates a pressing and substantial objective and proportional means.

Example: The regulation was upheld despite its impact on religious practice.

Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City) (2015)

This case reinforced the state's duty of religious neutrality in public spaces.

• Background: The mayor of Saguenay opened council meetings with a Catholic prayer, challenged by an atheist citizen.

• Decision: The Court ruled that the prayer violated freedom of conscience and religion, affirming state neutrality.

• Key Principle: Public institutions must not favor or hinder any particular religious belief.

Example: Municipal prayers were prohibited to maintain religious neutrality.

Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General) (2015)

This case examined collective religious rights and state regulation of religious schools.

• Background: Loyola, a Catholic school, sought exemption from teaching Catholicism neutrally under Quebec's Ethics and Religious Culture program.

• Decision: The Court found that requiring neutrality in teaching the school's own faith unjustifiably infringed religious freedom.

• Key Principle: Religious freedom applies to institutions as well as individuals.

Example: Loyola could teach Catholicism from its own perspective, but must teach other religions neutrally.

Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (2017)

This case explored the limits of religious freedom in relation to Indigenous spiritual practices and sacred sites.

• Background: The Ktunaxa Nation opposed a ski resort development on sacred land, arguing it would harm their spiritual connection.

• Decision: The Court held that Section 2(a) protects freedom to hold and manifest beliefs, but not the protection of sacred sites themselves.

• Key Principle: The Charter does not extend to protecting the object of religious beliefs.

Example: The development was allowed despite its impact on Indigenous spirituality.

Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Wall (2018)

This case clarified the limits of judicial review in religious organizations.

• Background: Wall was expelled from his congregation and sought judicial review, claiming harm to his reputation and business.

• Decision: The Court ruled that courts cannot review internal decisions of private religious bodies unless a legal right is involved.

• Key Principle: Religious communities have autonomy over internal affairs without state interference.

Example: Judicial review was denied as no public legal right was at stake.

Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University (2018)

This case marked a shift toward balancing religious freedom with equality rights in professional accreditation.

• Background: TWU's proposed law school required a covenant restricting sexual intimacy to heterosexual marriage. The Law Society refused accreditation, citing discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals.

• Decision: The Court upheld the Law Society's decision, finding it a proportionate balance between religious freedom and equality/public interest.

• Key Principle: Where religious practices impact others, especially in professional contexts, equality and diversity may justify limitations on religious freedom.

Example: The mandatory covenant was found to be discriminatory and harmful to public interest.

Limits to Freedom of Religion

Balancing Rights and State Neutrality

Freedom of religion is not absolute and may be limited to protect public safety, order, health, morals, and the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

• State Neutrality: The state must neither favor nor hinder any particular religious belief, showing respect for all positions, including non-belief.

• Secularism: Requires accommodation of sincerely held religious beliefs as far as possible, without making the state an arbiter of religious dogma.

Example: Courts avoid judging the validity of religious beliefs, focusing instead on sincerity and impact.

Key Concepts and Definitions

• Freedom of Religion: The right to hold, declare, and manifest religious beliefs without coercion or restraint.

• State Neutrality: The principle that government must not favor or hinder any religion.

• Sincerity of Belief: Legal protection depends on the genuine conviction of the claimant, not on conformity with official doctrine.

• Reasonable Accommodation: Adjustments made to allow religious practices unless they pose a real and substantial risk.

Summary Table: Major Supreme Court Cases on Religious Freedom

Case	Year	Main Issue	Outcome
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.	1985	Sunday closing law (Lord's Day Act)	Act struck down; state neutrality affirmed
Trinity Western University v. BC College of Teachers	2001	Accreditation and religious covenant	TWU's freedom of religion upheld
Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem	2004	Personal religious practice (sukkahs)	Individual autonomy in belief protected
Multani v. CSMB	2006	Kirpan in school	Accommodation required; ban overturned
Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren	2009	Photo ID for driver's licenses	Regulation upheld; rights limited for security
Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay	2015	Prayer at council meetings	Prayer prohibited; state neutrality enforced
Loyola High School v. Quebec	2015	Teaching religion in schools	Institutional religious freedom affirmed
Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia	2017	Sacred sites and Indigenous spirituality	Charter does not protect sacred sites
Highwood Congregation v. Wall	2018	Judicial review of religious expulsion	No review; autonomy of religious bodies
Law Society of BC v. Trinity Western University	2018	Accreditation and equality rights	Equality rights prioritized; accreditation denied

Conclusion

Canadian law protects freedom of religion as a fundamental right, but this freedom is subject to reasonable limits to safeguard public interests and the rights of others. The Supreme Court has developed nuanced approaches to balancing religious freedom with equality, state neutrality, and collective interests, reflecting the complexity of religious diversity in a multicultural society.

Additional info: These notes expand on the original materials by providing definitions, examples, and a summary table for clarity and exam preparation.