View cases - Stewart McKelvey

- 106 -198 In my view, the “reasonableness” of the objection test, proposed by Brun andTremblay, supra, viewed from the perspective of a reasonable person in the position ofthe appellants with full knowledge of the relevant facts, accords well with s. 9.1 of theQuebec Charter.199 The trial judge made a finding of fact that use of the communal succahwould not compromise the appellants’ observance of the festival of Succot, and the2004 SCC 47 (CanLII)evidence of Mr. Amselem, the most exigent of the appellants in this respect, supportsthat conclusion. Mr. Amselem testified that it would not be contrary to his faith to goto the communal succah in the garden:[TRANSLATION]Q. . . . So you do not transgress the law by walking from your unit to theproposed communal succah or in the communal garden?A. No.Q. Is that right: you do not transgress Jewish law?A. No.Mr. Amselem immediately notes a prohibition against “transporting” food to the succahbut he then explains that (in the case of the communal succah at the synagogue) the foodmust be put on location prior to the holy day(s):[TRANSLATION]Q. Is that not what is done at the synagogue, Mr. Amselem?A. No, you don’t cook at the synagogue. As I told you earlier, what peopledo at the synagogue is they bring their food the day before, at theSabbath, during Succot . . . .