View cases - Stewart McKelvey

- 69 -that is supported by the evidence independently of the debate between the two rabbis”(para. 153). He concluded that the appellants’ right to freedom of religion had not beeninfringed. In his view, s. 9.1 of the Quebec Charter is not relevant to the case, as it doesnot apply to violations of s. 10 or s. 13. He also considered it unnecessary to rule on theissue of the duty to accommodate, given that the appellants had failed to provediscrimination within the meaning of s. 10 of the Quebec Charter.2004 SCC 47 (CanLII)126 Dalphond J. was of the view that the appeal should be dismissed, andBaudouin J.A. concurred with his reasons.2. Morin J.A.127 Morin J.A. felt that the trial judge had adopted an unduly restrictiveinterpretation of the very concept of freedom of religion. In his view, the provisions ofthe act of co-ownership infringed the freedom of religion expressly recognized in s. 3 ofthe Quebec Charter.128 Morin J.A. then proceeded to apply the three-step “unified approach” toanalysing claims of discrimination that this Court advocated in British Columbia (PublicService Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3, adapting thetest to the context of private relations between a syndicate of co-owners and certain ofthe co-owners. He relied on art. 1039 C.C.Q. to conclude that the restrictions had beenadopted for a purpose rationally connected to the management of the immovable. Hethen relied on art. 1056 C.C.Q. to conclude that the restrictions had been adopted in anhonest and good faith belief that they were necessary to the fulfilment of that legitimatepurpose.