View cases - Stewart McKelvey

- 50 -77 Similarly, a communal succah, as the respondent proposes, would force theappellants to carry food and utensils from their units on elevated floors to the succah, andtraverse the expanse of the property to the Sanctuaire’s gardens for every course at everymeal throughout the holiday. Since Orthodox Jews are precluded from using elevatorson the Sabbath and on the first two and last two days of the Succot holiday, this wouldamount to forcing Orthodox Jewish residents, including the elderly among them, to2004 SCC 47 (CanLII)climb up and down numerous flights of stairs throughout each meal for much of the ninedayholiday period. Furthermore, by being forced to share all meals with the otherJewish residents of the complex, a communal succah would also preclude the intimatecelebration of the holiday with immediate family. Those who choose to sleep in thesuccah, weather permitting, would have to do so communally and in the open, far fromthe proximity and safety of their individual units. Such distress is even objectivelysubstantial and would undoubtedly, as the appellants assert, detract from the joyouscelebration of the holiday and thus constitute a non-trivial interference with and aninfringement of their rights to religious freedom.(b) As Pertaining to “Dwelling” in a Succah78 In the alternative, there is no doubt whatsoever from the record that all of theappellants sincerely believe that they must fulfill the biblically mandated obligation,perhaps not necessarily of having one’s own succah, but of “dwelling” in a succah forthe entire nine-day festival of Succot. This thus triggers freedom of religion. Thequestion then becomes, once again, whether the appellants’ rights have been infringed.Even though the Sanctuaire’s by-laws do not overtly forbid them to dwell in a succah —in that the appellants are free to celebrate the holiday with relatives or in a proposed