View cases - Stewart McKelvey

- 105 -196 There is clearly a conflict between the austere external appearance envisagedby the rules of the immovable and the appellants’ desire to construct individual succahson their balconies, even if only for a brief period of nine days a year.D. Reasonableness of the Appellants’ Objection197 Although s. 9.1 of the Quebec Charter does not specifically impose a duty2004 SCC 47 (CanLII)on third parties to accommodate a claimant, no doubt as a practical matter, thereasonableness of the claimants’ conduct will be measured, at least to some extent, inlight of the reasonableness of the conduct of the co-owners. The text of s. 9.1, however,puts the focus on the claimant who, in the exercise of his or her rights, must have regardto the facts of communal living which, of course, includes the rights of third parties. Forconvenience, I repeat the relevant part of s. 9.1:In exercising his fundamental freedoms and rights, a person shall maintaina proper regard for democratic values, public order and the general wellbeingof the citizens of Québec. [Emphasis added.]As this Court said in Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712, a casedealing with State interference in freedom of expression, s. 9.1 imposes interpretativelimits on the scope of the protected freedom (at p. 770):The first paragraph of s. 9.1 speaks of the manner in which a person mustexercise his fundamental freedoms and rights. That is not a limit on theauthority of government but rather does suggest the manner in which thescope of the fundamental freedoms and rights is to be interpreted. [Emphasisadded; emphasis in original deleted.]