Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem
Encyclopedia
Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada
that attempted to define freedom of religion
under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms
and section 2
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
. Although the Supreme Court split on their definition, the majority advocated tolerating a practice where the individual sincerely feels it is connected to religion, regardless of whether the practice is required by a religious authority.
erected succahs on their balconies in a residential building which they partly owned. Succahs are small dwellings in which Jews live during Succot, a Jewish holiday, in accordance with the Hebrew Bible
. However, those who ran the business of the buildings, Syndicat Northcrest, claimed the succahs violated by-laws forbidding structures to be built on the balconies. The Orthodox Jews had not seen this requirement, and one succah did not draw complaints. Syndicat Northcrest afterwards denied requests that further succahs be built, except one to be shared. One Jew approached the Canadian Jewish Congress
for help, and it was noted the religion required individual succahs. Consequently, an injunction
by Syndicat Northcrest was filed against further succahs.
While there was no government action responsible for violating a right, the Quebec Charter is of relevance to personal disputes. As Justice Michel Bastarache
wrote, "the first paragraph of s. 9.1 [of the Quebec Charter], insofar as it does not require that the infringement of a right or freedom result from the application of the law, applies only to private law relationships, that is, to infringements of the rights and freedoms of private individuals by other private individuals." Bastarache noted this is what occurred in a previous case, Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa inc.
(1998).
. He examined whether the by-laws violated the freedom of religion of the Orthodox Jews, and whether Syndicat Northcrest's opposition to the succahs was protected by rights to enjoy property under the Quebec Charter. Iacobucci first attempted to define freedom of religion, and started by giving a legal definition for religion
. He decided that religion is a thorough set of beliefs regarding a higher power, tied with a person's view of him or herself and his/her needs to realize spiritual completeness. Iacobucci went on to note that in past freedom of religion cases, such as R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.
(1985), the Supreme Court has advocated giving freedom of religion a large and liberal definition emphasizing individual rights
. In Big M, it was noted there should be respect for religious diversity and no coercion to do something in violation of one's religion. A journal article was then cited to establish this precedent favoured an individual's view of religion to an organized church's. Thus, anyone who claims rights to freedom of religion does not need to demonstrate that they were denied rights to worship in accordance with the manner required by a religious authority. Following R. v. Edwards Books and R. v. Jones
, it was enough to demonstrate an individual religious belief. These arguments were reinforced by a desire that secular governments and courts should not judge which religious practices are needed and which are not; this was to make legal decisions regarding moral beliefs. Still, practices required by a religious authority are also protected; what matters is that the practice is connected to a religious belief.
To determine whether an individual belief is sincere, the Court noted US case law, which advocated a minimally intrusive evaluation of an individual's beliefs. Courts must only determine that a belief is not feigned and religious claims are made in good faith
. It must be asked whether an individual's testimony can be believed, and how one belief fits in with others held by the individual. In this, the Supreme Court added that courts should tolerate a change in beliefs; the individual's beliefs held in the past are not relevant to those claimed in the present.
Next, the court will determine whether a sufficiently large violation of freedom of religion has occurred to raise challenges under the Quebec and Canadian Charters. The gravity of the violations will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. However, in this case the Supreme Court noted freedom of religion should not work to deny the rights of others.
Turning back to this case, the Supreme Court observed Syndicat Northcrest had argued freedom of religion was limited here by rights to enjoy property and to personal security. However, the Court found the rights of the Orthodox Jews had been severely infringed, while Syndicat Northcrest's rights were not significantly affected. Thus, freedom of religion would prevail. The trial judge had found at least one of the Orthodox Jews sincerely believed he needed a succah, while the others seemed not to because they did not have succahs in the past. The Supreme Court rejected the latter finding, because it relied on a study of past practice. The Supreme Court also noted the Jews might have wanted succahs for religious reasons, regardless of whether they were necessary; this also undermined the view that past practices should be studied. The Court then decided the violation of religious freedom was serious because the right to an individual succah was not limited but denied completely.
Conversely, Syndicat Northcrest claimed that the succahs limited rights to enjoy property because the succahs could take away from the attractiveness of the building and its financial value. Rights to personal security were claimed because the succahs might block off fire escapes. The Court was unconvinced the property value would drop because of lack of evidence, and the attractiveness of the building for nine days every year was held to be a small issue, especially in the context of the importance of multiculturalism
. The Court also noted the Jews had offered to mind fire safety. Regarding the argument that the Jews had waived their rights, Iacobucci noted it was still not certain whether constitutional rights can be waived. If they can, the waiver should be more explicit and done under complete free will
. The Jews in this case did not have complete free will in their agreement because they wanted to live in those buildings.
also wrote a dissent. He observed the oddness of the situation, namely that a right was being claimed against other owners of the building and not a government. The owners had made agreements that would prohibit the succahs. Binnie emphasized the importance of this agreement or contract
.
