RELG 13

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 aspects of religious freedom and its impact on Canadian society.

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 statute recognizing basic rights.

• Saskatchewan Bill of Rights (1947): Included explicit protections for freedom of religion and conscience.

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

Additional info: These provincial statutes laid the groundwork for later federal protections and reflected growing awareness of human rights in post-war Canada.

Federal Initiatives

• Canadian Bill of Rights (1960): The first federal statute to enshrine rights such as freedom of religion, speech, and assembly.

• Canadian Human Rights Act: Prohibits discrimination on various grounds, including religion, in federally regulated activities.

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

Section 2(a) of the Charter: "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; (d) freedom of association."

Landmark Supreme Court Cases on Religious Freedom

Structure of Supreme Court Cases

Supreme Court decisions typically include:

• Background and factual context

• Legal history and lower court decisions

• Detailed legal reasoning and reference to precedent

• Consideration of arguments from all sides

• Final decision and disposition

• Concurring and dissenting opinions

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

This case challenged the constitutionality of the Lord's Day Act, which prohibited Sunday business operations, arguing it violated freedom of religion.

• Issue: Did the Act violate Section 2(a) of the Charter?

• Decision: The Supreme Court struck down the Act, emphasizing state neutrality and freedom from religious compulsion.

• Key Principle: Laws must have a secular purpose to be constitutionally valid; state cannot impose religious observance.

Example: The ruling protected non-Christian Canadians from being compelled to observe Christian practices.

Additional info: The case established the principle that freedom of religion includes both freedom of and freedom from religious compulsion.

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

TWU, a Christian university, required students to sign a covenant restricting sexual intimacy to heterosexual marriage. The BC College of Teachers denied accreditation, citing potential discrimination.

• Issue: Did the denial infringe TWU's religious freedom?

• Decision: The Court ruled in favor of TWU, finding no evidence of discriminatory conduct and affirming institutional religious autonomy.

• Key Principle: Beliefs alone, without proof of discriminatory conduct, cannot justify denial of accreditation.

Example: TWU graduates were not shown to discriminate in professional roles.

Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem (2004)

Orthodox Jewish residents wished to erect sukkahs on their balconies during Sukkot, but the condo board objected.

• Issue: Did the prohibition infringe freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter?

• Decision: The Court ruled in favor of the residents, protecting sincerely held personal beliefs, even if not mandated by religious authorities.

• Key Principle: Individual autonomy in religious practice must be respected; sincerity of belief is the main criterion.

Example: Residents were allowed to build sukkahs despite condo bylaws.

Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys (2006)

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

• Issue: Did the ban unjustifiably infringe freedom of religion?

• Decision: The Court ruled in favor of Multani, finding the ban disproportionate and emphasizing reasonable accommodation.

• Key Principle: Religious practices must be accommodated unless there is a real and substantial risk to safety.

Example: Multani was allowed to wear the kirpan under secure conditions.

Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony (2009)

The Hutterian Brethren objected to mandatory photo ID for driver's licenses, citing religious beliefs.

• Issue: Did the photo requirement violate religious freedom?

• Decision: The Court held the infringement was justified under Section 1, prioritizing administrative efficiency and security.

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

Example: No exemption was granted for the Hutterites.

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

The mayor of Saguenay opened council meetings with a Catholic prayer, challenged as infringing freedom of conscience and religion.

• Issue: Does public prayer violate state neutrality?

• Decision: The Court ruled unanimously that the prayer violated the Charter's protections.

• Key Principle: State must maintain religious neutrality in public spaces.

Example: Council meetings could no longer begin with a religious prayer.

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

Loyola, a Catholic school, sought exemption from teaching a mandatory ethics and religious culture program from a neutral perspective.

• Issue: Did the refusal to grant exemption violate religious freedom?

• Decision: The Court found the Minister's decision unjustifiably infringed the school's religious freedom.

• Key Principle: Religious freedom applies to institutions; state must respect collective religious expression within reasonable bounds.

Example: Loyola could teach Catholicism from its own perspective.

Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (2017)

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

• Issue: Did the approval of the resort infringe freedom of religion?

• Decision: The Court held Section 2(a) was not engaged; the Charter protects freedom to hold and manifest beliefs, not the object of those beliefs (e.g., sacred sites).

• Key Principle: The Charter does not protect the physical object of religious belief, only the freedom to hold and manifest beliefs.

Example: The ski resort was allowed to proceed.

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

Wall was expelled from his religious congregation and sought judicial review.

• Issue: Can courts review internal decisions of religious organizations?

• Decision: The Court ruled that judicial review is limited to public decision-makers; religious bodies are private associations.

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

Example: Courts could not intervene in Wall's expulsion.

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

TWU sought to establish a law school with a mandatory covenant restricting sexual intimacy to heterosexual marriage. The Law Society refused accreditation, citing discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals.

• Issue: Did the refusal unjustifiably infringe TWU's religious freedom?

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

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

Example: TWU's law school was not accredited.

Limits to Freedom of Religion

Balancing Rights and Public Interests

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

• Key Principle: The exercise of religious freedom must not injure others or infringe their rights.

• Legal Standard: Limitations must be necessary and proportionate.

Equation: $\text{Limitation on Rights} \leq \text{Necessary to Protect Public Safety, Order, Health, Morals, or Fundamental Rights of Others}$

Concepts of Secularity and State Neutrality

State Neutrality

State neutrality means the government neither favors nor hinders any particular religious belief, showing respect for all positions, including non-belief.

• Secularism: Requires accommodation of sincerely held religious beliefs as far as possible.

• State and Courts: Are not arbiters of religious dogma; protection is based on sincerity, not mandatory doctrine.

Example: Courts do not require proof of objective religious obligation to invoke freedom of religion.

Summary Table: Key Supreme Court Cases on Religious Freedom

Case	Year	Main Issue	Decision	Key Principle
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.	1985	Sunday closing law	Struck down	State neutrality; freedom from religious compulsion
Trinity Western Univ. v. BC College of Teachers	2001	Accreditation and religious covenant	TWU won	Beliefs alone not grounds for denial
Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem	2004	Religious practice in private contract	Amselem won	Sincerity of belief; individual autonomy
Multani v. CSMB	2006	Kirpan in school	Multani won	Reasonable accommodation
Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren	2009	Photo ID for licenses	Alberta won	Proportionality; administrative efficiency
Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay	2015	Public prayer	Prayer banned	State neutrality
Loyola High School v. Quebec	2015	Religious education	Loyola won	Institutional religious freedom
Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia	2017	Sacred land	Development allowed	Charter protects beliefs, not objects
Highwood Congregation v. Wall	2018	Expulsion from congregation	No judicial review	Autonomy of religious communities
Law Society of BC v. TWU	2018	Law school accreditation	LSBC won	Balancing religious freedom and equality

Conclusion

Canadian law provides robust protections for freedom of religion, but these rights are balanced against other fundamental rights and public interests. The Supreme Court has developed nuanced approaches to state neutrality, individual and institutional religious freedom, and the limits of accommodation. Understanding these cases is essential for analyzing the psychological, social, and legal dimensions of religious freedom in Canada.