243:, which required simple reasonableness. The majority believed this would limit the rights under the Charter. As Charron wrote, "The rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter establish a minimum constitutional protection that must be taken into account by the legislature and by every person or body subject to the Canadian Charter." The rule against weapons under administrative law was not the subject of this case. The real focus was how in practise the law banned the kirpan. The Court went on to note that the council of commissioners, which had banned the kirpan, was bound by the Charter. This was because the council was created by a statute and thus received its powers from a legislature. While the concurring justices Deschamps and Abella believed section 1 of the Charter could only be used on unconstitutional written laws, Charron wrote that section 1 can also be applied to delegated power. If the power is used according to the law, it is "prescribed by law" as required by section 1;
291:(2004) that for a claim to freedom of religion to succeed, an individual should show they believe a practise is connected to a religious belief. Next, the infringement of freedom of religion should be serious. In this case, the carrying of the kirpan was deemed to be connected to religion because it was necessary according to Orthodox Sikhism. The same beliefs also dictated that the kirpan not be used to harm others. The claimant's belief that the kirpan must be metal was also considered sincere. While other Sikhs used non-metal kirpans, that was irrelevant to the beliefs of this individual. The Court then moved on to find the violation of freedom of religion was considerable. The claimant had to leave public school.
414:(1993) to support this proposition. In this situation, evaluating the ban on kirpans should be done through administrative law regarding the commission's authority to protect security of person, and then this evaluation should be judged in light of the Constitution. Before moving to section 1, the rights should be defined. In this case, LeBel found no evidence anyone's security of person was at risk. Turning to the Oakes test, he disregarded the requirement for a sufficient objective for rights violations since the governing statutes were not questioned. On the issue of proportionality, he felt the commission did not effectively prove its case.
29:
305:(1986), the Court asked whether there was a sufficient objective for the violation. The main concern, as noted by the Quebec Court of Appeal, was school safety, which helps to maintain an atmosphere in which students can learn. The Supreme Court agreed that would qualify as an important objective under section 1. However, they then noted there were varying degrees of safety, with the highest degree of safety being excessive. The Court contemplated the highest degree of safety would require the banning of
314:
bring weapons to school. The
Supreme Court replied the claimant himself was not violent, and the limitations accepted by the claimant made a theft unlikely. The thief would have to seize the claimant and look under the claimant's clothing. Additionally, there was little to no proof students have used kirpans as weapons in schools. Although cases involving airline security have resulted in the banning of kirpans on planes, the Court quoted the
258:
319:
against the kirpan, the Court replied this was speculative. Of relation to this concern was the worry that the school atmosphere would be negatively affected. The Court replied it was untrue that the kirpan represented violence, and that it had religious meanings instead. The Court also found this theory could be offensive to Sikhs and would thus contradict
309:
and other such objects. Thus, safety in school is usually only supposed to be "reasonable." However, because the council wanted to rid the schools of weapons, the Court deemed the council's objective to be reasonable. This raised the question as to whether the rights infringement was rational and
281:
case, the Court merely had to address a situation in which freedom of religion and equality rights might contradict each other. As this contradiction was prevented by the
Supreme Court, section 1 was not used to harmonize the two rights. With these issues in mind, the Court turned to apply freedom
372:
was appropriate. There was also indication that the law meant for local authorities rather than courts to have a greater say in such matters. At any rate, Descamps and Abella found that "it is difficult to imagine a decision that would be considered reasonable or correct even though it conflicted
318:
as saying whereas people know each other in a school, planes will always carry different people who never know each other. There is little opportunity to judge whether a passenger is violent. As for the argument that the kirpan could encourage other students to bring weapons to school, as defence
222:
to request certain limits on the wearing of the kirpan, including that it be covered at all times. The Sikh family accepted this request. However, another board, in
February 2002, overrode the school board, deciding that the kirpan was a weapon and thus was not allowed under the code of conduct.
376:
Administrative law required reasonableness. The Quebec Court of Appeal found that kirpans could only be harmful, but Abella and
Deschamps criticized this opinion for neglecting other evidence. Other objects commonly found at school can be used as weapons. Moreover, the Sikh student had accepted
313:
However, the banning of the kirpan was not proportionate to the objective. It was noted the claimant could not wear the kirpan at school at all, even though the claimant would have accepted limitations. The council had said that the kirpan could be stolen, or it could encourage other students to
357:
wrote a concurring opinion. While they agreed with
Charron's decision to overturn the ban on the kirpan, they found that the proper way to do this was through the rules of administrative law. Constitutional law should be used primarily for statutes and regulations, and the tests used in
358:
constitutional law, such as the Oakes test, work best on these laws. Section 1 of the
Charter indicates the Oakes test best applies to decisions "prescribed by law." Meanwhile, administrative law would work when dealing with what in this case was an administrative body. Following the
323:. If some students feel it is unfair that the claimant can wear a kirpan to school while they cannot carry knives, the Court suggested schools should teach these students the importance of freedom of religion.
