View cases - Stewart McKelvey

- 110 -denial of construction of their personal succah than would be the co-owners by havinga number of succahs constructed on the exterior of their building. Thus I cannot acceptas dispositive the test offered by my colleague, Iacobucci J. (at para. 84), namely that inhis viewthe alleged intrusions or deleterious effects on the respondent’s rights orinterests under the circumstances are, at best, minimal and thus cannot bereasonably considered as imposing valid limits on the exercise of theappellants’ religious freedom.2004 SCC 47 (CanLII)With respect, such an approach goes too far in relieving private citizens of theresponsibility for ordering their own affairs under contracts which they choose to enterinto and upon which other people rely. Section 9.1 of the Quebec Charter imposes amore nuanced approach. Each side to this appeal insists on a legal entitlement, and theonus was on the appellants to make their case. I believe s. 9.1 required reasonablepersons in the situation of the appellants to have regard to the facts that:1. There is no state action involved here.2. There is a set of rules governing the immovable voluntarily agreed toby the parties, including the appellants. The prohibition in s. 2.6.3 is plainand obvious.3. The vendors did what they could to ensure that these rules were read bythe appellants in advance of their purchase.4. Reasonable people, when making a major purchase such as a residentialunit, are expected to read the terms of the agreement before they sign,