View cases - Stewart McKelvey

- 79 -145 It should also be borne in mind that not all restrictions on freedom ofreligion entail an infringement of the right protected by the Canadian Charter. In Jones,supra, Wilson J., dissenting, wrote the following (at pp. 313-14):Section 2(a) does not require the legislature to refrain from imposing anyburdens on the practice of religion. Legislative or administrative actionwhose effect on religion is trivial or insubstantial is not, in my view, abreach of freedom of religion. I believe that this conclusion necessarilyfollows from the adoption of an effects-based approach to the Charter.2004 SCC 47 (CanLII)Thus, unless the impugned provisions or standards infringe the claimant’s rights in amanner that is more than trivial or insubstantial, the freedom of religion guaranteed bythe two Charters is not applicable.146 Finally, it should be noted that even if religious conduct, practices orexpression that could infringe or affect the rights of others in a private law context areprotected a priori by the purpose of freedom of religion, they are not necessarilyprotected under the right to freedom of religion. While the purpose of freedom ofreligion is defined broadly, the right to freedom of religion is restricted, as mentionedabove, by the provisions of the Quebec Charter that place limits on the right. In the caseat bar, the appellants’ right to freedom of religion must be interpreted in light of s. 9.1of the Quebec Charter, which requires that the rights and freedoms provided for in ss. 1to 9 of the Quebec Charter be exercised in respect of each other with “a proper regardfor democratic values, public order and the general well-being of the citizens ofQuébec”. It should also be mentioned that the Quebec Charter must be interpreted inharmony with the Civil Code of Québec, which is the most important instrument fordefining the principles governing public order and the general well-being of the citizens