249:(2000) was an example of a case in which delegated power was not prescribed by law. Since the council acted according to the law, the Court could now look at the freedom of religion issue.
245:
271:(2001) was cited to suggest freedom of religion is limited by other values aside from under section 1, in this case the goals of order and security. The Supreme Court noted that since
373:
with constitutional values." The ideal situation would be for administrative laws to apply
Charter values rather than to have their decisions challenged as violations of the Charter.
328:
267:
54:
Baljit Singh
Multani and Balvir Singh Multani, in his capacity as tutor to his minor son Gurbaj Singh Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys and Attorney General of Quebec
310:
proportionate to the objective. The banning of the kirpan was considered rational because it was a weapon, and thus the banning fit the objective of ridding the school of weapons.
277:(1985), there had been recognition that freedom of religion should not be used to harm others, but section 1 was the ideal place for this consideration. In contrast, in the
402:
204:
194:
684:
423:
410:
265:
This raised the question of whether freedom of religion was an "absolute right" or had "internal limits" aside from the limits under section 1.
689:
364:
299:
The Court then turned to consider whether the violation of freedom of religion could be upheld under section 1 of the
Charter. Following
390:
724:
389:. He noted the difficulty of using a section 1 analysis, in this case on administrative law. He wrote that the Canadian Charter and
694:
719:
214:
The case involved a 13-year-old Sikh named Gurbaj Singh, who in
November 2001 dropped a metal kirpan at his school, École Sainte
199:
699:
87:
The ban against a non-violent student carrying a kirpan in school is a breach of section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights
729:
223:
The council of commissioners agreed with the latter decision, although they suggested a non-metal kirpan could be used. The
739:
704:
336:. Allowing the kirpan would thus be beneficial in that it would teach students the importance of freedom of religion.
408:
To reconcile these conflicting rights, LeBel wrote that section 1 was not the only possible answer. He pointed to
315:
287:
734:
714:
709:
273:
74:
393:
do not always need to be used when administrative law provides an analytical framework. However, the
261:
A student's right to carry a kirpan is an example of religious freedom according to the Supreme Court.
669:
397:
inevitably has an impact in some cases. In this case freedom of religion was invoked, as well as
661:
174:
34:
394:
224:
665:
215:
8:
190:
398:
240:
100:
107:
60:
28:
320:
377:
limits on the wearing of the kirpan. Thus, the decision was judged unreasonable.
350:
119:
354:
236:
131:
127:
678:
333:
219:
386:
301:
123:
115:
235:
First, the majority of the Court, whose opinion was authored by Justice
111:
369:
246:
Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice)
306:
329:
Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers
268:
Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers
146:
Charron J., joined by McLachlin, Bastarache, Binnie and Fish JJ.
257:
186:
178:
332:, the Court had said schools should teach values and promote
239:, denied that the case should be decided under the rules of
182:
424:
List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (McLachlin Court)
170:Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys
22:Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys
227:found in favour of the council of commissioners.
173:, 1 S.C.R. 256, 2006 SCC 6 is a decision by the
685:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms case law
676:
177:in which the Court struck down an order of a
368:, Charron and Abella also felt a measure of
365:Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36
391:Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms
385:Another concurrence was written by Justice
73:Judgement for the Attorney General in the
405:when it came to other students' safety.
256:
344:
203:. This order could not be saved under
200:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
677:
252:
690:Canadian freedom of religion case law
294:
181:school authority, that prohibited a
285:The decision followed precedent in
282:of religion analysis to this case.
13:
14:
751:
725:Education controversies in Canada
654:
16:2006 Supreme Court of Canada case
695:Canadian administrative case law
27:
642:
633:
624:
615:
606:
597:
588:
579:
570:
561:
552:
543:
534:
525:
516:
339:
43:Hearing: Argued April 12, 2005
720:History of education in Canada
507:
498:
489:
480:
471:
462:
453:
444:
435:
316:Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
288:Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem
1:
700:Supreme Court of Canada cases
429:
189:to school, as a violation of
730:Education case law in Canada
7:
417:
230:
10:
756:
740:Education policy in Canada
360:Trinity Western University
279:Trinity Western University
274:R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.
75:Court of Appeal for Quebec
705:2006 in Canadian case law
158:
150:
142:
137:
96:
91:
86:
81:
69:
59:
49:
42:
26:
21:
403:section 7 of the Charter
380:
154:Deschamps and Abella JJ.