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
that attempted to define freedom of religion
Freedom of religion
Freedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance; the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any...
under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms
Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms
The Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms is a statutory bill of rights and human rights code passed by the National Assembly of Quebec on June 27, 1975...
and section 2
Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Constitution of Canada's Charter of Rights that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or...
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982...
. Although the Supreme Court split on their definition, the majority advocated tolerating a practice where the individual sincerely feels it is connected to religion, regardless of whether the practice is required by a religious authority.
Background
The case arose after Orthodox Jews in MontrealMontreal
Montreal is a city in Canada. It is the largest city in the province of Quebec, the second-largest city in Canada and the seventh largest in North America...
erected succahs on their balconies in a residential building which they partly owned. Succahs are small dwellings in which Jews live during Succot, a Jewish holiday, in accordance with the Hebrew Bible
Hebrew Bible
The Hebrew Bible is a term used by biblical scholars outside of Judaism to refer to the Tanakh , a canonical collection of Jewish texts, and the common textual antecedent of the several canonical editions of the Christian Old Testament...
. However, those who ran the business of the buildings, Syndicat Northcrest, claimed the succahs violated by-laws forbidding structures to be built on the balconies. The Orthodox Jews had not seen this requirement, and one succah did not draw complaints. Syndicat Northcrest afterwards denied requests that further succahs be built, except one to be shared. One Jew approached the Canadian Jewish Congress
Canadian Jewish Congress
The Canadian Jewish Congress was one of the main lobby groups for the Jewish community in the country, although it often competed with the more conservative B'nai Brith Canada in that regard. At its dissolution, the president of the CJC was Mark Freiman. Its past co-presidents were Sylvain Abitbol...
for help, and it was noted the religion required individual succahs. Consequently, an injunction
Injunction
An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing certain acts. A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties and may have to pay damages or accept sanctions...
by Syndicat Northcrest was filed against further succahs.
While there was no government action responsible for violating a right, the Quebec Charter is of relevance to personal disputes. As Justice Michel Bastarache
Michel Bastarache
J. E. Michel Bastarache is a Canadian lawyer, businessman, and retired puisne justice on the Supreme Court of Canada....
wrote, "the first paragraph of s. 9.1 [of the Quebec Charter], insofar as it does not require that the infringement of a right or freedom result from the application of the law, applies only to private law relationships, that is, to infringements of the rights and freedoms of private individuals by other private individuals." Bastarache noted this is what occurred in a previous case, Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa inc.
Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa inc.
Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa inc., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in which the claimant, Pascale Claude Aubry, brought an action against Éditions Vice-Versa for publishing a photo taken of her in public. She claimed the photographing was a violation of her right...
(1998).
Decision
The majority decision was written by Justice Frank IacobucciFrank Iacobucci
Frank Iacobucci, CC was a Puisne Justice on the Supreme Court of Canada from 1991 to 2004 when he retired from the bench. He is an expert in business and tax law.-Early career:...
. He examined whether the by-laws violated the freedom of religion of the Orthodox Jews, and whether Syndicat Northcrest's opposition to the succahs was protected by rights to enjoy property under the Quebec Charter. Iacobucci first attempted to define freedom of religion, and started by giving a legal definition for religion
Religion
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to...
. He decided that religion is a thorough set of beliefs regarding a higher power, tied with a person's view of him or herself and his/her needs to realize spiritual completeness. Iacobucci went on to note that in past freedom of religion cases, such as R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, is a landmark decision by Supreme Court of Canada where the Court struck down the Lord's Day Act for violating section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms...
(1985), the Supreme Court has advocated giving freedom of religion a large and liberal definition emphasizing individual rights
Individual rights
Group rights are rights held by a group rather than by its members separately, or rights held only by individuals within the specified group; in contrast, individual rights are rights held by individual people regardless of their group membership or lack thereof...
. In Big M, it was noted there should be respect for religious diversity and no coercion to do something in violation of one's religion. A journal article was then cited to establish this precedent favoured an individual's view of religion to an organized church's. Thus, anyone who claims rights to freedom of religion does not need to demonstrate that they were denied rights to worship in accordance with the manner required by a religious authority. Following R. v. Edwards Books and R. v. Jones
R. v. Jones
R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284 is an early leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the freedom of religion under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the right to security of person under section 7.-Background:...
, it was enough to demonstrate an individual religious belief. These arguments were reinforced by a desire that secular governments and courts should not judge which religious practices are needed and which are not; this was to make legal decisions regarding moral beliefs. Still, practices required by a religious authority are also protected; what matters is that the practice is connected to a religious belief.
