View cases - Stewart McKelvey

- 31 -hardship if it were forced to fully accommodate the appellants. He therefore agreed withDalphond J. to dismiss the appeal.V. Issues35 In my view, the key issues before us are: (1) whether the clauses in the bylawsof the declaration of co-ownership, which contained a general prohibition against2004 SCC 47 (CanLII)decorations or constructions on one’s balcony, infringe the appellants’ freedom ofreligion protected under the Quebec Charter; (2) if so, whether the refusal by therespondent to permit the setting up of a succah is justified by its reliance on the coowners’rights to enjoy property under s. 6 of the Quebec Charter and their rights topersonal security under s. 1 thereof; and (3) whether the appellants waived their rightsto freedom of religion by signing the declaration of co-ownership.VI. Analysis36 In my view, apart from the content and scope of freedom of religion, theinterplay of the rights in the Quebec Charter is governed by its unique content andstructure. In the reasons that follow, I begin with an analysis of freedom of religion. Ithen briefly go on to discuss the respondent’s justification in limiting the exercise ofreligious freedom in this case.A. Freedom of Religion37 The analysis that follows sets out the principles that are applicable in caseswhere an individual alleges that his or her freedom of religion is infringed under the