View cases - Stewart McKelvey

- 94 -would amount to an impairment of the enjoyment of property “provided bylaw”, whereas it could not be justified under s. 8 (respect for privateproperty), which is not self-limiting, without the operation of s. 9.1.175 In Desroches v. Québec (Commission des droits de la personne), [1997]R.J.Q. 1540, at pp. 1552 and 1555, the Quebec Court of Appeal saw the limitation in s. 6of the Quebec Charter as giving precedence to another right referred to in the Charterthat was subject to no such limitation:2004 SCC 47 (CanLII)Although section 6 acknowledges the recognition our society accordsto property rights, these rights are subject to an inherent limitation,expressly stated in section 6 itself: property rights are limited by therestrictions provided for by law, including above all those limits which stemfrom the respect of other charter rights.. . .. . . Property rights cannot trump equality guarantees. Where a seeminglyneutral policy rationally related to the running of a business (for instance)has the adverse effect of discrimination, however, the courts may allow thepolicy to stand so long as the duty to accommodate is fulfilled.176 In the case at bar, not only is there a conflict between the right to freedomof religion and property rights, but the right to freedom of religion is also in conflict withthe right to life and personal security, and with contractual rights. It should also be bornein mind that the Syndicat, in an attempt to reconcile the co-owners’ competing interests,proposed the construction of a communal succah near one of the towers. This offer,which, it should be noted, Mr. Amselem had accepted, was the result of a negotiationprocess involving a number of parties. What is more, the Canadian Jewish Congressconsidered the proposed compromise to be reasonable and, in a letter datedOctober 10, 1997, thanked the Syndicat for its efforts to accommodate its Jewishresidents. All this is important to the assessment of what is consistent with the generalwell-being of citizens.