Volume IV, Issue II (April 2006) - Columbus School of Law

minimum constitutional protection that must be taken into account by thelegislature and by every person or body subject to the Canadian Charter. 550Since this complaint was based entirely on the issue of freedom of religion, the Court determinedthat the administrative law standard of review was not relevant. In other words, the child’s fatherwas not challenging the Council of Commissioners’ jurisdiction to approve the code of conduct,or the administrative or constitutional validity of the rule against carrying weapons and dangerousobjects. Rather, the concern was that the refusal to agree to a reasonable accommodation violatedhis son’s freedom of religion. The Court concluded that “it is the constitutionality of the decisionthat is in issue in this appeal, which means that a constitutional analysis must be conducted.” 551Following precedent, this required that the decision be subjected to the test set out in section 1 ofthe Charter. 552Was There a Charter Infringement?The Court found that the Council of Commissioners’ decision clearly infringed the student’sfreedom of religion. In this respect, the Court reviewed previous decisions on the issue, approvingthe key principles, such as:The essence of the concept of freedom of religion is:o the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses;o the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindranceor reprisal; ando the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or byteaching and dissemination; 553No one is to be forced to act in a way contrary to his or her beliefs orconscience, subject to such limitations as are necessary to protect publicsafety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms ofothers; 554It is not for the state to dictate what are the religious obligations of theindividual, it is for the individual to determine; 555Freedom of religion consists of:o the freedom to undertake practices and harbour beliefs, having a nexuswith religion, in which an individual demonstrates he or she sincerelybelieves or is sincerely undertaking in order to connect with the divine oras a function of his or her spiritual faitho this is irrespective of whether a particular practice or belief is required byofficial religious dogma or is in conformity with the position of religiousofficials; 556In order to establish that a claimant’s freedom of religion has been infringed,it must be shown that the claimant sincerely believes in a practice or belief550 Multani, supra note 545 at para. 16 [emphasis in original].551 Ibid. at para. 21 [emphasis in original].552 Slaight Communications Inc. v. Davidson, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1308.553 R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295 (“Big M. Drug”).554 Ibid.555 Ibid.556 Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551 (“Amselem”). For more discussion of the Amselemdecision, see e.g. Terrance S. Carter, “Supreme Court of Canada Adopts Broad View of ReligiousFreedom” in Church Law Bulletin No. 5 (23 August 2004), available at www.churchlaw.ca.95