Opinion of the Court
The majority opinion was written by Dickson CJ, with Chouinard and LeDain JJ concurring. A second opinion was given by LaForest J, agreeing with Dickson CJ's judgement with a slight disagreement on his application of section 1. A third opinion was given by Beetz J, with McIntyre J concurring, agreeing with Dickson CJ's result but for different reasons, and also found that there was no violation of section 2(a).
Dickson
Dickson analyzed the pith and substance of the law in order to determine if the law can be characterized as a provincial power or a federal power. This analysis focused on the nature of the Act, whether it was religious in nature or secular in nature (i.e.. related to civil and property rights). He concluded that it was secular in nature.
Dickson noted that the act was not attempting to advance any religious ideology, but rather was intending to provide employees with a day of rest. The choice of Sunday is not determinative of a religious purpose; other countries use Sunday as a day of rest for entirely secular reasons. The exemption for people of the Jewish faith is not sufficient to show a religious purpose either.
Turning to the second issue, Dickson found a marginal violation of section 2(a) with respect to Nortown only. A company that has a legitimate and sincere religious practice that requires them to open a store on Sunday has the right to do so. The provision that attempts to accommodate those of the Jewish faith was insufficient to catch all sincere religious practitioners and so violated section 2(a). A law that indirectly places a burden on an individual or group that has the effect of degrading their ability to practise their religion is in violation of the Charter. Here, the law was requiring the store owner to choose between their religion or their business and so was degrading to their faith.
Regarding section 7 and 15, Dickson found that there was no deprivation of liberty or adverse impact to violate section 7, and he also found that there could be no section 15 claim as the section had not yet come into effect at the time of the charge.
On the third issue, Dickson found that the violation could be justified under section 1. In applying the Oakes test, he found that the purpose of giving people a day of rest was clearly pressing and substantial, as the well being of all workers is important, especially those in the retail industry. He found that the law was proportional as well. The law corresponded to the objective of giving all workers a day of rest, and the availability of exceptions provided for minimal impairment.
LaForest
LaForest agreed with everything Dickson found except for his interpretation of section 1. LaForest stated that focus must be put on deference to government to pursue its objectives, and on this basis the government should not have to worry as much about being as minimally impairing as Dickson suggested.
Beetz
The legislation is not the violation of freedom of religion. This violation is due to Saturday observer's choice of "religious tenets over economic benefit". Even if there were no universal day of rest, Saturday observers would still be economically disadvantaged as opposed to businesses which opted to stay open all seven days.
Blue laws, also known as Sunday laws, are laws designed to restrict or ban some or all Sunday activities for religious or secular reasons, particularly to promote the observance of a day of worship or rest. Blue laws may also restrict shopping or ban sale of certain items on specific days, most often on Sundays in the western world. Blue laws are enforced in parts of the United States and Canada as well as some European countries, particularly in Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and Norway, keeping most stores closed on Sundays.
School prayer, in the context of religious liberty, is state-sanctioned or mandatory prayer by students in public schools. Depending on the country and the type of school, state-sponsored prayer may be required, permitted, or prohibited. Countries which prohibit or limit school prayer often differ in their reasons for doing so: In the United States, school prayer cannot be required of students in accordance with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Canada, school-sponsored prayer is disallowed under the concept of freedom of conscience as outlined in the Canadian Charter on Rights & Fundamental Freedoms. School-sponsored prayer is disallowed in France as a byproduct of its status as a laïcist nation. Countries that allow or require school and other state-sponsored prayer include Greece, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Australia, Italy and the United Kingdom.
Egan v Canada, [1995] 2 SCR 513 was one of a trilogy of equality rights cases published by a very divided Supreme Court of Canada in the spring of 1995. It stands today as a landmark Supreme Court case which established that sexual orientation constitutes a prohibited basis of discrimination under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd 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. This case had many firsts in constitutional law including being the first to interpret section 2.
R v Morgentaler, [1988] 1 SCR 30 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code was unconstitutional because it violated women's rights under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") to security of person. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.
McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that laws with religious origins are not unconstitutional if they have a secular purpose.
Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") is the section of the Constitution of Canada 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 corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.
Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.
Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a section of the Charter that, as part of a range of provisions within the section 25 to section 31 bloc, helps determine how rights in other sections of the Charter should be interpreted and applied by the courts. It is believed that section 27 "officially recognized" a Canadian value, namely multiculturalism.
R v Keegstra, [1990] 3 SCR 697 is a landmark freedom of expression decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the court upheld the Criminal Code provision prohibiting the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group as constitutional under the freedom of expression provision in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is a companion case to R v Andrews.
Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256, 2006 SCC 6 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in which the Court struck down an order of a Quebec school authority, that prohibited a Sikh child from wearing a kirpan to school, as a violation of freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This order could not be saved under section 1 of the Charter.
R v Skinner, [1990] 1 SCR 1235, is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter").
R v Wong, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36, is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the evidence obtained by electronic video surveillance conducted without authorization. The Court held that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room. This expectation does not depend on whether those persons were engaging in illegal activities. Therefore, individuals can expect that agents of the state will not engage in warrantless video surveillance. Electronic surveillance without authorization violates Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, for this particular case, the Supreme Court held that the police acted in good faith and had reasonable and probable ground to believe criminal activities were committed. The surveillance without authorization was a result of misunderstanding. Hence, acceptance of the surveillance as evidences will not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
R v Andrews, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 870 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is a companion case to R v Keegstra. The Court upheld the criminal provision that prohibits communicating statements that wilfully promote hatred.
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required the government to demonstrate both a compelling interest and that the law in question was narrowly tailored before it denied unemployment compensation to someone who was fired because her job requirements substantially conflicted with her religion.
Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 (1961), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that a Pennsylvania law forbidding the sale of various retail products on Sunday was not an unconstitutional interference with religion as described in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
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.
Freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right in Canada, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference, but it was not always so.
Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City)2015 SCC 16 is a Canadian administrative law case, dealing with the effect of a prayer held at the beginning of a municipal council session on the state's duty of neutrality in relation to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. The decision upheld an earlier decision by the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal, ordering the Saguenay council to stop recitation of the prayer and rendering the by-law supporting such prayer inoperable, as well as imposing $30,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. The ruling has implications for all levels of government in Canada, and several cities announced changes to drop the use of prayers before municipal meetings.
Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1986), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court decided that the exemption of religious organizations from the prohibition of religious discrimination in employment in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is constitutional. Appellee Arthur Frank Mayson worked for 16 years an organization operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He was terminated from employment when he "failed to qualify for a temple recommend, that is, a certificate that he is a member of the Church and eligible to attend its temples." He filed suit in district court, arguing that his firing violated discrimination on the basis of religion in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court agreed. The case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Title VII's exemption of religious organizations from the prohibition on religious discrimination, even in secular activities, did not violate the First Amendment.
