View cases - Stewart McKelvey

- 89 -for in the Quebec Charter will have been established. As I mentioned above, s. 9.1requires not merely a balancing of the respective rights of the parties, but a reconciliationof the rights that takes the general interest of the citizens of Quebec into account.165 The rights and freedoms in issue must first be identified. At this point, Iwould once again stress that the Quebec Charter must be interpreted in harmony withthe Civil Code of Québec. In the case at bar, Mr. Amselem’s freedom of religion is in2004 SCC 47 (CanLII)conflict with the right of each of the other co-owners to the peaceful enjoyment and freedisposition of their property under s. 6 of the Quebec Charter and their right to life andto personal security under s. 1 thereof. These rights must be reconciled. Thereconciliation must also take into account the other circumstances of this case, such asthe contractual rights arising out of the declaration of co-ownership which is binding onthe parties, the application of the Civil Code of Québec, the negotiations that took placeand the offers made by the parties in an attempt to find an acceptable solution. Theexercise of rights with a regard for public order and the general well-being of citizensmakes this necessary.166 In the case at bar, the right to the peaceful enjoyment and free dispositionof one’s property is included in the purpose of the restrictions provided for in thedeclaration of co-ownership. The restrictions are aimed first and foremost at preservingthe market value of the dwelling units held in co-ownership. They also protect theco-owners’ right to enjoy the common portions reserved for exclusive use whilepreserving the building’s style and its aesthetic appearance of a luxury building, not tomention the use of the balconies to evacuate the building in a dangerous situation. Thetotal ban on erecting anything whatsoever, including succahs, on the balconies isnecessary to attain this goal, since without it, harmony cannot be maintained and