View cases - Stewart McKelvey

- 60 -Succot, subject to the undertakings they have given with regard to the size, placement,and general aesthetics of said succahs.delivered byEnglish version of the reasons of Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.105 BASTARACHE J. (dissenting) — This appeal concerns two cases involving2004 SCC 47 (CanLII)private parties and raises the difficult problem of reconciling the freedom of religion ofcertain individuals with the rights of others to private property, to security and to havingtheir contracts respected. More specifically, it must be decided whether the appellantshave the right to erect private succahs on their balconies during the nine-day Jewishholiday of Succot, in violation of the declaration of co-ownership for Phases VI and VIIof the Sanctuaire du Mont-Royal. To decide these cases, we must establish what methodshould be used to determine which aspects of religious practice are protected by theCharter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q., c. C-12, and the Canadian Charter ofRights and Freedoms, how the sincerity of religious belief should be assessed, and howall the rights in question are to be balanced under s. 9.1 of the Quebec Charter.I. Facts106 The appellants, who are practising Orthodox Jews, live in two buildings thatare part of a residential development in Montréal called “Le Sanctuaire du Mont-Royal”.The two buildings, built in Phases VI and VII of the development project, are knownmore specifically as “Place Northcrest”. The co-owners of the two buildings are themembers of a body known as “Syndicat Northcrest” (“Syndicat”), which is the