65:1 S.C.R. 256, 2006 SCC 6
662:Supreme Court of Canada
175:Supreme Court of Canada
45:Judgment: March 2, 2006
35:Supreme Court of Canada
664:decision available at
395:Constitution of Canada
262:
225:Quebec Court of Appeal
326:It was noted that in
260:
218:. This prompted the
185:child from wearing a
345:Deschamps and Abella
735:Education in Quebec
253:Freedom of religion
191:freedom of religion
399:security of person
263:
241:administrative law
101:Beverley McLachlin
715:Ceremonial knives
710:Sikhism in Canada
295:Reasonable limits
216:Catherine Labouré
166:
165:
108:Michel Bastarache
747:
649:
646:
640:
637:
631:
628:
622:
619:
613:
610:
604:
601:
595:
592:
586:
583:
577:
574:
568:
565:
559:
556:
550:
547:
541:
538:
532:
529:
523:
520:
514:
511:
505:
502:
496:
493:
487:
484:
478:
475:
469:
466:
460:
457:
451:
448:
442:
439:
321:multiculturalism
105:Puisne Justices:
92:Court membership
31:
19:
18:
755:
754:
750:
749:
748:
746:
745:
744:
675:
674:
657:
652:
647:
643:
638:
634:
629:
625:
620:
616:
611:
607:
602:
598:
593:
589:
584:
580:
575:
571:
566:
562:
557:
553:
548:
544:
539:
535:
530:
526:
521:
517:
512:
508:
503:
499:
494:
490:
485:
481:
476:
472:
467:
463:
458:
454:
449:
445:
440:
436:
432:
420:
383:
351:Marie Deschamps
347:
342:
297:
255:
233:
120:Marie Deschamps
103:
44:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
753:
743:
742:
737:
732:
727:
722:
717:
712:
707:
702:
697:
692:
687:
673:
672:
656:
655:External links
653:
651:
650:
641:
632:
623:
614:
612:Para. 85, 121.
605:
596:
587:
578:
569:
560:
551:
542:
533:
524:
515:
506:
497:
488:
479:
470:
461:
452:
443:
433:
431:
428:
427:
426:
419:
416:
411:Young v. Young
382:
379:
355:Rosalie Abella
346:
343:
341:
338:
296:
293:
254:
251:
237:Louise Charron
232:
229:
164:
163:
160:
156:
155:
152:
148:
147:
144:
140:
139:
135:
134:
132:Louise Charron
128:Rosalie Abella
98:Chief Justice:
94:
93:
89:
88:
84:
83:
79:
78:
71:
67:
66:
63:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
32:
24:
23:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
752:
741:
738:
736:
733:
731:
728:
726:
723:
721:
718:
716:
713:
711:
708:
706:
703:
701:
698:
696:
693:
691:
688:
686:
683:
682:
680:
671:
667:
663:
660:Full text of
659:
658:
645:
636:
627:
618:
609:
600:
591:
582:
573:
564:
555:
546:
537:
528:
519:
510:
501:
492:
483:
474:
465:
456:
447:
438:
434:
425:
422:
421:
415:
413:
412:
406:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
378:
374:
371:
367:
366:
361:
356:
352:
337:
335:
331:
330:
324:
322:
317:
311:
308:
304:
303:
292:
290:
289:
283:
280:
276:
275:
270:
269:
259:
250:
248:
247:
242:
238:
228:
226:
221:
217:
212:
210:
206:
202:
201:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
171:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
138:Reasons given
136:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
109:
106:
102:
99:
95:
90:
85:
80:
76:
72:
70:Prior history
68:
64:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
36:
30:
25:
20:
644:
635:
626:
621:Para. 94-96.
617:
608:
599:
590:
581:
572:
563:
554:
545:
536:
527:
518:
509:
500:
491:
482:
477:Para. 24-25.
473:
464:
455:
446:
437:
409:
407:
384:
375:
363:
359:
348:
340:Concurrences
334:civic virtue
327:
325:
312:
300:
298:
286:
284:
278:
272:
266:
264:
244:
234:
220:school board
213:
208:
198:
195:section 2(a)
169:
168:
167:
104:
97:
53:
33:
387:Louis LeBel
302:R. v. Oakes
159:Concurrence
151:Concurrence
124:Morris Fish
116:Louis LeBel
679:Categories
639:Para. 123.
630:Para. 109.
430:References
112:Ian Binnie
648:Para. 97.
603:Para. 79.
594:Para. 76.
585:Para. 71.
576:Para. 63.
567:Para. 58.
558:Para. 55.
549:Para. 54.
540:Para. 46.
531:Para. 45.
522:Para. 40.
513:Para. 39.
504:Para. 36.
495:Para. 28.
486:Para. 26.
468:Para. 23.
459:Para. 22.
450:Para. 19.
441:Para. 16.
370:deference
362:case and
349:Justices
205:section 1
61:Citations
418:See also
307:scissors
231:Decision
162:LeBel J.
143:Majority
209:Charter
207:of the
197:of the
82:Holding
670:CanLII
401:under
193:under
187:kirpan
179:Quebec
666:LexUM
381:LeBel
668:and
353:and
183:Sikh
681::
211:.
130:,
126:,
122:,
118:,
114:,
110:,
77:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
