View cases - Stewart McKelvey

- 85 -purpose of the right, not a violation of the right itself. Consequently, even if a claimantshows in the first step that the purpose of the protected right has been infringed, thisamounts to a violation of the right itself only if the infringement is inconsistent with theprinciples underlying s. 9.1. In the second step, in my view, the onus is on the defendantto show that the infringement is consistent with s. 9.1. It is logical to place the burdenof proving an infringement on the claimant and that of proving consistency with s. 9.1on his or her adversary, since these parties are in the best position to give the required2004 SCC 47 (CanLII)proof.157 In short, the rights and freedoms subject to s. 9.1 must be exercised inrelation to one another while maintaining proper regard for democratic values, publicorder and the general well-being of citizens. Their scope is therefore defined inaccordance with how each of them is exercised in the particular circumstances of eachcase, taking into account the reconciliation of the rights in issue.C. Application to the Facts1. Freedom of Religion and Sincerity of Belief158 Like the trial judge and Dalphond J. of the Court of Appeal, I am of the viewthat the declaration of co-ownership prohibits, inter alia, the erection of succahs on thebalconies, porches and patios constituting the common spaces of Place Northcrestreserved for exclusive use. There is no ambiguity on this point, as s. 2.6.3b) of thedeclaration of co-ownership is clear. The appellants, who are all practising OrthodoxJews, allege that this prohibition infringes their right to freedom of religion bypreventing them from erecting succahs on balconies, porches or patios.