References: (2004) 241 DLR (4th) 1, [2004] 2 SCR 551
Links: Canlii
Coram: McLachlin CJ and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ
Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) Civil rights – Freedom of religion — Definition of freedom of religion — Exercise of religious freedoms — Orthodox Jews setting up succahs in pursuit of their religious beliefs on balconies of their co-owned property — Syndicate of co-owners requesting removal of succahs because declaration of co-ownership prohibits decorations, alterations and constructions on balconies — Whether freedom of religion infringed by declaration of co-ownership — If so, whether refusal to permit setting up of succahs justified by reliance on right to enjoy property and right to personal security — Whether Orthodox Jewish residents waived their right to freedom of religion by signing declaration of co-ownership — Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q., c. C-12, ss. 1, 3, 6. Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Freedom of religion — Definition of freedom of religion — Proper approach for freedom of religion analyses — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2(a).
The court is concerned to ensure that an assertion of religious belief before it is made in good faith: ‘neither fictitious, nor capricious, and that it is not an artifice’
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Regina -v- Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson and others HL (House of Lords, [2005] UKHL 15, Bailii, Times 25-Feb-05, [2005] 2 WLR 590, [2005] 2 AC 246, [2005] 2 All ER 1, [2005] ELR 291, [2005] 2 FLR 374, [2005] 1 FCR 498)
The appellants were teachers in Christian schools who said that the blanket ban on corporal punishment interfered with their religious freedom. They saw moderate physical discipline as an essential part of educating children in a Christian manner. . . - Cited – Shergill and Others -v- Khaira and Others SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 33, [2014] 3 WLR 1, [2014] WLR(D) 263, Bailii Summary, WLRD, UKSC 2012/0234, SC Summary, SC, [2014] PTSR 907, [2014] WTLR 1729, [2014] 3 All ER 243)
The parties disputed the trusts upon which three Gurdwaras (Sikh Temples) were held. The Court of Appeal had held that the issues underlying the dispute were to be found in matters of the faith of the Sikh parties, and had ordered a permanent stay. . .