View cases - Stewart McKelvey

- 26 -also satisfied that, contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Syndicat had applied thedeclaration of co-ownership in a uniform manner.21 Rochon J. went on to consider whether the appellants’ rights had beeninfringed by the effects of the declaration of co-ownership. He asserted that in order fora contractual clause to infringe an individual’s freedom of religion, [TRANSLATION] “theimpugned contractual clause must, whether directly or by adverse effect, either compel2004 SCC 47 (CanLII)individuals to do something contrary to their religious beliefs or prohibit them fromdoing something regarded as mandatory by their religion” (p. 1905). According toRochon J., a claimant must prove that a practice is required by the official teachings ofhis or her religion in order for it to be protected as freedom of religion under s. 3 of theQuebec Charter. It is not sufficient that a claimant possess a sincere belief that aparticular practice is required (at p. 1907):[TRANSLATION] Freedom of religion can be relied on only if there is aconnection between the right asserted by a person to practise his or herreligion in a given way and what is considered mandatory pursuant to thereligious teaching upon which the right is based. A sincere belief must besupported by the existence of a religious precept. How the teaching isobserved may vary and may not necessarily correspond to how mostbelievers perform their religious obligations. Nonetheless, the rite musthave a rational, reasonable and direct connection with the teaching. Howa believer performs his or her religious obligations cannot be grounded ina purely subjective personal understanding that bears no relation to thereligious teaching as regards both the belief itself and how the belief is to beexpressed (the rite).22 After reviewing the evidence, Rochon J., relying primarily on the testimonyof the Syndicat’s witness, Rabbi Barry Levy, asserted, at p. 1909, [TRANSLATION] “thatthere is no religious obligation requiring practising Jews to erect their own succahs”, andthat [TRANSLATION] “[t]here is no commandment as to where they must be erected”.