To determine whether an individual belief is sincere, the Court noted US case law, which advocated a minimally intrusive evaluation of an individual's beliefs. Courts must only determine that a belief is not feigned and religious claims are made in good faith
Good faith
In philosophy, the concept of Good faith—Latin bona fides “good faith”, bona fide “in good faith”—denotes sincere, honest intention or belief, regardless of the outcome of an action; the opposed concepts are bad faith, mala fides and perfidy...
. It must be asked whether an individual's testimony can be believed, and how one belief fits in with others held by the individual. In this, the Supreme Court added that courts should tolerate a change in beliefs; the individual's beliefs held in the past are not relevant to those claimed in the present.
Next, the court will determine whether a sufficiently large violation of freedom of religion has occurred to raise challenges under the Quebec and Canadian Charters. The gravity of the violations will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. However, in this case the Supreme Court noted freedom of religion should not work to deny the rights of others.
Turning back to this case, the Supreme Court observed Syndicat Northcrest had argued freedom of religion was limited here by rights to enjoy property and to personal security. However, the Court found the rights of the Orthodox Jews had been severely infringed, while Syndicat Northcrest's rights were not significantly affected. Thus, freedom of religion would prevail. The trial judge had found at least one of the Orthodox Jews sincerely believed he needed a succah, while the others seemed not to because they did not have succahs in the past. The Supreme Court rejected the latter finding, because it relied on a study of past practice. The Supreme Court also noted the Jews might have wanted succahs for religious reasons, regardless of whether they were necessary; this also undermined the view that past practices should be studied. The Court then decided the violation of religious freedom was serious because the right to an individual succah was not limited but denied completely.
Conversely, Syndicat Northcrest claimed that the succahs limited rights to enjoy property because the succahs could take away from the attractiveness of the building and its financial value. Rights to personal security were claimed because the succahs might block off fire escapes. The Court was unconvinced the property value would drop because of lack of evidence, and the attractiveness of the building for nine days every year was held to be a small issue, especially in the context of the importance of multiculturalism
Multiculturalism
Multiculturalism is the appreciation, acceptance or promotion of multiple cultures, applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place, usually at the organizational level, e.g...
. The Court also noted the Jews had offered to mind fire safety. Regarding the argument that the Jews had waived their rights, Iacobucci noted it was still not certain whether constitutional rights can be waived. If they can, the waiver should be more explicit and done under complete free will
Free will
"To make my own decisions whether I am successful or not due to uncontrollable forces" -Troy MorrisonA pragmatic definition of free willFree will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. The existence of free will and its exact nature and definition have long...
. The Jews in this case did not have complete free will in their agreement because they wanted to live in those buildings.
Bastarache
A dissent was written by Justice Bastarache. He interpreted past freedom of religion case law as meaning the right protects religious beliefs and practices that result from those beliefs. Beliefs can be discovered through religious rules; these distinguish religion from personal activities. Thus, a belief is not held individually but is shared. This provided an objective approach to freedom of religion. Expert testimony would be a great help in finding whether a belief is religious. Next, the sincerity of the individual is studied, in a non-intrusive way. Bastarache felt for most of the Jews in this case, the religion required eating in a succah, but an individual succah was not needed. While Bastarache noted one Jew might have a right to an individual succah, this needed to be balanced against "proper regard for democratic values, public order and the general well-being of the citizens of Québec", as required by the Quebec Charter. The property and safety rights thus entered consideration. Bastarache wrote that "it is difficult to imagine how granting a right of way in emergency situations, which is essential to the safety of all the occupants of the co-owned property, could fail to justify the prohibition against setting up succahs, especially in light of the compromise proposed by the respondent."Binnie
Justice Ian BinnieIan Binnie
William Ian Corneil Binnie was a puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, serving from 1998 to 2011. Of the justices appointed to the Supreme Court in recent years, he is one of the few to have never sat as a judge prior to his appointment.- Personal life and career as lawyer :Binnie was...
also wrote a dissent. He observed the oddness of the situation, namely that a right was being claimed against other owners of the building and not a government. The owners had made agreements that would prohibit the succahs. Binnie emphasized the importance of this agreement or contract
Contract
A contract is an agreement entered into by two parties or more with the intention of creating a legal obligation, which may have elements in writing. Contracts can be made orally. The remedy for breach of contract can be "damages" or compensation of money. In equity, the remedy can be specific...
.
See also
- List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (McLachlin Court)
- History of the Jews in Canada
- Status of religious freedom in CanadaStatus of religious freedom in CanadaFreedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.-Constitutional rights:...
- Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys