Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Criminal prosecutions, the defence of religious freedom and the Canadian charter Rozefort, Wallace 1985

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1985_A6_4 R69.pdf [ 8.25MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077676.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077676-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077676-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077676-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077676-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077676-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077676-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077676-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077676.ris

Full Text

CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, RELIGIOUS  THE DEFENCE OF  FREEDOM AND THE CANADIAN  CHARTER  by  WALLACE  B.Sc, M.Ps., LL.B.,  ROZEFORT  Universite Universite Universite  de M o n t r e a l , 1977 de M o n t r e a l , 1979 de S h e r b r o o k e , 1 9 8 3  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL THE  REQUIREMENTS  FULFILMENT OF  FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAWS  in  THE FACULTY  OF GRADUATE  (FACULTY  We a c c e p t t h i s to  OF LAW)  t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g  the reauired  THE UNIVERSITY  STUDIES  standard  OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA  APRIL 1985 © Wallace  Rozefort  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  requirements f o r an advanced degree at the  the  University  o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and  study.  I  further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may department or by h i s o r her  be granted by the head o f representatives.  my  It i s  understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not be allowed without my  permission.  Department of The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3  DE-6  n/ftn  written  ABSTRACT  This  t h e s i s examines  religious It  f r e e d o m c a n be s u c c e s s f u l l y a r g u e d b e f o r e  i s acknowledged  Canada  but  the  prosecutions The  author  puts  the c o n d i t i o n s under which a defence  that  defence  has n o t  thinks  by m a k i n g  it  balancing  test  of  the Canadian C h a r t e r  Freedoms  r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m i n a more f a v o r a b l e  position  up t o  the q u e s t i o n of  revolve  around  now t h e y  the  defence  have  to  Rights  proceed to  been r e l u c t a n t  balancing t e s t , of  of  Courts.  and  Besides  the  in  in criminal  been a c c e p t e d by t h e C a n a d i a n  p o s s i b l e f o r Canadian judges that  courts.  r e l i g i o n has l o n g e x i s t e d  r e l i g i o u s freedom  often  that  the defence of  freedom of  the  of  various  r e l i g i o u s freedom  a to  use.  problems  in criminal  prosecutions. The of  first  s e c t i o n examines  r e l i g i o u s freedom  a more l e g a l  i n Canada.  perspective.  to comprehend the  the s o c i a l The  A survey  in  order  answers  in  the c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s where  and h i s t o r i c a l  context  second s e c t i o n i s l o c a t e d of  that the  in  t h e C a n a d i a n c a s e s i s made Canadian judges defence of  have  given  religious  f r e e d o m was r a i s e d . In basic  looking at  the Canadian  problems c a l l  respectively  with  for  d e c i s i o n s on t h a t  solutions.  those q u e s t i o n s .  (i)  The  issue,  four  f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s deal  S e c t i o n 3 r a i s e s the  issue  of  the  d e f i n i t i o n of  points  r e l i g i o n and r e l i g i o u s a c t i v i t i e s .  o u t a new u n d e r s t a n d i n g  Section 5,  the  notion  of  of  the concept of  balancing test  freedom  is considered.  justifying Section  the  defence of  have upon t h e  by C a n a d i a n c o u r t s . the  author  future whether  the  the  in light  defence of  n e c e s s i t y of  a  In of  religious  theory  r e l i g i o u s freedom i s e x p l o r e d  in  6.  In c o n c l u s i o n , t h i s will  Finally,  infringement.  i s examined  A m e r i c a n d e c i s i o n s and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n t o  Section 4  of  proposes  study  s t r e s s e s the  acceptance of To  the  the  impact the  defence of  problems t h a t  have  religious  r e l i g i o u s freedom  or not Canadian judges w i l l  Canada.  (IT)  i n Canada  consider that  i n t r o d u c e d a new e r a i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f  freedom  been i d e n t i f i e d ,  some s o l u t i o n s , b e a r i n g i n m i n d t h a t  the defence of  Charter  the  depends  the C h a r t e r  fundamental  freedoms  on has in  TABLE OF  CONTENTS PAGE  INTRODUCTION  1  Footnotes  4 SECTION  HISTORICAL A.  CONTEXT  ' . . . . 6  Before Confederation: the French,  B.  I  The D e l i c a t e B a l a n c e Between  the Native People  The P o s t C o n f e d e r a t i v e  and t h e E n g l i s h  Period:  Freedom  of R e l i g i o n  and t h e S e p a r a t i o n o f Powers C.  Saumur  v.  City  o f Quebec  12  (1953)  S.C.R. 299:  A Turning Point? D.  The C a n a d i a n B i l l  15 of Rights  o f 1960: A D i f f i c u l t  Transition E.  18  The C a n a d i a n C h a r t e r The L i b e r a l  6  of Rights  and Freedoms:  Society?  21  Footnotes  23 SECTION  THE DEFENCE OF RELIGIOUS  II  FREEDOM IN CANADA BEFORE  THE CHARTER  30  A.  Enforcement  o f Sunday  C l o s i n g Laws  B.  P u b l i c Convenience  37  C.  Game P r e s e r v a t i o n  43  D.  Compulsory School Attendance  45  (111)  31  SECTION  II  (con't)  PAGE  E.  Protection  of Life  F.  Public Morality  and o f P u b l i c H e a l t h  49 54  Footnotes  58 SECTION  RELIGION,  RELIGIOUS  A C T I V I T I E S AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION  A.  Definition  B.  Religious Activities  C.  . . 66  o f R e l i g i o n f o r C a n a d i a n Law  Are Corporations Religious  III  67 73  e n t i t l e d t o t h e Defence  of  Freedom  77  Footnotes  85 SECTION  THE TERM "INFRINGEMENT"  IV  AND THE DEFENCE OF  RELIGIOUS  FREEDOM  91  A.  Necessity  B.  S e c t i o n 2 of the C h a r t e r Freedom  C.  D.  of a d e f i n i t i o n  92 and t h e R i g h t  94  Violation  of R e l i g i o u s Freedom:  and S e c t .  1  Infringement:  F.  Defining Religious  Between  S e c t . 24 100  V i o l a t i o n of R e l i g i o u s Freedom: Considerations  E.  to Religious  Effect  v.  "Infringement"  Some  General 104  Purpose f o r t h e Defence  Freedom  105 of 107  (iv)  SECTION  G.  IV  Infringement: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)  PAGE  (con't)  Total  D i f f e r e n t Types  P r o h i b i t i o n (with  I l l or without  forced  convention) Selective Prohibition C o n f l i c t of Orders R e s t r i c t i o n s and C o n d i t i o n s  Footnotes  112 114 115 116 119  SECTION V BALANCE OF INTERESTS A.  Outside (i) (ii) (iii)  B.  C.  IN AMERICAN LAW  t h e Scope o f R e l i g i o u s Freedom  "Threat  to L i f e  and H e a l t h "  137 138  Drug Consumption and R e l i g i o u s Freedom  142  Fraudulent A c t i v i t i e s  147  C u r r e n t Trends i n the B a l a n c i n g Process (i) S u n d a y C l o s i n g Laws (ii) P u b l i c Convenience (iii) Administrative Efficiency (iv) Game P r o t e c t i o n (v) Compulsory School Attendance Least  132  R e s t r i c t i v e Means  148 148 151 155 159 161 163  Footnotes  167 SECTION VI  THE NOTION OF SUPERIOR ORDERS IN THE DEFENCE OF RELIGIOUS  FREEDOM  178  Footnotes  182  CONCLUSION  183  BIBLIOGRAPHY  184 (v)  INTRODUCTION  The for  Canadian Charter  a little  more t h a n  of Rights  two y e a r s  many c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s w h e r e guarantees  are at stake.1  a n d Freedoms  but already  their  rights  and p e n a l t i e s .  i t i s undoubtedly  and f r e e d o m s  Whether  the p r o t e c t i o n against unreasonable  point  out only  f o r defendants  the Charter  in various  of r i g h t  areas.2  some c a s e s as a means o f  bylaw.  It  freedom  introduction consideration freedom  It  i s then  judges  i t i s a federal i s in that  h a s a l s o been  invoked  law, a provincial  sense t h a t  is  statute  the term " c r i m i n a l  study.  d e a l t over  of the C h a r t e r . i n any e f f o r t  the future important  in their  freedom  the years with  the issue of  i n a c e r t a i n number o f c a s e s b e f o r e t h e  i n Canada.  influence  to  defence.3  i s used i n t h i s  C a n a d i a n c o u r t s have religious  to  o f r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m c a n be i n v o k e d when t h e r e  a breach of l a w , whether  prosecutions"  actions  to c o u n s e l , o r  jhe right  in  or a m u n i c i p a l  to  seems t o open new  r e l i g i o n which i s i n c l u d e d i n the C h a r t e r  defence  that  s e a r c h and s e i z u r e ,  of  The  the i n d i c a t i o n  a g a i n s t governmental  about  horizons  i t  in their efforts  i t i s i n matters  two e x a m p l e s ,  i t has been u s e d i n  t h e r i g h t s and freedoms  Canadians expect a l o t from t h e C h a r t e r preserve  has been i n f o r c e  Those  c a s e s have  to understand  The p o s i t i o n s a d o p t e d decisions i n matters to i d e n t i f y  dealing with  t o be t a k e n  into  the issue of r e l i g i o u s i n them a r e l i k e l y t o of r e l i g i o u s  freedom.4  t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s met by C a n a d i a n  t h e defence o f r e l i g i o u s freedom  in  -  criminal offered  prosecutions. by t h e C h a r t e r  When a j u d g e defence  It  of  -  i s from  will  has t o  2  be  there  that  d e c i d e upon  the defendant offense  have  solutions  explored. the  a c c e p t a b i l i t y of  r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m many q u e s t i o n s  -Does  the  have  to  be  a  addressed:  a religion?  -  Is  the  w i t h w h i c h he i s c h a r g e d a r e l i g i o u s a c t ?  -  Is  he e n t i t l e d  -  Is  there  an i n f r i n g e m e n t  -  Is  there  a compelling state  to c l a i m r e l i g i o u s  freedom?  upon h i s r e l i g i o u s interest  freedom?  justifying  the  infringement? -  Finally,  what i s the  religious Once t h e  questions  are asked,  if  c l e a r c r i t e r i a are  look  at  the Canadian  so f a r  behind a defence  of  freedom?  only  not  rationale  provided  s e t up t o  cases reveals any  consistent  definite  guide  that  answers  the  search.  the Canadian  guideline  c a n be  to help  A  brief  courts  in  found  have  such  investigation. It  is  important,  interpretations perspectives  of  at  t h i s moment,  the Charter  take  before  place,  i n which r e l i g i o u s freedom  definite  to l o o k  i n Canada  for  new  s h o u l d be  framed. At  first  activities  an o p e r a t i o n a l  and o f  r e l i g i o u s freedom  judges  have  these  terms.5  Even the  d e c i s i o n s of  f a i l e d to  do s o . 6  The  have  extensively  not  d e f i n i t i o n of  so f a r  produced  term  in association with  has t o  r e l i g i o n , of be f o u n d .  a comprehensive t h e Supreme  infringement human  rights  Canadian  definition Court  i s also but  religious  there  of  of Canada  used is  no  -  consensus  upon  its  real  3  meaning  -  and w h a t i s r e a l l y  involved  in  it.? E v e n when j u d g e s religious the  freedom  of  infringement,  has t o be  agree  determine  that  t o what e x t e n t  this  Charter  defence that  of have  understand  of  a violation question  towards  of  bring  defence  place i n Canadian  of one,  the  defence  is  the of  law,  of of  to  immunity  to  several  addressed.8  i n f l u e n c e d more t h a n  of  face  There are  the  use  prosecutions. already  balancing  it will  it  The  of The  announce test.^  r e l i g i o u s freedom  dimensions.  theory  remain  has  important  d e c i s i o n s of  appears,  religion.10  by  a  the  their  T h a t i s why  r e l i g i o u s freedom  a  deserves  attention. above  the present upon  a law.  an a c c e p t a n c e o f  its philosophical  has t o  the C h a r t e r  comprehensive  look  the  is a permissible  in criminal  c o n c e p t i o n s on f r e e d o m  of  it  a new i m p u l s e t o  philosophical  But,  upon  r e l i g i o n can g i v e  has been  e v e n when t h e  are d o u b t l e s s  serious  not  a court  freedom  i s l i k e l y to  and d e f i n i t e  judges  or  been d e c i d e d u n d e r  Ultimately,  to  that  r e l i g i o u s freedom  an o r i e n t a t i o n  clear  i s , whether  issue, then,  d e c i s i o n s where  cases  an i n f r i n g e m e n t  an a c c u s e d , a d e c i s i o n on t h e c h a r a c t e r  a person charged with  the  is  taken.  The m a j o r  The  there  the  all, it  i s i m p o s s i b l e to  d a y s and a s o u n d v i s i o n o f history  of  religous  freedom  have  a fair  the  future  in  Canada.  understanding without  a  -  4 -  Footnotes  1.  See D . M . L o w , "The C a n a d i a n C h a r t e r o f R i g h t s and Freedoms and t h e R o l e o f t h e C o u r t s : a n I n i t i a l S u r v e y " , ( 1 9 8 4 ) 18 U . B . C . Law R e v . 6 9 - 9 4 .  2.  S e e R^ v . T h e r e n s [ 1 9 8 3 ] al.  3.  v.  4 W . W . R . 385 ( S a s k .  Southam I n c . [ 1 9 8 4 ] 6 W . W . R . 577  C.A.);  Hunter  et  (S.C.C.).  R^ v . B i g M . D r u g M a r t L t d . , 24 A p r i l 1 9 8 5 , O t t a w a , u n r e p o r t e d ( S . C . C . ) a f f ' g [ 1 9 8 4 ] 1 W.W.R. 625 ( A l t a . C . A . ) , [ 1 9 8 3 ] 4 W . W . R . 5 4 ; S k o k e & Graham e t a l . and A . G . o f C a n a d a 14 M a r c h 1 9 8 5 , ( A l t a . P r o v . C t . ) O t t a w a , u n r e p o r t e d ( S . C . C . ) 8 4 1 9 3 7 ; R^_ v . V i d e o F l i c k s L t d . e t a l . ( 1 9 8 4 ) 4 8 O . R . ( 2 d ) 395 ( O n t . C . A . ) ; v . Smith [1983] 5 W.W.R. 235 ( A l t a . P r o v . Ct.).  The C h a r t e r was n o t e n a c t e d i n a v a c u u m , Court  o f Appeal  ( 1 9 8 3 ) 41 O . R .  i n Re F e d e r a l  recalled  R e p u b l i c o f Germany  the Ontario and Rauca  ( 2 d ) 2 2 5 , 244 ( O n t . C . A . )  5.  I . C o t l e r , "Freedom o f A s s e m b l y , A s s o c i a t i o n , C o n s c i e n c e and R e l i g i o n " , i n The C a n a d i a n C h a r t e r o f R i g h t s and Freedoms e d i t e d by W . S . T a r n o p o l s k y a n d G . B e a u d o i n , T o r o n t o , The Carswell C o . , 1982.  6.  See e s p e c i a l l y W a l t e r v . A . G . o f A l b e r t a [ 1 9 6 9 ] S . C . R . 383  7.  8.  Robertson and Rosetanni  v . T h e Queen [ 1 9 6 3 ] S . C . R .  B i g M. Drug M a r t  1 W.W.R. 625 ( A l t a .  [1984]  651;  v.  C.A.).  R^ v . Reed ( 1 9 8 3 ) 8 C . C . C . ( 3 d ) 153 ( B . C . S . C . ) ; R^ v . J a c k a n d C h a r l i e ( 1 9 8 0 ) 50 C . C . C . ( 2 d ) 337 ( B . C . P r o v . C t . ) , a f f ' d ( 1 9 8 2 ) 67 C . C . C . ( 2 d ) 189 ( B . C . C . A . ) ; R^ v . H a r r o l d ( 1 9 7 1 ) 16 D . L . R . ( 3 d ) 51 ( B . C . C o . C t . ) r e v ' d ( 1 9 7 1 ) 19 D . L . R . ( 3 d ) 471 ( B . C . C . A . ) , l e a v e t o a p p e a l d e n i e d ( S . C . C ) .  -  5 -  9.  Supra, TT984)  n o t e 3 , see e s p e c i a l l y R. v . B i g M . D r u g 1 W . W . R . 6 2 5 , a t p p . 6 4 7 ~ a n d Vfc".  Mart,  10.  See P. B l a c h e , " l e s T r i b u n a u x C a n a d i e n s e t l a P r o t e c t i o n des D r o i t s de l a P e r s o n n e au C a n a d a " ( 1 9 8 1 ) 1 2 , Revue G e n e r a l e de Droit 311.  -  I.  HISTORICAL  The of  6 -  CONTEXT  f i r s t observation that  r e l i g i o u s freedom i n Canada  anyone  i n t e r e s t e d i n the h i s t o r y  i s f o r c e d t o make i s t h a t  moment t h e r e a r e n o t many c o m p r e h e n s i v e s t u d i e s on t h a t Little  wonder,  then,  that  hardly  known by C a n a d i a n s . 2  f o r the issue.1  the h i s t o r y o f r e l i g i o u s freedom i s  H o w e v e r many i n t e r e s t i n g p o i n t s c a n be drawn f r o m a s t u d y freedom of r e l i g i o n i n Canada. the  evolution  that  of the country  i n h a b i t e d Canada o v e r  country  never  Canada  i s an e x c e l l e n t way t o  through  the l i f e  the y e a r s . 3  knew t h e d e a d l y  o f many n a t i o n s ,  It  It  s t r i f e s that  happen s m o o t h l y . 4  l e f t a special  this  religions in  Through d i f f e r e n t  have  will  be p o s s i b l e t o f o l l o w t h e c o u r s e o f f r e e d o m o f r e l i g i o n i n  A.  i n the h i s t o r y  epochs  that  Canada and t o d e t e r m i n e  mark  that  people  have m a r k e d t h e h i s t o r y  but the c o h a b i t a t i o n of v a r i o u s  d i d not always  follow  of d i f f e r e n t  i s true  of  of the c o u n t r y ,  it  i n what d i r e c t i o n i t i s m o v i n g .  B e f o r e C o n f e d e r a t i o n : The D e l i c a t e B a l a n c e B e t w e e n t h e F r e n c h , the N a t i v e People and the E n g l i s h .  When,  i n 1 5 3 4 , J a c q u e s C a r t i e r and h i s crew a r r i v e d i n  land,  that  l a t e r on w o u l d r e c e i v e t h e name o f New F r a n c e ,  first  contacts with  the n a t i v e  c o u n t r y were f a i r l y c o r d i a l . 5 by C a r t i e r  i n setting foot  p e o p l e who t h e n  their  i n h a b i t e d the whole  one o f t h e f i r s t a c t i o n s  undertaken  i n C a n a d a was e r e c t i n g a c r o s s . 6  symbolism of t h i s was, at l e a s t f o r the Europeans, and i n d i c a t e d t h e i r w i l l  that  quite  The  obvious,  to b r i n g c i v i l i z a t i o n and C h r i s t i a n i t y t o  -  the  people they  Indians  or  Like  would  native i n any  other the  the  i n t h e New W o r l d . 7  part  of  Converting  t h e New W o r l d t h e E u r o p e a n s could find  there.8  with  their  g o l d and p r e c i o u s  the S p a n i a r d s . 9  b a s i c reasons of  those  The  c o u l d come t o  R e l i g i o n was an i n e x p e n s i v e way  Indians  who w e r e n o t  always  control  of  the  efforts  were a t t e m p t e d after soul  1633  l a n d s and r i v e r s  the J e s u i t s  Huronia native  constituted  however, In  into  would not 1648  practically  took  the  the  religion  at  the  of  the  stand for the  Iroquois  villages in  native  into  of Europeans  seventeenth  century  the the  Christianity  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of  and every  in their missionary  the  seventeenth  century,  religious integration The  of  symbol,  devastated Huronia of  the J e s u i t s  native  to  and develop  Canada.^  p e o p l e were  with  pacify  the R e c o l l e t s ,  not w i l l i n g to  i n t o C a n a d a by t h e c o n q u e r o r s . 1 5  coexistence  with  long.  a n n i h i l a t e d the e f f o r t s  brought  Indians  f i r s t with  of  to  were  the Europeans  the C h r i s t i a n brotherhood.13  and 1649,  all  the  f i r s t half  them  country.11  on them t h e  symbol  stable C h r i s t i a n Indian Thus,  the  They knew some s u c c e s s  and a r o u n d  people  of  converting  by t h e F r e n c h ,  i n Canada.12  activities  for  to concede to  a  that  terms  missionary works.10  ready  in  gems,  secular objectives  adventures  were  For  and h i s men t h o u g h t N e w - F r a n c e c o u l d be f o r  for  Serious  the  secondary.  r e s o u r c e s they  w h a t M e x i c o and P e r u , represented  -  p e o p l e was h o w e v e r  Canada t o e x p l o i t while Cartier  find  7  people  f o l l o w e d a c y c l e of  i n the  embrace  the  The sixteenth  negotiations,  wars,  and  -  treaties  and c o n f l i c t s .  the v a l u e s Religion  that  T h e r e was no r e s p e c t by t h e E u r o p e a n s  animated the  life  f o l l o w e d the c l a s s i c a l  the m i s s i o n to b r i n g t r u t h were e n c r u s t e d i n t h e i r freedom of  of  their  superstition.  the  i s , Europeans  the I n d i a n s  take  had  for  for  time.  them  of  There  was  their religious  to c o n v e r t  the c o n t r o l  them, w h i l e  of  the  the  country  hands.^  are,  the Indians.18  Indian  that  for  people.^  T h e r e was no c o n c e p t  The c l e r g y had t h e t a s k  were i n f l i c t e d  itself.  native  r e l i g i o n t h a t was a r t i c u l a t e d a t t h a t  though.  There  the  pattern,  s e c u l a r power was p r o c e e d i n g t o out  of  and l i g h t t o t h o s e p e o p l e t h a t  no s y s t e m a t i c p e r s e c u t i o n o f belief  8 -  however,  several  a c c o u n t s of  the  tortures  upon t h e m i s s i o n a r i e s i n t h e i r e f f o r t s i t was n o t  due t o  any  to  that convert  religious intolerance  The m e d i c i n e men t h a t w e r e i n c h a r g e o f  the  in  souls in  the  t r i b e s c o u l d not welcome t h e c a t h o l i c m i s s i o n a r i e s s i n c e  l a t t e r were a d i r e c t t h r e a t  to  their  influence in  the  community.19 It  seems t h a t  Christianity, Catholic,  but  t h i s urge  to c o n v e r t o t h e r  to a s p e c i f i c r e l i g i o n ,  was e s p e c i a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  marked a l s o the l i f e  of  the country  people  not o n l y  either Protestant the Europeans,  before  the  and  to  or it  pre-confederation  period.20 Particularly, French  i n the  turn  of  the e i g h t e e n t h  p r e s e n c e i n Canada f o u n d a r i v a l  the B r i t i s h .  After  the T r e a t y  century,  the  more and more p r e s s i n g i n  of U t r e c h t  i n 1713,  w e r e c o n f i r m e d i n t h e Hudson Bay t e r r i t o r y .  the  British  Nova S c o t i a  and  -  Acadia  and many o t h e r  between P r o t e s t a n t s E u r o p e had i t s where The  the  between  people  and C a t h o l i c s  systematic  power  task  of  General  haven  for  different  d i s p o s i t i o n s to  and l e s s  important. strains  the  c a t h o l i c by m i n i s t e r i n g t o  in  of  o f New F r a n c e  other  hand,  some a r e a s  Catholics or Papists the P r o v i n c e  i s also a period  increasing.23  On t h e  foothold  tensions  divided  r e d u c e d and t h e  The C o l o n y  Protestants.  of  it  besides converting  t h e New F r a n c e  open t o w a r d Assembly  were  The  d e c a d e s had  became l e s s  the J e s u i t s ,  acquired a strong  not  for  c o n v e r s i o n were  and e x c l u d i n g H u g u e n o t s .  English  that  and t h e E n g l i s h  was t o k e e p  a land of  were  of  other  Indians,  l a n d s were ceded to B r i t a i n . 2 1  military  the French  The  -  r e p e r c u s s i o n s i n Canada.22  Indians'  efforts  9  deprive Papists  of  when  The  they  First  i n 1758,  some o f  not  the  i n Canada,  either.  Nova S c o t i a ,  was  its  adopted  their  civil  rights.24 It Quebec,  was f o r after  respectively their  they  the  i n 1759  loss The  and 1 7 6 0 ,  They knew t h a t as t h e o f f i c i a l  knew t h a t  scattered  the C a t h o l i c  feared the  their  f e a r s of  church  in  the A r t i c l e s of  of  1763  inhabitants  the p r e s e r v a t i o n England  had  i n Nova S c o t i a . 2 5  of  been Moreover,  had been d i s p l a c e d a n d compensation  for  alleviated  since  lands.^6  inhabitants  Capitulation  and t h e Quebec A c t  of  Montreal  B r i t i s h colonies without  homes and the  for  Church of  a r o u n d 3000 A c a d i a n s  in different of  that  t h e c a p i t u l a t i o n s o f Quebec and  faith.  established  good r e a s o n  of  o f Q u e b e c were  i n 1760,  1744,  i n the  Royal  Proclamation  t h e r e were p r o v i s i o n s  to  -  secure the Murray 1760  free  a n d C a r l e t o n who  to  1768  embrace  the  received faith  establishment instructions the  e x e r c i s e of  of  of  instructions the Church  protestant  agriculture.2^  with  people  and p o l i t i c a l  alienating years  of  Church endowed of  the  were  of England i t with  With relations  first  over,  the  B r i t i s h d i d not  England  Constitutional  England.32  conferring During  and S t a t e  f r e e d o m was n o t  different  churches  put  1791  that  an e r a o f  with  the  p r i v i l e g e s to time,  participate  fully  i n the  the  from  the the  had t h e  they effect  status.31 trouble  in  i n Canada.  the Church  but  clear  Rather,  abrogation  individual  in jeopardy  was  After  Canada.  was i n t r o d u c e d  i n 1851  p e r i o d of  religious  to  of  their  establish  a quasi-official  Act  special  that  Canada.  o f Quebec  of Quebec.30  and p r i v i l e g e s  in  the  crisis  B r i t i s h governors  people  c o n c l u s i o n would occur only provisions  a major  the  Church  to  was that  and i n v o l v e d  of  of  treated  o f Quebec  B r i t i s h in  of  these  a l l , there  had some d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h  some a d v a n t a g e s  between  the  the  But  governors  threat  from  to  proceed to  After  any  as t h e o f f i c i a l C h u r c h  the Church the  of  imminence of  two  sympathy  crisis  giving  the  two  interested  supremacy  that  o f Quebec  province.28  and t h e  constitute  the E n g l i s h  restrain  and t o  the C a t h o l i c s  primarily  A m e r i c a n c o l o n i e s and t h e to  England  upset  i s true  the C a t h o l i c s  much r e s p e c t .  They d i d n o t  Furthermore  enough  to b r i n g  of  it  governors  s c h o o l s i n the  the B r i t i s h to  a quiet  economical  religion.27  remained a d e a d - l e t t e r  no r e a s o n f o r then  their  -  s u c c e s s i v e l y were  catholic population  were  10  of  the Its  the  of  right  to  desire  of  religious life  of  - l i -  the  B r i t i s h Dominion  Church of  was c u r t a i l e d by t h e p o s i t i o n o c c u p i e d by  Engl and.33  the Church including  of  The  England  other  Protestant  be s u b s t a n t i a l l y  gave  governor  parsonages Church  of  or  England  denominations, released.  lieutenant  and endow  however  that  existed  on one s i d e and d i f f e r e n t  going to the  tensions  In  governor  them a c c o r d i n g t o  were  repealed.  It  the  the  between  churches,  on t h e  1851  the  the  other  side,  were  dispositions  right  to  that  erect  establishment  of  the  provided:  [ T ] h a t t h e f r e e e x e r c i s e and e n j o y m e n t o f r e l i g i o u s p r o f e s s i o n and w o r s h i p , w i t h o u t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o r p r e f e r e n c e , so as t h e same be n o t made an e x c u s e f o r a c t s o f l i c e n t i o u s n e s s , or a j u s t i f i c a t i o n of p r a c t i c e s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p e a c e and s a f e t y o f t h e P r o v i n c e , i s by t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n and l a w s o f t h i s P r o v i n c e a l l o w e d t o a l l Her M a j e s t y ' s s u b j e c t s w i t h i n t h e same.34 The  statute  received royal  assent  i n 1852.  Also  known  as  the  Freedom  of  Worship Act  i t was s a l u t e d by many C a n a d i a n s  as  victory  of  voluntarism  i n Upper and Lower Canada.35  was t h e n  definite  commitment  Canada.  This  non-members  not  was n o t  of  the  made  it  of  that  religion.36  were  determined  It to  of  church  the B r i t i s h clemency  in towards  England. the  impossible for  particular quite  e s t a b l i s h any o f f i c i a l result  the Church  Schmeiser e x p l a i n s country  to  It  the  heterogeneous  the  government  m u s t a l s o be s a i d  preserve  their  structure to  favour  that  the  different  of  the  any  Canadians  religious  identities.37 In  summary,  the  pre-Confederative  strains  between  to  a modus v i v e n d i  find  different  groups,  for  p e r i o d was m a r k e d  by  c u l t u r e s and r e l i g i o n s t h a t  want of  being able to  eliminate  had the  a  -  opponent.  It  12  -  i s a p e r i o d w h e r e t h e power was c e n t r a l i z e d and  t h e r e was no room f o r t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l though  a g r o u p c o u l d be t o l e r a t e d by a n o t h e r  the C a t h o l i c s a f t e r religion.39 different  r e l i g i o u s denominations  introduced  B.  of that that  The P o s t - C o n f e d e r a t i v e  T h e r e was no m a j o r  d e l i c a t e balance  r e l i g i o u s issue  r e l i g i o u s groups.40  o f powers  provinces. adoption  between  Powers that  Pact.  It  emerged j u s t  between  i t i s noteworthy  the federal  S e c t i o n 129 s t a t e d t h a t  of the B r i t i s h  repealed.41  At l e a s t ,  after  i s a p e r i o d where a  that  of  t h e r e was no  p r o v i s i o n f o r freedom of r e l i g i o n i n the B r i t i s h  division  their  t h e C o n f e d e r a t i v e P a c t was  A m e r i c a n A c t t h a t was t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  the  to e x e r c i s e  s t a b i l i t y was t a k i n g p l a c e i n t h e c o e x i s t e n c e  different express  For i n s t a n c e ,  P e r i o d : Freedom o f R e l i g i o n and  s i g n a t u r e of the C o n f e d e r a t i v e  certain  even  i n 1867.  the Separation of  the  one.38  1760 w e r e r e l a t i v e l y f r e e  i t i s i n the context  liberties  North  document c o n t r o l l i n g t h e  government  and t h e  the laws i n f o r c e before the  N o r t h A m e r i c a A c t were n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y t h e Freedom  o f W o r s h i p A c t c o u l d be p a r t  of  l a w o f O n t a r i o a n d Quebec i f t h e p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e s  decided  so.42  legislation specific  j h e Quebec L e g i s l a t u r e  i n i t s body  bill  of r i g h t s  incorporated  of laws i n 1941.43 i n the B.N.A.  this  B u t t h e r e was no  Act to p r o t e c t  fundamental  freedoms. This  does n o t mean t h a t  concern about that law  the Fathers  the p r o t e c t i o n of c i v i l  by i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e p r i n c i p l e s into  the preamble of the B . N . A .  of Confederation  liberties.  They  had no  assumed  of the E n g l i s h c o n s t i t u t i o n a l Act the p r o t e c t i o n of the  -  Magna C a r t a ,  the A c t  of  13  -  Settlement,  the B i l l  of  Rights  and  common l a w i n g e n e r a l , w o u l d be a v a i l a b l e t o C a n a d i a n s i n defense of After  their civil  the adoption of  where i s s u e s treated the  of  civil  British  liberties  discrimination provincial  were  Bryden  in British  For  the  the  t h e c o u r t s no i s s u e in that  s t a t u s of  it  But  for  the P r i v y  fundamental  the Courts  immigrants or n a t u r a l i z e d Had t h e  federal  i s not c e r t a i n t h a t  brought practise this then,  and c i v i l  of  whether  came b e f o r e  issue  of  of  the c o u r t s .  such l e g i s l a t i o n  but whether  jurisdiction  The  it  was  passed  i t w o u l d have Generally,  been then,  were i g n o r e d  t h e r e w e r e n o t many  Sunday  closing  by  cases  to  laws,  The m a i n p o i n t was  early  in  not,  i n f r i n g e d upon i n d i v i d u a l r e l i g i o u s  i t was a s u b j e c t u n d e r t h e  the Federal  to  Council.^  r e l i g i o u s freedom,  a religion.50  a  struck  government  liberties  of  citizens,  b e f o r e Canadian c o u r t s i n r e l a t i o n to the r i g h t  century,  freedom,  freedoms  and e v e n by t h e P r i v y  In m a t t e r s  Council  of  of  case,  the c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t  c o n s i d e r e d a s an i m p e r m i s s i b l e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . of  were  p r o h i b i t e d persons of Chinese o r i g i n  is a federal matter.48  issues  they  cases  i n s t a n c e , when U n i o n C o l l i e r y  Columbia mines.47  same l e g i s l a t i o n ,  power.44  are several  i n v o l v e d but  came b e f o r e  down t h e p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n  which  there  b a s e d upon r a c e was d e b a t e d . 4 6  legislation  dealing with  Act,  the  g r o u n d s , more p r e c i s e l y on t h e b a s i s  powers.45  Columbia v.  a g a i s n t governmental  the B . N . A .  g e n e r a l l y on o t h e r  s e p a r a t i o n of  work  liberties  the  Parliament.51  exclusive  -  In Privy  1903,  in A.G.  Council  of  held that  Day  Act  d i d not  have  Hamilton S t r e e t  a provincial  connection with criminal This  -  Ontario v.  o b s e r v a n c e was u l t r a v i r e s  jurisdiction.52  14  statute  m a t t e r s which are under  decision  not  i n t e r e s t s of  specifically  religious  involve  b e l i e f s or  However,  the  r i g h t s of  to p r a c t i s e t h e i r  Penton  the  Lord's  there  stake but  they  c i t i z e n s to a s s e r t  i n face of  did  their  activities.^  t h e Army t h e o p p o r t u n i t y  r e l i g i o u s freedom  was  different  t h e two W o r l d Wars p r o v i d e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y  the defence of against  There are  religious  in  federal  the q u e s t i o n whether  c h u r c h e s were a t  d e f e n d a n t s who r e f u s e d t o j o i n  laid  as i t was  t h a t was t h e p r e l u d e t o  to answer to  the  Sunday  the O n t a r i o L e g i s l a t u r e ,  an i n f r i n g e m e n t upon r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m . 5 3 c a s e s where the  upon  Railway,  to  for claim  the charges t h a t  were  them. explains  in that  respect:  D u r i n g t h e F i r s t W o r l d War no p r o v i s i o n s w e r e made f o r c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r s who w e r e n o t members o f a " p e a c e c h u r c h " , and e v e n , more i m p o r t a n t , s e v e r a l denominations opposed to m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e w e r e s i m p l y h e l d n o t t o be r e l i g i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i t h i n the terms of the Military Service Act. I n t h e S e c o n d W o r l d War t h e s i t u a t i o n , a l t h o u g h somewhat d i f f e r e n t , was no b e t t e r . 5 5 The C o u r t s ,  d u r i n g the  those cases  but g e n e r a l l y ,  objectors,  no m a t t e r  affirmation  of  circumstances A c t was n o t liberties  their  two W o r l d W a r s ,  had t o  showed no sympathy  religious convictions.56 of  of  toward c o n s c i e n t i o u s  how s e r i o u s and s i n c e r e t h e y  the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v a l i d i t y  d e n i e d by  d e a l w i t h many  c o u l d be i n  Even i n  the  those  the M i l i t a r y S e r v i c e  t h e c o u r t s as a p o s s i b l e v i o l a t i o n o f  o r as an i n f r i n g e m e n t upon r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m . 5 7  civil It  is  -  also  important  War t h a t  to  observe  that  some u n c o n v e n t i o n a l  religious  denominations  15  it  -  i s o n l y around the F i r s t  groups  s t a r t e d to  i n Canada.  was n o t c l e a r l y d e f i n e d i n C a n a d a . 5 7 of  rights,  it  freedom of  Donald v.  Hamilton  dealing with salute  the  post-war civil  flag,  i n f l u e n c e d the  r e l i g i o u s freedom  an i n f r i n g e m e n t  other  n  Education,  instances  decision  of  t h e Saumur  C.  i n Quebec,  brought  where  them b e f o r e  The  the p r o t e c t i o n  of  Witnesses  their claims their  in  to  the c o u r t s . 6 0  Religious m i n o r i t i e s l i k e Jehovah's  and e v e n t u a l l y  like  Witnesses refusing  f o r more f r e e d o m and t o a c e r t a i n e x t e n t  precarious,  upon  the American e x p e r i e n c e ,  period i n i t i a t e d a growing concern for  w e l c o m e d by t h e c o u r t s e x c e p t  in  j  the c h i l d r e n of J e h o v a h ' s  liberties.  looked  a plaintiff.58  Board of  the  when t h e r e was a p r o v i n c i a l  c o u l d be u s e d t o p r e v e n t  religious  of  Some c a s e s w e r e s u c c e s s f u l l y  a r g u e d even a t a t i m e where t h e p r o t e c t i o n of  bill  be p a r t  World  were  s i t u a t i o n was  t h e Supreme  Court  Case.61  Saumur v .  City  o f Quebec  (1953)  S.C.R.  299: A  Turning  Point? According history that the  of  t o S c h m e i s e r , t h e Saumur c a s e i s a l a n d m a r k  civil  liberties  t h e Supreme C o u r t n a t u r e and l i m i t s I n Saumur v .  validity streets  of of  City  of of  i n Canada.62 Canada took  individual  o f Quebec,  i t was t h e  the o p p o r t u n i t y  a 5 to 4 d e c i s i o n ,  a Jehovah's  b y l a w was i n a p p l i c a b l e t o  the  time discuss  Witness attacked any w r i t i n g  a p e r m i t from the C h i e f  t h e Supreme C o u r t  to  the  r e l i g i o u s freedom.  a bylaw p r o h i b i t i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n of the c i t y w i t h o u t  first  in  held that  appellant.  in  of P o l i c e .  the C i t y  The J e h o v a h ' s  of  the the In  Quebec  Witnesses  -  were  at  that  16  -  time  engaged  i n the  literature  i n the  streets  of Quebec.  The  appellant  the  infringed  h i s freedom  of  expression  by-law  freedom  of w o r s h i p .  guaranteed a n d The  by t h e  of  Those f r e e d o m s ,  unwritten  Freedom of  the P r o v i n c e  upon  Worship  Act  religious  argued and  in his opinion,  as i n c o r p o r a t e d  propositions  reflect  of  then  Court  These p r o p o s i t i o n s  that  his  were  the  i n the  B.N.A.  Act,  statutes  of  the  adopted  t h a t was drawn  variety  of  concerning  c a n be p r e s e n t e d  as  up i n  positions  the  that  religious  judges  freedom.  follows:  Freedom of r e l i g i o n i s a c i v i l r i g h t under the e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n of the p r o v i n c e s . A m u n i c i p a l i t y has t h e a b s o l u t e power t o c o n t r o l t h e u s a g e o f i t s s t r e e t s even a t t h e expense of r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m . The F e d e r a l P a r l i a m e n t has e x c l u s i v e c o n t r o l o v e r f r e e d o m o f religion. The e x e r c i s e o f r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m c a n be c a r r i e d o u t w i t h o u t undue i n t e r f e r e n c e o f any g o v e r n m e n t . P r o v i n c i a l L e g i s l a t u r e s i n the e x e r c i s e of t h e i r a l l o t t e d p o w e r s may a f f e c t t h e p r a c t i c e o f r e l i g i o n .  (2) (3) (4) (5)  It  i s along  opinions.  these  Rinfret  lines  that  and T a s c h e r e a u  the judges adopted  dissenting opinion written  delivered  propositions  and s e c o n d and t h e y c o n s i d e r e d t h e m u n i c i p a l the  their  British Constitution,  Saumur c a s e and t h e y  (1)  of  Quebec.  There i s a s e t of  t h e Supreme  distribution  their the  first  b y l a w was v a l i d .  by C h i e f J u s t i c e  Rinfret,  it  In  was  said: S i n c e J e h o v a h ' s W i t n e s s e s argue t h e i r r e l i g i o u s a c t i v i t y involves distributing religious pamphlets, the r e s u l t i s t h a t the p r o v i n c e o r t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y t o w h i c h t h a t power i s d e l e g a t e d , has t h e r i g h t t o v e r i f y s u c h r e l i g i o u s pamphlets i n order to decide whether o r n o t t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n w i l l be authorized.63 (Translation) This freedom  of  i s perhaps  one o f  r e l i g i o n that  the most  has e v e r  restrictive  been e x p r e s s e d  views  upon  i n Canadian  law.  -  It  m u s t be s a i d  pamphlets  of  insulting  for  the  bylaw  of  But  City  on r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m .  the  the  religious  represented  ninety  and  percent  of  Quebec.64  of Worship  i n a p p l i c a b l e to  interests  of  i n view of  had f o u n d  Witnesses p a r t i c u l a r l y offensive  also favoured  Freedom  province.  Rinfret  t h e C a t h o l i c s who t h e n  Kerwin J . the  -  Chief J u s t i c e  the Jehovah's  population  that  that  17  the  first  proposition  A c t was p a r t  the  fourth  appellant  of  the  in  considering  law of  proposition  he c o n s i d e r e d  as i t was an undue  T h e r e was a l r e a d y  the  limitation  a c e r t a i n balance  t h a t was a p p l i e d by J u s t i c e K e r w i n when he  the  of  said:  The w i t n e s s e s a t t e m p t t o s p r e a d t h e i r v i e w s by way o f t h e p r i n t e d and w r i t t e n w o r d as w e l l a s o r a l l y and s t a t e t h a t s u c h a t t e m p t s a r e p a r t o f their belief. II  .  .  .  H .  Nor i n my o p i n i o n a r e t h e i r a t t a c k s " i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p e a c e and s a f e t y o f t h e P r o v i n c e " even where t h e y a r e d i r e c t e d p a r t i c u l a r l y a g a i n s t the r e l i g i o n of most of t h e Province's residents. The p e a c e and s a f e t y o f t h e P r o v i n c e w i l l n o t be e n d a n g e r e d i f t h a t m a j o r i t y do n o t u s e t h e a t t a c k as a f o u n d a t i o n f o r breaches of the p e a c e . " 6 5 The  opinions  of  four  other  j u s t i c e s , who h e l d t h e  i n v a l i d w e r e e s s e n t i a l l y i n s p i r e d by t h e propositions.  Among t h e s e j u d g e s  the  r e l i g i o u s freedom.66  history  of  s a y much a b o u t given  to  the  protection  r e l i g i o u s freedom  in  Rand J .  that,  His  third left  and  by-law  fourth  a special  unequivocal  in his opinion,  mark  in  expressions had t o  Canada:  From 1 7 6 0 , t h e r e f o r e , t o t h e p r e s e n t moment r e l i g i o u s freedom h a s , i n o u r l e g a l s y s t e m , been r e c o g n i z e d as a p r i n c i p l e o f f u n d a m e n t a l c h a r a c t e r ; and a l t h o u g h we have n o t h i n g i n t h e n a t u r e o f an e s t a b l i s h e d c h u r c h , t h a t t h e u n t r a m e l l e d a f f i r m a t i o n s of r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f and i t s p r o p a g a t i o n , personal or i n s t i t u t i o n a l , r e m a i n as o f t h e g r e a t e s t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  be  -  18  s i g n i f i c a n c e throughout unquestionable.67 Finally the  q u e s t i o n whether  provincial to  Cartwright  with the  control  of  provincial  highways likely  freedom  the  of  power  to  separation  permeated  the  of  of  they  served  a bill  of  D.  powers.  to  or  the  opinion relation  was use  and s u p p r e s s i o n o f  of  avoid  This  freedom  fundamental  draw t h e  traditional  approach  case c a r r i e d with  rights.  the  the j u d g e s .  from which  protection  t h e Saumur  them,  l e g i s l a t e i n r e l a t i o n to  d e c i s i o n s of  that  for  on  under of  conditions  disorder.  a starting point terms  pronounce  p a s s e d and was i n  Such a s u b j e c t ,  The Saumur c a s e d i d n o t the  d i d not  They e x p r e s s e d a d i s s e n t i n g  police regulations  to cause  is  r e l i g i o n was a f e d e r a l  b y l a w was v a l i d l y  streets.69  and t o  the Dominion  and T a s c h e r e a u J J .  subject matter.68  indicate that  -  attention  d i s c u s s i o n on  has i n one way o r Nonetheless  of  it  another  constituted  r e l i g i o n was a n a l y z e d  rights.  Even the  in  uncertainties  it  had a p o s i t i v e  effect  of  Canadians  on t h e  o f 1960:  A  in  that  necessity  of  7 0  The C a n a d i a n  Bill  of  Rights  Difficult  Transition. The  Canadian  when a g r e a t The  violation  Bill  of  concern for of  human  War had a c c e n t u a t e d  the  Rights  came i n t o  individual  rights  rights  need t o  have  enshrined  during  t h e War was a l s o m a r k e d by t h e  the  i n the C o n s t i t u t i o n . 7 1  Canadians.72  existed  i n Europe d u r i n g  rights  Japanese  existence at a  Elsewhere  the  protection The  in  Canada.  Second of  situation  time  World  individual in  Canada  forcible resettlement  i n the w o r l d  the emergence  of of  new  -  nations  gave an i m p u l s e t o  19  -  the p r o t e c t i o n of  racial  and r e l i g i o u s  minorities.?3 But  the Canadian B i l l  of  Rights  t h o s e who had h i g h e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r were a d d r e s s e d t o The B i l l  the B i l l  7 4  s a t i s f a c t i o n to  Two m a j o r  r i g h t from the  criticisms beginning.  a d o p t e d by t h e P a r l i a m e n t was n o t a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l b i n d i n g upon t h e p r o v i n c e s . 7 5  l i m i t a t i o n was an i m p o r t a n t  in matters  of  provincial  legislations.7^  civil  religious  of  Rights  freedom i n C a n a d a . 7 7  Supreme C o u r t delivered  of  a v i o l a t i o n of  the Canadian B i l l  expressed a "frozen  the Canadian B i l l  of  the m a j o r i t y  c o n c e p t i o n of  i n f l u e n c e d C a n a d i a n s down t o of  or  the L o r d ' s  Rights  They  in asking  Canada t o q u a s h t h e i r c o n v i c t i o n s .  the o p i n i o n of  litigated  In R o b e r t s o n and R o s e t a n n i  c a r r y i n g on any b u s i n e s s on S u n d a y . 7 8  the p r o v i s i o n s of  The  contained a provision protecting  a p p e l l a n t s were c h a r g e d w i t h  prohibiting  one s i n c e many c a s e s  r i g h t s d e a l t w i t h municipal bylaws  The C a n a d i a n B i l l  the  it.  or Rights  d o c u m e n t and n e i t h e r was i t latter  gave l i t t l e  of  the C o u r t .  He  He s a i d  about  R^_,  Day  Act  invoked the  Ritchie  r i g h t s and f r e e d o m s "  t h i s day.  v.  J.  then that  has  section 2  of  Rights:  I t i s t o be n o t e d a t t h e o u t s e t t h a t t h e C a n a d i a n B i l l o f R i g h t s i s n o t c o n c e r n e d w i t h "human r i g h t s and f u n d a m e n t a l f r e e d o m s " i n any a b s t r a c t s e n s e , b u t r a t h e r w i t h " s u c h r i g h t s and f r e e d o m s " as t h e y e x i s t e d i n C a n a d a i m m e d i a t e l y b e f o r e t h e s t a t u t e was e n a c t e d . . . . . I t i s t h e r e f o r e the " r e l i g i o u s freedom" then e x i s t i n g i n t h i s c o u n t r y t h a t i s s a f e g u a r d e d by the p r o v i s i o n s , of s . 2.79 Ritchie J.  then took  n o t i c e of  w h i c h was e x p o s e d by Rand J .  t h e p o s i t i o n on " r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m "  i n Saumur v .  The C i t y  o f Quebec and  -  20  -  i)  by T a s c h e r e a u  i n Chaput  v.  Romain.  He  commented:  I t i s apparent from these judgments t h a t " c o m p l e t e l i b e r t y o f r e l i g i o u s t h o u g h t " and t h e "untrammelled a f f i r m a t i o n of r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f and i t s p r o p a g a t i o n , p e r s o n a l o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l " w e r e r e c o g n i z e d by t h i s C o u r t as e x i s t i n g i n Canada b e f o r e t h e C a n a d i a n B i l l o f R i g h t s and n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the p r o v i s i o n s of the L o r d ' s Day A c t . " 8 0 B u t R i t c h i e J . s e t up t h e b o u n d a r i e s o f r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m t h i s way: I would adopt the f o l l o w i n g s e n t e n c e s from the d i s s e n t i n g judgment of F r a n k f u r t e r J . i n Board of E d u c a t i o n v . B a r n e t t e , as d i r e c t l y a p p l i c a b l e t o the freedom of r e l i g i o n " e x i s t i n g i n t h i s c o u n t r y b o t h b e f o r e and a f t e r t h e e n a c t m e n t o f the Canadian B i l l of R i g h t s : "The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n o f r e l i g i o u s freedom t e r m i n a t e d d i s a b i l i t i e s , i t d i d not c r e a t e new p r i v i l e g e . I t gave r e l i g i o u s e q u a l i t y , not c i v i l immunity. Its essence i s f r e e d o m f r o m c o n f o r m i t y t o r e l i g i o u s dogma, n o t freedom from c o n f o r m i t y to law because of r e l i g i o u s dogma." I t i s a g a i n s t t h i s background t h a t the e f f e c t of t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e L o r d ' s Day A c t on " r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m " as g u a r a n t e e d by t h e C a n a d i a n B i l l o r R i g h t s i s t o be c o n s i d e r e d . 8 1 Thus a t exercise v.  City  like  of  l e a s t as f a r  supra,  some o t h e r  I960's.82  it  stature  that  I n any  t h e Supreme C o u r t  did  s h a r e d by many C a n a d i a n s a f t e r  the Canadian B i l l  suggested that  gain the  had somewhat a n n o u n c e d .  human r i g h t s ,  support the e x p e c t a t i o n s adoption of  o b s e r v a n c e was c o n c e r n e d ,  r e l i g i o u s freedom d i d not  of Quebec,  with  as Sunday  or R i g h t s .  t h e Supreme C o u r t  fell  It  has a l s o  s e n s i t i v i t y of  Saumur  event, not  the  been  into conservatism in  seems t h e r e was a l a c k o f  the  the  the Supreme  -  Court  of  Canada t o w a r d  In any c a s e , could  not  -  human r i g h t s ,  the Canadian B i l l  at that of  e a s i l y reshape the h i s t o r y  fundamental  freedoms  in Canada.84  d o c u m e n t w h i c h i s now e c l i p s e d Charter.  This  human r i g h t s  E.  21  Rights with  of  It  time.83  civil  limits  liberties  had t o be a  (though not  its  and  transitory  abrogated)  by  the  b r i n g s t h e hope o f a new e r a i n t h e h i s t o r y  of  i n Canada.  The C a n a d i a n C h a r t e r o f  R i g h t s and Freedoms:  The  Liberal  Society? There Charter  for  Canada.85 of  i s much t h a t  the achievement of In  criminial  observations  s t u d y i n g the  individual  issue  prosecutions, there that  of  the meaning of  the  r i g h t s and f r e e d o m s  r e l i g i o u s freedom i n a  are three  in  context  preliminary  c a n be m a d e :  (1)  I t i s the f i r s t time t h a t t h e r e i s a c l e a r d i s p o s i t i o n i n the Canadian C o n s t i t u t i o n r e g a r d i n g r e l i g i o u s freedom t h a t i s b i n d i n g upon a l l l e v e l s o f g o v e r n m e n t .  (2)  Freedom of r e l i g i o n e x i s t e d i n Canada b e f o r e t h e C h a r t e r b u t t h e r e i s more t h a n e v e r t h e n e c e s s i t y o f f i n d i n g new r u l e s and d e f i n i t i o n s f o r t h e c o n c e p t o f r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m a s g u a r a n t e e d by t h e C h a r t e r .  (3)  F o r t h e f i r s t t i m e , f r e e d o m ' o f r e l i g i o n c a n be s t u d i e d w i t h the i d e a t h a t American cases d e c i d e d under the F i r s t Amendment o f t h e A m e r i c a n B i l l o f R i g h t s c a n have a f u l l relevance i n Canada.  From now o n , question  of  prosecutions to  has been s a i d a b o u t  it  i s assumed t h a t  the defense of from the  say s e c t i o n 2 ( a )  of  Canadian judges w i l l  r e l i g i o u s freedom  in  discuss  criminal  same a n g l e a s t h e A m e r i c a n j u d g e s . the C h a r t e r  that  the  guarantees  :  That  "Everyone  is  -  has  ...  freedom of  protection  than  22  -  c o n s c i e n c e and r e l i g i o n "  the F i r s t  Amendment t h a t  states:  make no l a w r e s p e c t i n g an e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f the f r e e e x e r c i s e t h e r e o f " . . . " . that  It  there  Amendment t h a t provision rights  and f r e e d o m s  reasonable l i m i t .  it  of  indicates that  Rights  in i t s  c o m p a r i s o n i n mind t h a t Freedom  of  Also there that  is  no  states that  this  study  the  in a  s e c t i o n s 24 a n d 52 find  appropriate  i s then w i t h is  those  or points  undertaken.  r e l i g i o n c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d now as a new s t a r  the Canadian c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n s t e l l a t i o n . religion  First  i s an undue i n f r i n g e m e n t upon a r i g h t It  however,  identical.  t h e c o u r t s have t o  f r e e d o m g u a r a n t e e d by t h e C h a r t e r .  shall  r e l i g i o n or p r o h i b i t i n g  p r o t e c t s c a n be i n f r i n g e d upon  The C h a r t e r  r e m e d i e s when t h e r e  of  is  i n the C h a r t e r .  i n the American B i l l  specifically  "Congress  i s an a n t i e s t a b l i s h m e n t c l a u s e i n t h e  i s unknown  less  m u s t be d e m o n s t r a t e d ,  t h e r a t i o n a l e b e h i n d t h e two t e x t s  Furthermore,  does not o f f e r  existed  i n Canada but w i t h  To be s u r e ,  in  freedom  no c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r o o t s ,  it  was n o t  s e c u r e a s P r o f e s s o r S c h m e i s e r b e l i e v e d i t was some y e a r s  ago.86  jh  of  e  criminal  meaning of  c l a i m of  a defence of  prosecutions w i l l  r e l i g i o u s freedom i n a  be a s e r i o u s t e s t  to  the  r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m g u a r a n t e e d by t h e C h a r t e r .  be i n t e r e s t i n g t o  s e e f r o m an o v e r v i e w  religious  i n what i n s t a n c e s the d e f e n c e of  freedom  freedom i s l i k e l y  t o be  raised.  of  context  real It  the Canadian cases religious  will in  of  -  23  -  Footnotes 1.  P r o f e s s o r Schmeiser i n h i s book: " C i v i l L i b e r t i e s i n Canada" t r e a t e d many a s p e c t s o f r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m . I t c o u l d be t h e m o s t c o m p l e t e s t u d y on r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m i n C a n a d a . See: D.H. Schmeiser, " C i v i l L i b e r t i e s i n Canada", London, Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1964, pp. 54-197. O t h e r a u t h o r s have s t u d i e d r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m b u t on a l e s s e x t e n s i v e b a s i s . S e e , e . g . : G. B e a u d o i n , " L e P a r t a g e d e s P o u y o i r s " , O t t a w a , E d i t i o n s de l ' U n i v e r s i t e d " O t t a w a , 1 9 8 2 ; T . R . Berger, " F r a g i l e Freedoms", Toronto, C l a r k e , Irwin & Co. L t d . , 1981, p p . 1 6 3 - 1 8 9 ; I. C o t l e r , "Freedom of Assembly, A s s o c i a t i o n , C o n s c i e n c e and R e l i g i o n " i n "The C a n a d i a n C h a r t e r o f R i g h t s and F r e e d o m s " e d i t e d by W . S . T a r n o p o l s k y and G . B e a u d o i n , T o r o n t o , The C a r s w e l l C o . , 1 9 8 2 .  2.  See J . P e n t o n , " J e h o v a h ' s W i t n e s s e s i n C a n a d a , C h a m p i o n s o f F r e e d o m o f S p e e c h a n d R e l i g i o n , T o r o n t o , The M a c M i l l a n C o . , 1976, at p . 1.  3.  I t i s p e r h a p s i n d i c a t i v e o f t h e i n d i f f e r e n c e t h a t many C a n a d i a n s have t o w a r d s t h e h i s t o r y o f r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m s native people that i n P r o f e s s o r Schmeiser's study, supra 1 , t h e r e was no r e f e r e n c e t o t h e i m p a c t o f E u r o p e a n and C h r i s t i a n v a l u e s on t h e r e l i g i o u s l i f e o f t h e a b o r i g i n a l people.  .  of note  4.  See W . P . M . K e n n e d y , " T h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f C a n a d a " London, Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1938, B.2.  5.  S e e H. S h o r t t a n d A . G . D o u g h t y , " C a n a d a and i t s vol. 1 , T o r o n t o , Edinburgh E d i t i o n 1974, at p.  6.  Ibid.,  7.  I b i d . , p . 3 1 5 , : In t h e s e t e r r i t o r i e s t h e K i n g i s l i m i t e d t o b u i l d towns and f o r t s , a s a l s o t e m p l e s and c h u r c h e s f o r t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e C a t h o l i c f a i t h and o f C h r i s t i a n t e a c h i n g ; t o i n t r o d u c e l a w s and o f f i c e r s o f j u s t i c e , t h a t t h e i n h a b i t a n t s may l i v e a c c o r d i n g t o r e a s o n , i n good o r d e r , a n d i n the f e a r of God.  vol.  2,  at  pp.  1534-1937,  Provinces", 31-32.  379.  In demanding a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e K i n g f o r t h e young c o l o n y , C h a m p l a i n s a i d : " T h e c o n v e r s i o n o f one i n f i d e l i s w o r t h more than the conquest of a Kingdom" quoted i n J . H . Kennedy, J e s u i t and S a v a g e i n New F r a n c e , New H a v e n , Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1950, at p. 28n. 8.  9.  J . C . W i s e , The Red Man a n d t h e New W o r l d D r a m a , M a c M i l l a n P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1971, a t p. 4 7 . Ibid.  New  York,  -  24  -  10.  I t i s o n l y a f t e r 1608 w i t h t h e f i r s t p e r m a n e n t s e t t l e m e n t s i n New-France t h a t the e f f o r t s of e v a n g e l i z a t i o n were s e r i o u s l y e n g a g e d , s u p r a , note 6 , a t p. 3 8 1 , 3 8 2 .  11.  J . H . Kennedy, s u p r a , note 7, at p. 76: O r i g i n a l l y the m i s s i o n a r i e s had r e g a r d e d c o n q u e s t s i m p l y a s a n e c e s s a r y means t o i n s u r e a p e a c e f u l c o l o n i z a t i o n " . . . " . In t h e e y e s o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t c o n q u e s t by r e l i g i o n had n o t s u c c e e d e d ; c o n q u e s t by a r m s , t h e n , became an a i m i n i t s e l f , a s i m p o r t a n t when i t p r o m i s e d a more r a p i d s u c c e s s .  12.  Supra,  note 8 ,  at p.  13.  Supra,  note 5 ,  vol.  14.  Ibid.,  at  15.  Supra,  note  16.  R. F u m o l e a u , " A s l o n g a s t h i s l a n d s h a l l M c C l e l l a n d and S t e w a r t L t d . , 1 9 7 3 , a t p .  17.  Supra,  note  18.  Supra,  note  19.  I b i d . , at p. 404: They ( t h e J e s u i t s ) a t t a c k e d t h e s u p e r s t i t i o u s v i c e s o f t h e r e d m e n , and g a i n e d t h e f r i e n d s h i p o f a few b u t t h e e n m i t y o f m a n y . The m e d i c i n e men w e r e p a r t i c u l a r l y a n t a g o n i s t i c t o t h e new f a i t h and b l a m e d e v e r y m i s f o r t u n e t h a t b e f e l l the savages to the i n f l u e n c e of the 'black robes'. D r o u g h t , s m a l l p o x , u n s u c c e s s f u l combat w i t h e n e m i e s w e r e a l l , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e m , due t o t h e m a l i g n i n f l u e n c e o f B r e b e u f and h i s c o m r a d e s .  20.  Supra,  note  21.  Supra,  note 5 ,  22.  Ibid.  23.  p.  405,  85. 2,  at p.  404.  406.  11. last", 17.  Toronto,  11. 5,  vol.  2,  at p.  407.  7. vol.  II,  pt.  II,  at p.  364.  I b i d . , at p. 366: From a l l t h i s i t i s q u i t e o b v i o u s t h a t , t h o u g h t h e r e m i g h t be p e a c e b e t w e e n t h e c r o w n s i n E u r o p e , t h e r e was t o be l i t t l e p e a c e b e t w e e n t h e i r d o m i n i o n s i n America. The E n g l i s h had made up t h e i r m i n d s t h a t t h e F r e n c h menace t o t h e i r c o l o n i e s , s u p p o r t e d a s i t was by t h e I n d i a n s , m u s t be d i s p o s e d o f . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e F r e n c h i n C a n a d a had d e t e r m i n e d t o r e s i s t t h e c l a i m s o f t h e E n g l i s h t o t h e very l a s t .  -  25  -  24.  S e c t . I I o f "An A c t f o r C o n f i r m i n g T i t l e s t o L a n d s a n d Q u i e t i n g P o s s e s s i o n s 32 G e o . I i , c . 2 s t a t e d : Provided, that no P a p i s t , h e r e a f t e r , s h a l l have any r i g h t o r t i t l e t o h o l d , p o s s e s s , o r e n j o y any l a n d s o r t e n e m e n t s , o t h e r t h a n " . . . " from the Crown; b u t t h a t a l l deeds o r w i l l , h e r e a f t e r made, c o n v e y i n g l a n d s t o any P a p i s t , o r i n t r u s t f o r any P a p i s t , s h a l l be u t t e r l y n u l l and v o i d " . . . " .  25.  Schmeiser,  26.  supra,  note  1,  at p.  61.  Ibid.  27.  C a n a d i a n C o n s t i t u t i o n a l D o c u m e n t s , 1 7 5 9 - 9 1 , v o l . 1 e d i t e d by S h o r t t and D o u g h t y , O t t a w a , K i n g ' s P r i n t e r , 1 9 1 9 . See a t p . 6: A r t . VI o f t h e A r t i c l e s o f C a p i t u l a t i o n ; a t p . 120: Art. XX o f t h e T r e a t y o f P a r i s ; a t p . 5 7 0 : " A n A c t f o r m a k i n g more e f f e c t u a l p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e Government of t h e P r o v i n c e o f Quebec i n N o r t h A m e r i c a " , 14 G e o . I l l c . 8 3 s e t o u t i n S h o r t t and D o u g h t y a t p . 5 7 2 : And f o r t h e m o s t p e r f e c t s e c u r i t y a n d ease of minds of the i n h a b i t a n t s of the s a i d P r o v i n c e , i t i s hereby d e c l a r e d t h a t His M a j e s t y ' s s u b j e c t s , p r o f e s s i n g the r e l i g i o n o f t h e C h u r c h o f Rome o f and i n t h e s a i d P r o v i n c e o f Q u e b e c , may h a v e , h o l d and e n j o y , t h e f r e e e x e r c i s e o f t h e r e l i g i o n o f t h e C h u r c h o f Rome, s u b j e c t t o t h e K i n g ' s Supremacy"...".  28.  Schmeiser,  29.  Ibid.,  at p.  64.  30.  Ibid.,  at p.  63.  31.  Supra,  note 4 ,  32.  One o f t h e p o i n t s o f d i s c o r d b e t w e e n t h e S t a t e and t h e " n o n c o n f o r m i s t P r o t e s t a n t s was due t o t h e f a c t t h e C h u r c h o f E n g l a n d had t h e e x c l u s i v e r i g h t t o s o l e m n i z e m a r r i a g e s . See P e n t o n , s u p r a , note 2 , at p. 2 .  33.  Ibid.,  34.  14  35.  Supra,  36.  Schmeiser,  37.  Supra,  38.  Ibid.  39.  Ibid.,  supra,  at p.  2 and  note 2,  3.  atp.  62.  3.  c.  at p.  supra,  note 4 ,  1,  B-2.  a n d 15 V i c t . ,  at p.  note  at  175. 2.  note pp.  1, 82,  at p. 83.  63.  -  40.  26  -  A . I . S i l v e r , The F r e n c h - C a n a d i a n I d e a o f C o n f e d e r a t i o n , 1864-1900, T o r o n t o , U n v i e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1982, at Ill, 112. Act,  s.  pp.  41.  B.N.A.  129.  42.  Ibid.  43.  Freedom o f W o r s h i p A c t ,  44.  W . S . T a r n o p o l s k y , The C a n a d i a n B i l l C a r s w e l l Co. L t d . , 1966, at p. 19.  45.  I. C o t l e r , "Freedom of A s s e m b l y , A s s o c i a t i o n , C o n s c i e n c e and R e l i g i o n " , i n The C a n a d i a n C h a r t e r o f R i g h t s a n d F r e e d o m s , e d i t e d by W . S . T a r n o p o l s k y a n d G . B e a u d o i n , T o r o n t o , The Carswell Co. L t d . , 1982.  46.  [1899]  A.C.  47.  Ibid.,  at p.  581.  48.  Ibid.,  at p.  587.  49.  P . H . R u s s e l l , " T h e P o l i t i c a l R o l e o f t h e Supreme C o u r t o f Canada i n i t s F i r s t C e n t u r y " , (1975) 5 3 ( 3 ) C a n . B. R e v . 5 7 5 . R u s s e l l o b s e r v e d t h a t i t i s easy t o say t h a t the p o l i t i c a l i m p a c t o f t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f Canada has n o t b e e n g r e a t c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e A m e r i c a n Supreme C o u r t . He w a n t s t o r e c a l l t h a t any e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e Supreme C o u r t of Canada must t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n the C a n a d i a n c o n t e x t i n w h i c h v a l u e s o f p r o f a n a t i o n and e m p i r i c i s m had been h i g h l y p r a i s e d by t h e c o u r t s . See I . C o t l e r , s u p r a , n o t e 4 5 , as t o t h e r o l e o f t h e P r i v y C o u n c i l i n t h e h i s t o r y of c i v i l l i b e r t i e s i n Canada.  50.  C i t y o f M o n t r e a l v . Madden ( 1 8 8 4 ) 29 L o w e r C a n a d a J u r i s . 134 and C r i b b i n a n d The C i t y o f T o r o n t o ( 1 8 9 1 ) 21 O.R. 3 2 5 a r e among t h e f i r s t c a s e s i n v o l v i n g m u n i c i p a l b y - l a w s c a u s i n g i n t e r f e r e n c e with r e l i g i o u s freedom.  51.  Q u i m e t v . B a z i n , [ 1 9 1 2 ] 3 D . L . R . 5 9 3 , 46 S . C . R . 5 0 2 ; S t . P r o s p e r v . R o d r i g u e , ( 1 9 1 7 ) 56 S . C . R . 1 5 7 ; D r a p e a u v . R e c o r d e r ' s C o u r t ( 1 9 1 8 ) 30 C . C . C . 2 4 9 . These are cases where m u n i c i p a l b y - l a w s or p r o v i n c i a l s t a t u t e s were d e c l a r e d i n v a l i d b e c a u s e t h e y p r o h i b i t e d c e r t a i n c o n d u c t on S u n d a y . S e e : Re F i s h e r a n d V i l l a g e o f Carman [ 1 9 0 5 ] 16 M a n . R. 5 6 0 ; R. v . Webber a n d C o . M e r c h a n t s L t d . ~ [ 1 9 5 6 ] 19 W . W . R . 447 wn~ere t h e s t a t u t e c a r r y i n g p r o h i b i t i o n s on o t h e r d a y s o f t h e week and on Sunday was c o n s i d e r e d v a l i d .  52.  [1903] A . C .  R.S.Q.  1941,  c. of  307. Rights,  Toronto,  The  580.  524.  -  53.  27  -  Ibid.  54.  Brown v . C u r e e t c . de N o t r e - D a m e d e M o n t r e a l [ 1 8 7 4 ] L . R . 6 [ a b o u t the s t a t u s of the C a t h o l i c Church i n Quebec]; Punnet v . F o r n e r i , [ 1 8 7 7 ] 25 G r . 199 ( i t was h e l d t h a t t h e C h u r c h o f E n g l a n d was n o t t h e o f f i c i a l c h u r c h i n O n t a r i o ) .  55.  See P e n t o n ,  56.  I b i d . , Penton f u r t h e r o b s e r v e s about t h e Second World War: P e r h a p s as many a s t h r e e h u n d r e d c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r s w e r e f o r c i b l y c o n s c r i p t e d i n t o t h e a r m y , and a s i n t h e F i r s t W o r l d War many were s u b j e c t e d t o s e v e r e p h y s i c a l treatment.  57.  In s p i t e of severe m i s t r e a t m e n t of the c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r s d u r i n g t h e F i r s t W o r l d War t h e M i l i t a r y S e r v i c e A c t remained v a l i d before the c o u r t s . See P e n t o n , I b i d . , p . b / . ~  58.  C i t y o f M o n t r e a l v . M a d d e n , s u p r a , n o t e 5 0 ; R^ v . M u s t i n ; Rex v . M i l l a r d L 1 9 4 0 J O . R . 3 9 3 ; O n t a r i o : _R__ ; v . N a p i e r L1941J O.R. 30.  59.  v.  supra,  Naish [1950]  note 2 , a t p . 5 .  1 W.W.R. 9 8 7 .  60.  [1945] O.R.  518.  61.  [1953] S . C . R . 2 9 9 .  62.  Schmeiser,  63.  [1953] S . C . R .  64.  Ibid.,  at p. 318.  65.  Ibid.,  at p. 322.  66.  See: E.M. P o l l o c k , "Mr. J u s t i c e (1975) 53(3) C a n . B. Rev. 5 1 9 .  67.  [1953] S . C . R .  68.  Ibid.,  at p. 387.  69.  Ibid.,  at p. 388.  70.  See W.R. Lederman, "The N a t u r e and Problems o f a B i l l o f R i g h t s " , ( 1 9 5 9 ) 37 C a n . B . R e v . 4 . The a u t h o r p u t emphasis on t h e n e c e s s i t y o f a B i l l o f R i g h t s b u t a l s o on i t s l i m i t s .  71.  Supra, note 4 4 , a t p . 3 - 9 f o r a survey of the c o n d i t i o n s t h a t preceded the i n t r o d u c t i o n of the Canadian B i l l o f R i g h t s .  supra,  note 1 ,  at p. 80.  299, at p. 316.  Rand,  A Triumph  of Principle"  2 9 9 , a t p p . 327 a n d 3 2 9 .  -  28 -  72.  Ibid.,  at pp. 4 - 5 .  73.  I b i d . , a t p . 4 ; Even b e f o r e t h e e n d o f t h e S e c o n d W o r l d War t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f human r i g h t s had b e e n e n s h r i n e d i n t h e U n i t e d N a t i o n s C h a r t e r b u t i t i s a r o u n d 1960 t h a t many new n a t i o n s emerge f r o m c e n t u r i e s o f c o l o n i a l i s m .  74.  See W . S . T a r n o p o l s k y , " T h e Supreme C o u r t a n d t h e C a n a d i a n B i l l of R i g h t s " (1975) 53(4) C a n . B . R e v . 6 4 9 .  75.  See B . L a s k i n , " A n I n q u i r y i n t o t h e D i e f e n b a k e r B i l l o f R i g h t s " , ( 1 9 5 9 ) 37 C a n . B . R e v . 7 7 . P r o f e s s o r L a s k i n , a s he t h e n w a s , e x p r e s s e d h i s v i e w on t h a t m a t t e r , a t p . 7 8 : T a k e n on i t s own t e r m s , and p u t t i n g t o one s i d e i t s substantive content, the proposed B i l l i s unfortunate i n i t s l i m i t e d a p p l i c a t i o n to the f e d e r a l l e v e l of government. P r i o r to t h i s , L a s k i n observed the d i f f e r e n c e w i t h the American B i l l of R i g h t s , e n s h r i n e d i n the C o n s t i t u t i o n a t p. 77: The B i l l o f R i g h t s now p r o p o s e d f o r C a n a d a i s n o t i n e m u l a t i o n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s n o r does i t go much b e y o n d t h e English position.  76.  Supra,  notes  51 a n d 6 1 .  77.  S . 1 of the Canadian B i l l of Rights s t a t e s : " I t i s hereby r e c o g n i z e d and d e c l a r e d t h a t i n Canada t h e r e have e x i s t e d and s h a l l c o n t i n u e t o e x i s t w i t h o u t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n by r e a s o n o f race national o r i g i n , c o l o u r , r e l i g i o n or sex, the f o l l o w i n g human r i g h t s a n d f u n d a m e n t a l f r e d d o m s , n a m e l y , ( a ) . . . ( b ) (c) freedom of r e l i g i o n . . . " . S . 2 r e a d s : " E v e r y l a w o f Canada s h a l l , u n l e s s i t i s e x p r e s s l y d e c l a r e d by an A c t o f t h e P a r l i a m e n t o f Canada t h a t i t s h a l l operate n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the Canadian B i l l of R i g h t s , be so c o n s t r u e d and a p p l i e d as n o t t o a b r o g a t e , a b r i d g e o r i n f r i n g e or to a u t h o r i z e the a b r o g a t i o n , abridgement o r i n f r i n g e m e n t o f any o f t h e r i g h t s o r f r e e d o m s h e r e i n r e c o g n i z e d and d e c l a r e d . . . . "  78.  [1973]  S.C.R. 651.  79.  Ibid.,  p. 654.  80.  Ibid.,  p. 655.  81.  Ibid.,  p. 656.  82.  S e e D. G i b s o n , Constitutional 621.  83.  Ibid.  " A n d One S t e p B a c k w a r d : The Supreme C o u r t a n d Law i n t h e S i x t i e s " ( 1 9 7 5 ) 53 C a n . B . R e v .  -  note  29 -  84.  Supra,.  75.  85.  See P. F i t z g e r a l d , Class or C h a r t e r ? "  86.  S c h m e i s e r , s u p r a , n o t e 1 , a t p . 54 e n u m e r a t e d w h a t i s i n v o l v e d i n freedom of r e l i g i o n : (1) Freedom o f C o n s c i e n c e ; ( 2 ) F r e e d o m o f W o r s h i p ; ( 3 ) Freedom o f A s s o c i a t i o n ; (4) Freedom o f P r o p a g a n d a ; ( 5 ) Freedom from C i v i l D i s a b i l i t y ; ( 6 ) F r e e d o m f r o m d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s t any o r a l l r e l i g i o n s by t h e S t a t e , and t h e e v i d e n c i n g o f i m p a r t i a l sympathy t o w a r d t h e i r w o r k ; ( 7 ) F r e e d o m o f t h e C h u r c h , o r any p a r t o f i t , f r o m c o n t r o l due t o a n y f i n a n c i a l , p o l i t i c a l , o r o t h e r connection with the s t a t e .  " C a n a d i a n R i g h t s and Freedoms ( 1 9 8 3 ) 13 M a n . L . J . 2 7 7 - 2 8 6 .  First  And P r o f e s s o r S c h m e i s e r f u r t h e r e x p l a i n s : "The f i r s t f i v e f r e e d o m s do n o t p r e s e n t much d i f f i c u l t y i n C a n a d a a l t h o u g h t h e f o u r t h was s e v e r e l y s t r a i n e d by t h e c o n t r o v e r s y i n v o l v i n g the J e h o v a h ' s W i t n e s s e s i n the P r o v i n c e of Quebec". However, the d i f f i c u l t i e s , i n the p r e s e n t d a y s , are not l i m i t e d to the J e h o v a h ' s Witnesses i n the P r o v i n c e of Quebec. I f t h e l a t t e r had had more d i f f i c u l t i e s t h a n any o t h e r g r o u p i t i s a l s o t r u e t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s or groups e x e r c i s i n g other r e l i g i o n s have r e c e i v e d t h e i r s h a r e o f p r o b l e m s .  -  II.  30 -  THE DEFENCE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN CANADA BEFORE THE CHARTER  An e x a m i n a t i o n religious  o f t h e C a n a d i a n c a s e s where  f r e e d o m was r a i s e d i s u s e f u l  S u c h an i n q u i r y  into  possible  of c o n f l i c t between  Also  points  i t will  give  the cases p r i o r  further  C a n a d i a n j u s t i c e s have Most of those is  probably  groups, manifest  during  the twentieth  this  century,  this  the p r a c t i c e of  those  cases. This  non-conventional  started  t o be  century.1  1900's  the struggles i n matter  the i n f l u e n c e of a Church o r a The r e l i g i o u s a c t i v i t i e s  d i d n o t hamper e a c h  o f new r e l i g i o u s g r o u p s  other.2  i n the beginning  of life  country.^ of p r e a c h i n g , c h a l l e n g i n g of values  compulsory  and C a t h o l i c s ,  school  attendance,  like  W i t n e s s e s and o t h e r  days b e f o r e  traditionally  p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n War  s a l u t e to the f l a g ,  b l o o d t r a n s f u s i o n s a r e some o f t h e u n u s u a l  Jehovah's  those  delivered in this century.  upon one a n o t h e r .  r e s p e c t e d by P r o t e s t a n t s  of  the  that  something changed d r a m a t i c a l l y i n t h e r e l i g i o u s  New m e t h o d s  efforts,  can r e v e a l  l a w s and f r e e d o m o f r e l i g i o n .  i n dealing with  this  century  C a t h o l i c s and P r o t e s t a n t s the a r r i v a l  to the Charter  Witnesses f o r example,  only  denomination  With  of  that  r e l i g i o u s freedom engaged  religious of  due t o t h e f a c t  i n Canada  Before of  d e c i s i o n s were  of  f o r more t h a n o n e r e a s o n .  d e t a i l s on t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s  encountered  l i k e Jehovah's  the defence  positions  refusal  that  r e l i g i o u s groups t r i e d to a s s e r t i n  the C h a r t e r . 4  -  Through  a survey  of  31  -  the c a s e s where  f r e e d o m was c l a i m e d , i t  appears  which  these cases f a l l :  (1)  Enforcement  Public convenience;  (3)  Game p r e s e r v a t i o n ;  (2)  school  attendance;  and ( 6 )  Public  A.  Enforcement  federal For of  the  the c o u r t s  of  of  Sunday  closing  (4)  and o f  laws;  Compulsory  public  health;  number  s o u r c e of  of  c o n f l i c t s in that  cases that  has been  closing  between  is  presented  statutes.5  approached these problems w i t h powers  area  the  provincial  and  governments. more t h a n  the p r o v i n c e s  Profanation  thirty  to  Canada  statutes  of  in 1903,  government  Day  observance  An A c t  in  right  the  the c r i m i n a l  was e m b o d i e d  in  law  revised  1897.6 Council  criminal law,  the O n t a r i o  Legislature.7  renounce the  the  of  the  remained  to P r e v e n t  w h i c h was p a r t  of  d i d not  renounce  statute,  the P r i v y  l e g i s l a t i o n was a m a t t e r of  the C o n f e d e r a t i o n  even b e f o r e C o n f e d e r a t i o n ,  the p r o v i n c e  jurisdiction  after  l e g i s l a t e on Sunday  o f The L o r d ' s  However,  years  The O n t a r i o  o f Upper  not  life  Sunday  in  C l o s i n g Laws  the d i v i s i o n of  unchallenged.  did  are s i x c a t e g o r i e s  of  i n r e l a t i o n to Sunday  the c o u r t s  perspective  P r o t e c t i o n of  i s a constant  s u b s t a n t i a t e d by  Generally  there  religious  morality  That there  before  (5)  that  the defence of  held that therefore But  p o s s i b i l i t y to  p o s s i b i l i t y to  intervene  the  such beyond  the  Ontario  intervene by a n o t h e r  by way.  It  was  thought  that  the  -  32  -  incapacity  of  the  legislation  in criminal matters  legislation  in r e l a t i o n with  I n 1905 in-council questions  a special  to  a a  labour.  Court  t h e Supreme  to e n a c t  c o u l d be b y p a s s e d t h r o u g h  c a s e was r e f e r r e d by t h e  t h e Supreme  that  province  for  Court  governor  consideration.8  was a s k e d t o  general-  Among  the  a n s w e r was one  so  formulated: Has a p r o v i n c e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o l e g i s l a t e p r o h i b i t i n g o r r e g u l a t i n g l a b o u r so as t o p r e v e n t any w o r k , b u s i n e s s o r l a b o u r f r o m b e i n g p e r f o r m e d w i t h i n t h e p r o v i n c e upon t h e f i r s t day o f t h e w e e k , commonly c a l l e d " S u n d a y " e x c e p t work o f n e c e s s i t y o r m e r c y " . . . " . 9 The  majority  of  t h e Supreme  Court  gave  an a n s w e r  t h a t was  quite  clear: I t a p p e a r s t o us t h a t t h e d a y , commonly c a l l e d Sunday, or the S a b b a t h , or the L o r d ' s Day, i s r e c o g n i z e d i n a l l C h r i s t i a n c o u n t r i e s as an e x i s t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n , and t h a t l e g i s l a t i o n having f o r i t s o b j e c t the compulsory o b s e r v a n c e o f s u c h day o r t h e f i x i n g o f r u l e s o f c o n d u c t ( w i t h t h e u s u a l s a n c t i o n s ) t o be f o l l o w e d on t h a t d a y , i s l e g i s l a t i o n p r o p e r l y f a l l i n g w i t h i n t h e v i e w s e x p r e s s e d by t h e J u d i c i a l Committee i n the Hamilton S t r e e t R a i l w a y r e f e r e n c e and i s w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Dominion Parliament."10 Again, titled invalid  i n 1911,  an " A c t by  i n Quimet v .  r e s p e c t i n g the observance  t h e Supreme  The Quebec s t a t u t e performances  Court  contained  on S u n d a y .  had been c h a r g e d w i t h p l a c e open t o  Bazin  the  The  a Quebec l e g i s l a t i o n of  Sunday",  as an i n t r u s i o n i n t o  prohibiting  appellant,  a proprietor  p u b l i c on S u n d a y s .  pictures  declared  criminal  provisions  e x h i b i t i n g moving  was  law.**  theatrical of a cinema,  and k e e p i n g  The A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l  his  for  -  Quebec a r g u e d t h a t Lord's  Day  Act  provinces of  to  observed  provinces  a power  that  accept that  that to  from  The examined  of  i n 1925  the P r i v y  Canada  v.  A.G.  making  it  lawful  The P r i v y  for  power  Act  such  d i d not  to  the  then  majority  to  "declare  might  of  Day  be  e x c u r s i o n s was  statute  was an i m p e r m i s s i b l e d e l e g a t i o n  Alliance statute  vires  the  to p r o p e r t y  to c o n s i d e r whether pursuant  of  questioned.*4  was i n t r a  unnecessary  was  a Manitoba  as l e g i s l a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n  i t was  the  the  provinces  In L o r d ' s  validity  the  Act  to  for  give but  the  act".^  Council. the  The  Davies J . ,  by t h e D o m i n i o n  t o c o n d u c t Sunday held that  Day  conferred  Manitoba,  Legislature  rights.15  statute  by  Council  Provincial civil  of  delegation  observance.12  a c t i v i t i e s on Sunday  prohibited  the o p e r a t i o n  i n 1906 c o n f e r r e d  contention.  the L o r d ' s  prohibit  an a c t o r t h i n g  exempted  the Parliament  l e g i s l a t e on S u n d a y  d i d not  instance,  -  l e g i s l a t i o n was v a l i d c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t  e n a c t e d by  power  the Court  the  33  to  and the  the Lord's  Day  Act. In  1959  Columbia,  in Lord's  t h e Supreme  delegation.16 validity Charter the  of  city  sports, city  of  Court  d i d not  a B r i t i s h Columbia the C i t y  other  to  than  horse-racing,  and w h i c h b u t  the  v.  A.G.  of  question  amendment  British of  d e c i d e upon  which proposed  Such  t o amend  would  and  that  the  this  might  within  be p l a y e d  in  c e r t a i n hours  s e c t i o n w o u l d be  the the  authorize  s p e c i f y i n g p u b l i c games  reward, for  avoid  statute  pass a bylaw  or  Canada  c o u r t was a s k e d t o  of V a n c o u v e r .  gain or prize  afternoons,  A l l i a n c e of  in t h i s case the  council  "for  Day  on  Sunday  unlawful  -  under" Act  ...  "The  Lord's  Day  allowed a provincial  exemptions.18 issue  of  Rand J .  improper  34  -  Act".17  S e c t i o n 6(1)  of  l e g i s l a t u r e to p r o v i d e  expressed  the  for  the L o r d ' s  Day  such  following opinion  about  the  delegation:  I t was a r g u e d f i n a l l y t h a t t h e e f f e c t o f t h e e x c e p t i o n i s to c r e a t e a d e l e g a t i o n of dominion power t o t h e p r o v i n c e c o n t r a r y t o t h e h o l d i n g o f t h i s C o u r t i n A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f Nova S c o t i a v . Attorney General f o r Canada. The i d e a o f d e l e g a t i o n a r i s e s from a m i s c o n c e p t i o n of the o p e r a t i o n of s . 6 . The l e g i s l a t i v e e f f i c a c y i n p r o h i b i t i n g t h e a c t i v i t y named i s t h a t s o l e l y o f P a r l i a m e n t ; the e f f e c t of the e x c e p t i o n i s t o d e c l a r e t h a t i n the presence of a p r o v i n c i a l enactment of the a p p r o p r i a t e c h a r a c t e r the scope of s . 6 a u t o m a t i c a l l y ceases to extend to the p r o v i n c i a l a r e a c o v e r e d by t h a t e n a c t m e n t T h a t P a r l i a m e n t c a n so l i m i t t h e o p e r a t i o n o f i t s own l e g i s l a t i o n and t h a t i t may do so upon any s u c h e v e n t o r c o n d i t i o n i s n o t open t o s e r i o u s debate.19 The all.20  opportunity  of  Nevertheless,  over  the y e a r s  have  dealt  the  and t h e  above  s u c h an a p p r o a c h  statutes  and o f m u n i c i p a l  Sunday.  It  legislatures Already municipal billiard  the  rooms  until  7:00  a.m.  other  day  until  b y l a w was t h e n  of  courts  the conduct of  provincial  a c t i v i t i e s on  that  the  provincial  p e o p l e on  Sunday.  i n Re F i s c h e r a n d V i l l a g e o f Carman  providing shall  unchallenged  and s u b s t a n c e o f  by t h e  that  "all  l i c e n s e d pool  be c l o s e d f r o m 8 : 3 0  the  6 a.m.  f o l l o w i n g Monday, of  the  next  c o n s i d e r e d as w i t h i n  p.m.  of  rooms every  a  and Saturday  and f r o m 10 p . m .  d a y " was e x e r c i s e d . 2 1 the  by  closing legislation  ordinances prohibiting  c o u l d not c o n t r o l  bylaw  pith  understood  i n 1905,  been a c c e p t e d  d i s p o s i t i o n has r e m a i n e d  d i s c u s s i o n s on Sunday  a l l with  was n e v e r  has n o t  v a l i d e x e r c i s e of  of The the  every  -  "power  of  r e g u l a t i n g and g o v e r n i n g  conferred along with in  35  the  licensing  t h i s c a s e was u n d o u b t e d l y  a l s o aimed a t  days o t h e r  I n Re G r e g o r y  the  than  and C i t y  -  pool  power".22  fact  Saturday  p l a c e s of  of  amusement  and 8 : 0 0 a . m .  Bachynsky,  of  that  Hamilton,  important  factor  the p r o h i b i t i o n s were  the m u n i c i p a l bylaw  Court  "between  of Appeal  under p e n a l t y  the hours of 11:45  was h e l d v a l i d by t h e M a n i t o b a C o u r t  of  q u o t e d f r o m a c a s e d e c i d e d by t h e P r i v y  I n R^  p.m. v.  r e q u i r e d dance h a l l s of  fine or  Appeal.24 Council  that  prohibited  the f o l l o w i n g Monday".23  even a m u n i c i p a l bylaw t h a t  " r e m a i n c l o s e d on Sunday  The  rooms  Sunday.  was c o n s i d e r e d v a l i d by t h e O n t a r i o opening of  rooms and b i l l i a r d  to  imprisonment" The  Court  i n w h i c h was  said:  [ T ] h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s b y l a w have no r e g a r d t o Sunday o b s e r v a n c e a t l e a s t by t h e p e r s o n s who a r e s u b j e c t t o i t s d i r e c t i o n . T h e r e a r e t i m e s when t h e p u b l i c a t l a r g e w i s h t o be quiet. The r e q u i r e m e n t i s n o t f o r t h e m o r a l c o n d u c t of the p e r s o n s r e q u i r e d to observe i t b u t f o r t h e q u i e t and r e s t o f t h e p e r s o n s e f f e c t e d by i t . " T h e r e i s no d o u b t t h a t i f Sunday w e r e n o t m e n t i o n e d t h e b y l a w c o u l d n o t be q u e s t i o n e d " . . . " . 2 5 The B a c h y n s k i c a s e , legislation Sunday Drapeau  theatres, Sunday  tended to  s t r i k e them d o w n .  Recorder's Court,  (only)  of  amusement,  was h e l d u l t r a v i r e s B i r k s and S o n s  Quebec,  a c t i v i t i e s on  For  instance,  in  a municipal ordinace requiring a l l  c i n e m a s and p l a c e s o f  In H e n r i and A . G .  i s an e x c e p t i o n . U s u a l l y when a  or a m u n i c i p a l bylaw p r o h i b i t e d only  the Court v.  however,  to remain c l o s e d  the C i t y  (Montreal)  Ltd.  the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of  of v.  on  Quebec.26 City  a Quebec  of  Montreal statute  -  authorizing  municipal  on c e r t a i n F e a s t the  statute  Church  into  legislation this  or  the o r d i n a t i o n  commercial  The of  upon f r e e d o m  the L o r d ' s  A c t was n o t  The Q u e e n . 2 9 seriously  Riley J .  of  of  of  t h e Roman  It  was n o t  only  Act  upon  federal  s t r i k e down a  a l e g i s l a t i o n in  The  the A l b e r t a  of  after  Supreme  this  statute.31  of  however,  that  is the  success,  the L o r d ' s  and Day  i n Re  and The Queen h e l d  the Lord's  Day  Riley J . Act  a subject matter  Day  did  not  Act  was  within  a c c o r d i n g to  t o make a c r i m e o f  the  infringed  the L o r d ' s  Moreover,  He s a i d  Rights  it  case.  the P a r l i a m e n t . 3 0  labour,  Act,  but w i t h o u t  Court,  et a l .  jurisdiction.  t h e r e was no r e a s o n i n 1972  of  Day  of  r e l i g i o n i n Robertson  He c o n s i d e r e d t h a t  relation with  observance  Bill  constitutionality  q u e s t i o n whether  provincial  the L o r d ' s  was a t t a c k e d freedom  an  understood,  r e l i g i o n i s under  to  them.  invalid  has been  to  in  Catholic  to o b s e r v e most of  a l s o an  the Canadian  A c t was u l t r a v i r e s on t h e  As  in question  r e l i g i o u s freedom.  a Sunday  but  reason  days.  Merchandise Mart L t d .  L o r d ' d Day  days enumerated  statute  religion.  freedom  Day  infringement  v.  Boardwalk  the  i t was one more  the enactment  of  Rosetanni  exclusive  of  religious feast  as a d i r e c t  pronounce  concluded that  activities  l e g i s l a t i o n d i r e c t l y c o m p e l l i n g the observance  after  validity  J.  Days was c h a l l e n g e d . 2 7  decision, that  provincial  upon  prohibit  the c r i m i n a l m a t t e r s  jurisdiction.28  only  -  and t h e r e was r e l i g i o u s o b l i g a t i o n  intrusion  Sunday  c o u n c i l s to  were w i t h i n  The Supreme C o u r t  since  36  Riley  the v i o l a t i o n  his  I n e n a c t i n g c r i m i n a l l a w , P a r l i a m e n t must be shown t o be a c t i n g i n t h e " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " . . . " . However c l e a r l y t h e p r o f a n a t i o n o f Sunday m i g h t be a g a i n s t t h e C h r i s t i a n r e l i g i o n , i t i s n o t  of  -  37  -  c o n t r a r y t o t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t e i t h e r as a b r e a c h o f r e l i g i o u s d u t y o r as a badge o f t h e n o n - c o n f o r m i n g and u n b e l i e v i n g . The A l b e r t a Supreme C o u r t , decision  of  Riley J .  on a p p e a l ,  of  R o b e r t s o n and R o s e t a n n i  The  v.  recent d e c i s i o n s of  o b s e r v a n c e have r e v i v e d  the  t h e Supreme C o u r t  Day  the  p e r s p e c t i v e of  violation  of  and R o s e t a n n i  the o p i n i o n of  f o r making a c r i m e the  The C a n a d i a n B i l l  of  Rights  s e p a r a t i o n of  human r i g h t s .  observance But before  powers  issue  i s not  are  the o n l y  in connection with  Riley  to put  that  the  in  some  there  is  shift  t h e f o c u s on  no Day from the  accentuate  in  but w i t h  such  tell,  days of  his  that  the L o r d ' s  has come t o  Time w i l l  i s quite possible that  the c o u r t s  The Queen  had i n i t i a t e d t h e  The C h a r t e r  l e g i s l a t i o n s i n Canada  this  v.  v i o l a t i o n of  a s i g n i f i c a n t way t h i s o r i e n t a t i o n . an a p p r o a c h i t  in  Sunday  i n f r i n g e s upon r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m . 3 3  have n o t f o r g o t t e n  Act.34  Canada  i d e a e x p r e s s e d by C a r t w r i g h t J .  the L o r d ' s  justification  of  t h e C a n a d i a n c o u r t s on  opinion i n Robertson  judges  the  Queen.32  dissenting  Act  reversed  and e x p l a i n e d t h e r e was no j u s t i f i c a t i o n i n  not f o l l o w i n g the d e c i s i o n  The  however,  Sunday  numbered.  one t h a t w i l l a defense of  be  presented  religious  freedom. B.  P u b l i c Convenience  The  p r o t e c t i o n of  the p u b l i c a g a i n s t n o i s e ,  and o t h e r  annoyances i s o f t e n  levels  government.  in  of  the e f f o r t  citizens  made t o  soilicitations  an o b j e c t i v e p u r s u e d by  M u n i c i p a l i t i e s are often s e c u r e a good q u a l i t y  of  different  a t the life  for  front  line  the  b u t e v e n t h e C r i m i n a l Code c o n t a i n s p r o v i s i o n s d e s t i n e d  -  to  accomplish the  religious religion  same e f f e c t .  a c t i v i t i e s i s not comes  into  38  -  On  the  always  c o n f l i c t with  other  quiet. those  hand,  the e x e r c i s e  On o c c a s i o n f r e e d o m  l e g i s l a t i o n s , bylaws  of of  or  ordinances. In Saumur  this v.  area there  City  cases.35  yet  dealt with  of  are  several  cases that  Quebec i s p r o b a b l y  many c a s e s b e f o r e  the c o n f l i c t of  the  c a n be  b e s t known  and a f t e r  of  t h e Saumur  p u b l i c convenience  and t h e  activities.  They c a n i n d i c a t e how C a n a d i a n  manage  give  the  room t o  s u c h a r i g h t was n o t they the  are a v i v i d courts' In  of  1884,  in City  municipal  bylaw bell,  that  playing  trumpets  hymns and p l a y i n g  good f a i t h differently, decided In bylaw  tambourines  simply,  some y e a r s  was t h e  Above a l l  has  affected  members  of  the  violation  i n the  city  that  the  could  Salvation  the Court,  the C r e a t o r . 3 7  v i s i o n of  the  their  and c r e a t i n g n o i s e of  in  all  Quite  an O n t a r i o C o u r t  i n a case  later.  the C r i b b i n c a s e ,  the C i t y  s a i d t o be i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h  of  T o r o n t o had t o  t h e management  a  except  p e r m i s s i o n of  stated  of  by  loud instruments  o p i n i o n of  p r a i s e to  when  freedom.  from the  t h o s e members  i n the  expressing their however,  or other  i n h i s judgment,  c o n v i c t i o n of  They w e r e  Madden,  ceremonies without  chanting  Army.36  v.  p r o h i b i t e d making n o i s e  De M o n t i g n y J . ,  the  religious  c h a r g e d and a c q u i t t e d  r e l i g i o u s and m i l i t a r y  l e a d to  of  of  judges  r e l i g i o u s freedom  inconsistency that  of Montreal  mayor".  not  the  of  have  practice  i n the C o n s t i t u t i o n .  d e c i s i o n s in matters  Army were  in  entrenched  example  Salvation  "ringing  expression  those  decision  religious to  examined.  of  defend  a  parks.38  -  The  bylaw  place. for  to  any  -  p r e a c h i n g on a S a b b a t h  The Q u e e n ' s B e n c h D i v i s i o n  Ontario,  that not  prohibited  39  the  i n answer  bylaw  d i d not  unreasonable.39 the  bylaw  its  the  violate  reasonable  had t h e  streets  at  power  the High  a p p l i c a t i o n of  The C o u r t  municipality even  to  of  d i d not  refer  the expense  regulate  of  freedom  It  of  right  to a n y t h i n g  public  Justice  a tax-payer,  held and was that  was assumed t h a t  activites of  i n any  Court  any c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  character. to  day  gave  the  in i t s parks  and  r e l i g i o n and f r e e d o m  of  speech.40 It  seems t h a t  religious the  freedom  after  and m a t t e r s  1 9 4 0 s and 1 9 5 0 s .  i n Canada a zeal  provoked  except  much u p h e a v a l . 4 1  i n Quebec,  Jehovah's  d i d not  r e s t r i c t the  v.  Kite  distributed prohibiting  really  freedom bylaw  the  but  the  In Court  with  to  who with  in  the attempt  religious activities  c o n v i c t i o n of  a Jehovah's  r e l i g i o u s pamphlets, distribution  t a k e n on t h e on t h e  referred  include  courts,  support  of  contrary  to  fact  b a s i s of that  of  of  v. the  that  was  d e c i s i o n was religious  and t h e r e f o r e  did  in  the  not  appellant.4^  N a i s h s i m i l a r f a c t s were difference  The  streets,  the p r o h i b i t i o n s contained  the  for  to a m u n i c i p a l  interference with  " a d v e r t i s i n g matter"  a c t i v i t i e s of  Witness  h a n d b i l l s on t h e  q u a s h e d by a B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a C o u n t y C o u r t . 4 2 not  Witnesses  preaching a c t i v i t i e s  Canadian  give  around  Witnesses.  In  bylaw  between  p u b l i c inconvenience arose  Most cases i n v o l v e d J e h o v a h ' s  some m u n i c i p a l i t i e s t o  having  of  and e l s e w h e r e c a r r i e d on t h e i r  that  general,  the C r i b b i n c a s e , c o n f l i c t s  presented  before  t h e r e was a S a s k a t c h e w a n  the Bill  Police of  -  Rights of  p r o t e c t i n g freedom of  40  -  religion.44  ...  recalled  r e l i g i o n was n o t p r o t e c t e d by t h e common l a w b u t  Saskatchewan B i l l  of  Rights  he  that  freedom  i n view  of  the  said:  I f e e l sure t h a t the C o u r t s i n Canada, at l e a s t , w h e r e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s t a t u t e h a s been p a s s e d , w o u l d be a s v i g i l a n t as a p p a r e n t l y a r e t h e C o u r t s o f A u s t r a l i a and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o f America i n p r o t e c t i n g the freedom of r e l i g i o n and w o r s h i p t o i t s f u l l e s t e x t e n t i n a l l i t s l e g i t i m a t e p r a c t i c e s and i n m a k i n g i t a v a i l a b l e to a l l . If the C o u r t s were t o l i m i t from t i m e t o t i m e any p a r t i c u l a r r e l i g i o u s p r a c t i c e o r p r a c t i c e s and say y o u c a n do t h i s b u t n o t t h a t , t h e n t o do so m i g h t g r a d u a l l y w h i t t l e down and endanger the whole s t r u c t u r e of freedom o f r e l i g i o n and w o r s h i p . T h u s a t i m e m i g h t come when s u c h f r e e d o m o f r e l i g i o n and w o r s h i p had b e e n w h i t t l e d away t o s u c h an e v e n t t h a t i t w o u l d become a mere w i t h e r e d b r a n c h i n s t e a d o f t h e s t u r d y oak i t s h o u l d be i n a d e m o c r a t i c country. P r o b a b l y t h e f i r s t r e l i g i o n t o be a f f e c t e d by s u c h w h i t t l i n g down w o u l d be t h e m i n o r i t y and l e s s p o p u l a r g r o u p . 4 5 This can of  is a clear have.46  But even w i t h o u t  the e f f e c t  a bill  that a b i l l  or r i g h t s  of  rights  i n Saumur v .  City  Quebec some j u d g e s have e x p r e s s e d t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f r e l i g i o u s  freedom  i n the  Saumur c a s e , It  i l l u s t r a t i o n of  i s less  national  the Freedom  certain that  life.47  it  i s true  also that  in  the  o f W o r s h i p A c t was a p p l i c a b l e t o  Quebec.  i t c o u l d be i n v o k e d b e s i d e s Q u e b e c  and  Ontario.48 However t h e A l b e r t a C o u r t Worship Act  of  charged with appellant reserve  to  1851  of  Appeal  r e f e r e d to  to quash the c o n v i c t i o n of  an o f f e n s e  of  t h e Freedom  a missionary  t r e s p a s s i n g an I n d i a n  reserve.49  The  had been i n v i t e d by an I n d i a n woman who l i v e d on a h o l d a r e l i g i o u s s e r v i c e i n h e r home.  t h e band had r e f u s e d a p e r m i t t o  the a p p e l l a n t .  The c o u n c i l The  latter  of  went  of  -  into  the  reserve without  was r e f u s e d a p e r m i t . the  r i g h t of  41  -  authorization  The C o u r t  the a p p e l l a n t  from t h e c o u n c i l  after  then expressed the o p i n i o n  and t h e  r i g h t of  h i s h o s t had  he that  to  prevail: The r i g h t t o p r e a c h and t e a c h t h e g o s p e l as w e l l as t o h e a r i t p r e a c h e d and t a u g h t , i s recognized in a free s o c i e t y " . . . " . In my o p i n i o n t h i s i n c l u d e s t h e r i g h t o f one who p r e a c h e s o r t e a c h e s t o a c c e p t an i n v i t a t i o n f o r t h i s p u r p o s e f r o m a p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s , who d e s i r e t o h e a r and l e a r n , t o i n v i t e him o r them i n t h e i r r e s i d e n c e s i n o r d e r t o do s o . 5 0 The  notion  religious previously  of  b e l i e f s that by  offer  the  was a r t i c u l a t e d i n t h i s i n t h e Saumur  c o u l d be p u t  right  Indeed,  to  on t h e C a n a d i a n B i l l  provincial  1950s.  But,  W i t n e s s e s were  municipal  the  t h e member  Consciousness  often  that  taken  often  o r d i n a n c e s and b y l a w s . obvious  of  of  in United of  States  a  was  Rights  in  religous  had n o t h i n g  to  l e g i s l a t i o n s and m u n i c i p a l  s i n c e t h e 1970s members o f  particularly right  there  hand.  problem.  to  court with  charges  o r d i n a n c e s on s o l i c i t a t i o n i n t h e 1 9 4 0 s  f o r K r i s h n a C o n s c i o u s n e s s have the m u n i c i p a l  announce  one hand and r e l i g i o u s f r e d o m on t h e o t h e r  Jehovah's of  for  or Rights  The H a r r o l d c a s e i s an i l l u s t r a t i o n o f  violation  However,  p r e a c h and s o l i c i t  of  d e c i s i o n and  c a s e seemed t o  i n Canada.  the Canadian B i l l  i n c o n f l i c t s between  b y l a w s on t h e  a l l o w i n g the e x p r e s s i o n  r e l i g i o u s freedom  n o t much hope t h a t respect with  society  some j u d g e s  g o l d e n age f o r  purposes.  free  the  International  run i n t o The  International  and  Society  d i f f i c u l t i e s with  phenomenon  where  of  several  Society  for  is cases  involve  Krishna  -  42 -  (ISKCON)  to practice their religious  chanting  praises) in public  In of  v.  Harrold,  a bylaw of the C i t y  activities  (soliciting  places.51  t h e d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d w i t h a v i o l a t i o n of Vancouver t h a t  p r o h i b i t e d anyone  m a k i n g n o i s e i n s u c h a manner a s t o d i s t u r b t h e q u i e t , or enjoyment or  member o f t h e ISKCON w i t h corners i n the C i t y  message, the  offer  Crown b r o u g h t they  members'  Darling J .  to d e l i v e r h i s r e l i g i o u s sounds w i t h The  religion  on a p p e a l , t h e B r i t i s h  i t was an o c c a s i o n  Columbia Court  the law of the Tysoe J . A .  federal  of Appeal  a p p l i c a t i o n t h a t was  freedom o r to c o n t r o l  o f any g r o u p i n V a n c o u v e r . 5 5 f o r the Court  freedom of r e l i g i o n  Once  to r e f e r to the o p i n i o n of  i n West V i r g i n i a B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n  concluded that  of  was a m a t t e r o f  t h e b y l a w was a l a w o f g e n e r a l  J.  Court  t h e b y l a w was n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e  group a c t i v i t i e s  Frankfurter  had s t o o d a t some  of t h e County  i n any way d i r e c t e d t o r e l i g i o u s  again,  a  drum and two o r t h r e e c y m b a l s . 5 3  freedom of  and t h a t  defendants.54  it  of Vancouver  jhe accused,  had been d i s t u r b e d i n t h e i r work by t h e ISKCON  jurisdiction  religious  rest  t h e t e s t i m o n y o f s e v e r a l members o f t h e p u b l i c who  activities.54  decided that  peace,  hymns and c h a n t i n g t h e i r t r a n s c e n d e n t a l  Vancouver held that  not  some c o r e l i g i o n i s t s  accompaniment of a small  alleged  from  of the neighbourhood, o r of persons i n the v i c i n i t y ,  the comfort or convenience of the p u b l i c . 5 2  street  or  v.  B a r n e t t e and  d i d n o t p l a c e anyone  beyond  land. who d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t  I n my o p i n i o n t h e members o f a l l r e l i g i o u s c o m m u n i t i e s when i n V a n c o u v e r a s w e l l a s o t h e r  said:  -  43  -  p e r s o n s , m u s t obey t h e b y l a w . The r i g h t t o freedom of r e l i g i o n does n o t p e r m i t a n y o n e , a c t i n g under the u m b r e l l a of h i s r e l i g i o u s t e a c h i n g s and p r a c t i c e s , t o v i o l a t e t h e l a w o f t h e l a n d , w h e t h e r t h a t l a w be f e d e r a l , p r o v i n c i a l or m u n i c i p a l " . . . " . 5 6 It that  will  be r e a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g t o  refused to grant  react eventually  leave to  appeal  s e e how t h e Supreme  i n the H a r r o l d case w i l l  i n c o n s i d e r i n g the Charter  cases.  T h e r e a r e c e r t a i n l y two t a s k s t h a t  courts'  intervention:  (1)  When d o e s t h e a d o p t i o n o f  i n those types are w a i t i n g  for  religion?  Saumur c a s e and i t issue (2)  Even i f  it  i s an i n f r i n g e m e n t ,  These  the q u e s t i o n s t h a t  a r e some o f  to outdoor  activities  that  ordinances  and b y l a w s t h a t  In  in  i s undue o r  to d e t e r m i n e  upon the the  the c i t i z e n s .  be n e c e s s a r y  to  not. have t o  the e x t e n t  religious activities.  are l i k e l y  i n t e r e s t other C.  in  to  i s no c o n c l u s i o n on  it will  it  associated  major  there  e s t a b l i s h whether  of  the  yet.  in order  with  q u e s t i o n was d i s c u s s e d  appears t h a t  the c o u r t s  quiet  This  of  a m u n i c i p a l bylaw d e s t i n e d  s e c u r e p u b l i c p e a c e and o r d e r c o n s t i t u t e i n f r i n g e m e n t freedom of  Court  of It  be a n s w e r e d  freedom t h a t  by  c a n be  i s these kinds  of  t o come i n t o c o n f l i c t w i t h m u n i c i p a l are d e s t i n e d to  But  protect  t h e p e a c e and  r e l i g i o u s a c t i v i t i e s c a n come t o  than a matter  of  grips  public convenience.  Game P r e s e r v a t i o n the  recent years,  concern for  danger,  the p r o t e c t i o n of  governments.57  the  i n an e f f o r t  many l e g i s l a t i o n s have been a d o p t e d  f a u n a h a s been a to and  preserve the  species  -  courts  -  have g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f  measures adopted to It  that  i s not o f t e n  plaintiff  protect wild l i f e .  in  r e l a t i o n with  that  issue  the accused w e r e ,  a deer " a t  though  r e l i g i o n i s i n v o k e d by a a legislation  at  is  v.  first,  of  the B . C .  Columbia Court  of  Jack  and C h a r l i e . 5 9  c o n v i c t e d of  Wildlife Act.60  Appeal  hunting  Columbia Court  Court  observed,  legislation So, example to  of  however, general  the B r i t i s h  had t o k i l l  of  Appeal  that  Frankfurter  J.  permeated the  the deer f o r  dismissal  the Indian  of  the  their religion  following  r e f u s e d to grant  In b o t h c a s e s ,  the C o u r t . 6 4  The  i s not  the  a special  status  the p r i n c i p l e set v.  mind,  a v a l i d excuse a l l o w i n g The C o u r t  Nevertheless,  the Court  by  Barnette  In t h e j u d g e s '  t h e p r a c t i c e i n q u e s t i o n was a c e n t r a l  people accused.65  in  enacted.63  Appeal,  of a charge a g a i n s t a defendant.  understood that  use  people.61  i n West V i r g i n i a B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n  r e l i g i o u s freedom  the  t h e W i l d l i f e A c t was a p r o v i n c i a l  Columbia Court  reasoning of  to  their ancestors.62  application validly  r e l i g i o u s freedom d e f e n c e .  this  killing  acknowledged t h a t  f r e s h meat f o r  set i n the H a r r o l d c a s e ,  defence of  and  on a p p e a l ,  d e f e n d a n t s w e r e e n g a g e d i n a bona f i d e p r a c t i c e o f r e q u i r e d them t o b u r n  In  law  u p h e l d t h e i r c o n v i c t i o n even  the a p p e l l a n t s argued they  The B r i t i s h  destined  i s known i n C a n a d i a n  a r e l i g i o u s c e r e m o n y p r a c t i s e d by C o a s t S a l i s h  that  governmental  a t i m e n o t w i t h i n t h e open s e a s o n " c o n t r a r y  paragraph 4 ( l ) ( c ) British  freedom of  The o n l y c a s e t h a t  that  the  effect.58  to c i r c u m v e n t the p r o v i s i o n s of  to  case,  44  the  the  quite feature did  not  of  -  proceed to burden the  any  that  balancing test  45  in order  such a p r a c t i c e put  preservation  the m a j o r i t y  of  of  the  the  deer  -  to e s t a b l i s h the  on t h e  interest  population.  of  the  Taggart J . A .  real state  in  said  with  Court:  [ W ] h i l e freedom of r e l i g i o n i s a fundamental r i g h t , t h e a u t h o r i t y b i n d i n g upon us makes i t c l e a r t h a t t h e f r e e d o m m u s t be e x e r c i s e d i n accordance with the general l a w " . . . " . 6 6 There  i s now underway  values which w i l l hunting  of  especially religious D. It that But  also  n e c e s s i t y of  freedom  is  Compulsory has  citizen  i n the  also for  society statutes have  to  provide  face those  been a p r i o r i t y  adopted  Appeal  in g e n e r a l . 7 0  for  has  the  avoided,  the  of  there  in connection with  they  for  parents  not only  will  as w e l l  they  to  of  out  have  are children  i n an  American  concern for for  be a b l e t o there  ensure  education.68  ensure that  is a legitimate  the minimal  Generally  there  i t was p o i n t e d  its citizens  I n Canada  states  a c q u i r e minimal  d e s t i n e d to As  the c o n t r i b u t i o n  alternatives  of  issues that  i n d u s t r i a l i z e d country  Yoder,  education  receive.71  to  Attendance  receive a basic education.69  state  in relation  areas.67  has t h e c h a n c e t o  provisions  Wisconsisn v.  only  a b a l a n c i n g t e s t when a' d e f e n s e  School  now i n a l m o s t e v e r y  case,  not  and c u l t u r a l  raised.  not always  legislative  but  to  spiritual  courts  the B r i t i s h Columbia Court the  every  native  the  in other  c o u r t s m u s t be r e a d y  majority  of  l i k e l y engage  i s s u e s but  The  a revival  bring  are  education  their  the  own  sake  to  several that  children  also provisions  who do n o t w a n t t o  send  that their  -  children parents  to  public schools.72  i s to  satisfactory It  norms o f  education  area  he g i v e s the  that  -  Usually,  what i s r e q u i r e d  have a c e r t i f i c a t i o n t h a t  i s understandable  education  46  from a p r i v a t e  that  to  a parent  a child  government  at  are not  reasons,  tutor  receives a  or a p r i v a t e  can have t h e  school.73  idea that  the  home i s s u f f i c i e n t w h i l e  the  however  c o n f l i c t s a r i s e between  purposes or other  the c h i l d  from  refuse  satisfied.  p a r e n t s who, to  It  for  is in  this  religious  send t h e i r c h i l d r e n  to  school. Generally provinces  the c o u r t s  not  to pass l e g i s l a t i o n d to  or  to  is  even p o s s i b l e f o r  the  have  force  parents  requirement  of  to  give  law,  compel  the  power o f  c h i l d r e n to  the  attend  school  them a s a t i s f a c t o r y e d u c a t i o n . 7 4  a goverment,  the  questioned  to  when n o t h i n g  remove  i s done  the c h i l d  to  from the  it  satisfy parents  custody. In P e r e p o l k i n v . committed truancy corpus  to  Superintendent  the Superintendent  from s c h o o l .  His  of  parents  Appeal.75  The  p a r e n t s , members  the P u b l i c School Act compelling  them t o  to  C h i l d Welfare brought  violated  of  g i v e much w e i g h t  an a c t i o n i n  r e l i g i o u s freedom.  order.  their  arguments of  argued  i t was a t  to  One  of  habeas  of  the judges  said  that  ultra  a time  The C o u r t  the p l a i n t i f f in that  of  by  s c h o o l and was  in B r i t i s h Columbia.  was  The  r e l i g i o u s freedom  rights the  because  the Doukhoubors,  send t h e i r c h i l d r e n t o  of  a child  the B r i t i s h Columbia Court  the B r i t i s h Columbia L e g i s l a t u r e . 7 6  t h e r e was no b i l l not  Child Welfare,  and c e r t i o r a r i t o q u a s h t h e c o m m i t t a l  a p p l i c a t i o n was i n t r o d u c e d b e f o r e  vires  of  in  where did  regard  respect:  -  47  -  I , f o r my p a r t , c a n n o t f e e l t h a t i n t h i s c a s e t h e r e i s any r e l i g i o u s e l e m e n t i n v o l v e d i n t h e true legal sense. D o u k h o b o u r s o b j e c t t o e d u c a t i o n on s e c u l a r m a t t e r s b e i n g s e p a r a t e d f r o m e d u c a t i o n on spiritual matters. T h i s c l e a r l y t o my m i n d i n v o l v e s t h e c l a i m t h a t a r e l i g i o u s s e c t may make r u l e s f o r t h e c o n d u c t o f any p a r t o f human a c t i v i t e s and t h a t t h e s e r u l e s t h e r e b y become f o r a l l t h e w o r l d a p a r t o f that sect's religon. T h i s c a n n o t be s o . 7 7 Furthermore,  the Court  recalled  that  t h e p r o v i n c e h a d power  t o l e g i s l a t e on e d u c a t i o n a n d t h e p r o v i s i o n s c h a l l e n g e d w e r e to e x c l u d e a r i g h t of the a p p e l l a n t s to withdraw from  valid  their children  school.78 It  i s i n t e r e s t i n g to observe  s o l u t i o n was f o u n d u n d e r separation In  of  the t r a d i t i o n a l  Wiebe,  however,  u s e d by a d e f e n d a n t  governmental  legislation  before  c h u r c h members,  Bill  o f R i g h t s was  charged w i t h a breach of t h e  on c o m p u l s o r y e d u c a t i o n . 8 0  the P r o v i n c i a l Court  C h u r c h o f God ( M e n n o n i t e ) .  1970,  p r o v i s i o n of the  the A l b e r t a  successfully  R.S.A.  i t i s a c a s e where t h e  powers.79  v.  brought  that  j h e c a s e was  a n d i n v o l v e d a member o f t h e  The d e f e n d a n t ,  like  was c h a r g e d i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n  forty-four  other  of the School A c t ,  c . 3 2 9 , f o r having not sent h i s c h i l d r e n under the  age o f s i x t e e n a n d o v e r  six years  Minister  The M e n n o n i t e p a r e n t s had o p e n e d t h e i r own  school their  of E d u c a t i o n .  because they  childrens values  beliefs. contravene of  felt  Rights  that  t o a s c h o o l a p p r o v e d by t h e  t h e p u b l i c s y s t e m was i n c u l c a t i n g t o  t h a t were not i n l i n e w i t h  their religious  P e n a l t i e s w e r e s e t up a g a i n s t p a r e n t s who w o u l d t o t h e p r o v i s i o n o f t h e S c h o o l A c t and t h e A l b e r t a c o n t a i n e d a p r o v i s i o n p r o t e c t i n g freedom of  Bill  religion.  -  The  accused argued b e f o r e  the c o n t r o l that  48  -  the C o u r t  on t h e e d u c a t i o n o f  their  he w i t h h e l d h i s c h i l d r e n f r o m  influence  students  and t e a c h e r s ,  cases  i l l u s t r a t i n g the c h a r a c t e r of  After  guaranteed  by  v.  the Court  s e c t i o n 2 of  Wiebe  application  the Education  of  a bill  of  c l e a r l y said  be r e s t r i c t e d t o Nevertheless,  the  Act  Bill  of  the  particualr facts proceeded to  law  of  cases  the  land.  dealing with  Hildebrand,  supra,  parents  right  the  study  to  governing  those c a s e s . 8 5  p l a y e d an i m p o r t a n t of  the  role  religion  their point  be  by Rand J . to  should  of  in  practice  state  sure,  the  one's  i s part  i n s t a n c e R^  of  of  the  that  some  v.  had d e n i e d  to  c h i l d r e n from p u b l i c s c h o o l s . that  The C o u r t  t h e r e was no b i l l  recalled that  i n the e d u c a t i o n of  the Mennonites'  the  position  had t o a c k n o w l e d g e  l e g i s l a t i o n for  remove  o b s e r v e d on t h a t  survival  right  the  or the P e r e p o l k i n c a s e , s u p r a ,  The C o u r t  the  the Court  truancy  To  an e x h a u s t i v e  i n t e r f e r e n c e of  However,  court.  it.83  the  guilty  Rights.82  observed that  i s s i n c e 1760  undue  religious  in  r e l i g i o n i n C a n a d a was s u m m a r i z e d  without  It  the  accused not  presented  freedom of  religion  off  r u l i n g s made i n t h i s c a s e  r e l i g i o n i n Canada.  That  bad  i n t e r e s t i n g case i l l u s t r a t i n g  freedom of  Saumur c a s e . 8 4  the  d e n i e d him f r e e d o m o f  r i g h t s by a C a n a d i a n  that  the Court  the  have  explained  having examined  found  the A l b e r t a  i s another  He a l s o  a defense of  the A l b e r t a P r o v i n c i a l C o u r t  basis that  R.  children.  should  r a d i o and t e l e v i s i o n ( i n  e x e r c i s e d on h i s c h i l d r e n . 8 1  on t h e  parents  school because of  hours)  freedom,  that  community.  their  of  rights  beliefs  t h e i r c h i l d r e n and The C o u r t  did  not  in  -  proceed  to  surely  an o v e r t  49  -  and s y s t e m a t i c  i m p l i c i t when  it  balance  of  interests  but  it  was  said:  "The a c c u s e d i n t h i s c a s e has c o m m i t t e d no r e a l crime. He h a s n o t r e f u s e d t o s e n d h i s c h i l d t o s c h o o l , only to a p a r t i c u l a r s c h o o l , w h e r e , among o t h e r f a c t o r s t h a t a r e a b h o r r e n t t o h i s r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s , he s a y s , t h e t e a c h e r s a r e i n d o c t r i n a t e d i n a l i b e r a l v a l u e system u n a c c e p t a b l e to him o r h i s c h u r c h . 8 6 The  liberal  stronger  legal  interest  of  basis  the  little  about  impact  in a long  is  the  a case which  orientation  approach if  state  in this  kind of  can t a k e  freedom  r e l i g i o n that  Protection  In  v.  The  Jack  In  r e s t r i c t when judge  the  of  Canadian  of  The the  of  Court  child.  in applying But  and o f  flow  from  is  i n the to  protection  it  a bill  i s not  Public  interest  of  seriously  of  and h e a l t h  balancing test,  considered that  the  that matter.89  However,  life  times,  and h e a l t h  of  other  areas  that  of  there  the  public  harmfull of  other  referring  are  State  order.87 to  others.88  people, to  a  has a h i g h p r i o r i t y  l e g i s l a t i o n destined  people.90  this  liberal  that  i s a l s o an a r e a w h e r e  clash with  its  expected.  out  the  conduct  state  and  rights  in all  pointed  even w i t h o u t  at  of  the  very  receive  the  religious beliefs  life  said  to  a  Health  have g e n e r a l l y ,  it  have g a i n e d  Neverthless,  i n d i c a t i o n of  courts  beliefs,  has  c h i l d would  the  and C h a r l i e a j u d g e  it  c o u r t would  s u c h an a p p r o a c h may be  Life  was r e f e r r i n g  areas  life  freedom.  many p r a c t i c e s w h i c h must  case.  i s an i n t e r e s t i n g  courts  the  had p a i d more a t t e n t i o n  education  r u n on t h e  religious  E.  by  the C o u r t  protecting of  adopted  in  religious to  safeguard  -  It to  is quite  uncommon  50  that  -  an a d h e r e n t  harm p e o p l e p h y s i c a l l y on a c c o u n t o f  When  in  v.  Jack  and C h a r l i e ,  rite  quite  of  an e x t r e m e  illustrates of  human  human  well  one o f used,  religious  the  c o u l d not  a human l i f e v.  have  practise  known  it  was  example  for  the  preservation  to  is  that  the  religious activity  Cyrenne  and Cramb,  minister,  hemolytic  to  the  were  a 12-year old g i r l  a hospital  therapy  a balancing test  be a c c e p t e d by c o u r t s when i t  of  auto-immune  c a s e s where  of  Cyrenne,  death  where  blood  they  The  to  criminal  suffered  accused  had been t o l d  transfusion  parents,  accused of  anemia.93  attempt  at  was  two  who had  was  had  there to  was  save  the  life. parents  had c a t e g o r i c a l l y r e f u s e d  blood t r a n s f u s i o n  The  law to  that  defence  i n the  no a l t e r n a t i v e  hours  judges  this  indicated that  and a n o t h e r  the c h i l d  beliefs.  concern that  rare Canadian  In  from a severe  The  explained  be a l l o w e d by  Nevertheless,  Witnesses  negligence  child's  his religious b e l i e f s . 9 *  t h e j u d g e m u s t have  an O n t a r i o C o u r t  of  out.  Jehovah's  taken  the  freedom  the expense carried  example.92  right  1ife.  In clearly  sacrifices,  c l a i m s the  Tyrwhitt-Drake J .  an " o l d - f a s h i o n e d " A z t e c w o u l d n o t his  group  The  after  to  the  c h i l d on a c c o u n t o f  c h i l d who s u p p o r t e d  her b e i n g removed  c o u r t c a r e f u l l y examined  concluded that  tthe  conduct  the  toward  parents life  the  of  the  child.  by h e r  or  some  parents.  the accused.  a wanton  of  religious  claims, died  hospital  b e l i e f s of  had a d o p t e d their  their  her p a r e n t s '  from the  administration  They  reckless  -  The C o u r t  explained  its  51  -  p o s i t i o n by  saying:  The r i g h t t o l i f e was a r i g h t w h i c h b e l o n g e d t o Sara Cyrenne. W h i l e I have g r e a t s y m p a t h y f o r p e r s o n s who h o l d , as d i d t h e s e a c c u s e d , h o n e s t and s i n c e r e b e l i e f s t h a t c e r t a i n m e d i c a l p r a c t i c e s a r e a b h o r r e n t and i n e f f e c t i v e , t h i s does n o t g i v e them t h e r i g h t t o r e j e c t on b e h a l f of a 1 2 - y e a r o l d c h i l d a treatment which any r e a s o n a b l e p a r e n t , e v e n w i t h t h e a d v e r s e k n o w l e d g e o f t h e a c c u s e d , w o u l d r e c o g n i z e as t h e o n l y hope o f p r e s e r v i n g t h a t l i f e . To do s o was i n my o p i n i o n r e c k l e s s l y a b a n d o n i n g t h e s o l e b u t r e a l hope o f t h e c h i l d ' s r e c o v e r y . II  . . .  II  .  At l e a s t where the r i g h t to l i f e i s c o n c e r n e d the d e c i s i o n to r e j e c t a p o t e n t i a l l y l i f e - s a v i n g t r e a t m e n t w h i c h , even i f i t f a i l s , c a n l e a v e t h e c h i l d i n no w o r s e p o s i t i o n t h a n b e f o r e c a n n o t be l e f t t o t h e v a r y i n g whims o f individual families. L i f e and d e a t h d e c i s i o n s o f t h i s n a t u r e go b e y o n d t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e f a m i l y and e n t e r t h e s p h e r e o f t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t ; which i s to p r o t e c t c h i l d r e n from t h e c a p r i c e of v a r y i n g dogmatic b e l i e f s u n t i l they a r e o l d enough and h o p e f u l l y w i s e enough t o make such d e c i s i o n s f o r t h e m s e l v e s . 9 4 The only  accused obtained  b e c a u s e t h e r e was no s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t  had c a u s e d t h e  death  opinion,  i s no d o u b t  the  there  defence of  According far  from the c o u r t a v e r d i c t  to  as l i f e  of  the  child. that  if  have t o  of  behaviour  judge's  a c a u s a l i t y had b e e n  the o b j e c t i v e s  i s concerned,  acquittal  their  C o n s i d e r i n g the  r e l i g i o u s freedom would not  the j u d g e ,  of  found,  have been a c c e p t e d . the C r i m i n a l Code,  supersede the  as  religious  beliefs.95 It this to  is quite  position.  c l a i m the  matters  of  unlikely that  Canadian c o u r t s w i l l  T h a t d o e s n o t mean t h a t  right  to  c h o i c e of  assert their treatment  parents w i l l  depart not  r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s even  offered  to  their  children.  from  continue in The  -  courts  have  not  life-saving that  decided often  treatment  the w i l l  of  for  -  on t h e  r i g h t of  themselves but  the p a t i e n t ,  r e s p e c t e d by t h e c o u r t s . 9 6 criminal  52  adult  purposes or  for  there  In any e v e n t ,  any  other  c a s e s where  and e x e r c i s e o f refusal  The those  for  chances of  consent to  refuses a treatment  success  situations  reluctant  where  or health  of  that  v.  Witnesses  to  Appeal  involve  in  dim and i t w i l l  other  the  be p o s s i b l e t o  same d i r e c t i o n .  even w i t h c o n d u c t t h a t  harm t o  other  people,  not  people but  always  It  are  These  are  i n harm t o  i s r e p r e s s e d by t h e or h e a l t h .  But  the courts  result  see  can  accept a r e l i g i o u s defence.  t h e c o n d u c t does  is in  i m p a i r e d f a c u l t i e s and d r u g s  state  the  for  that consumption  law.  Chomokowski,  refused to  s u b s e c t i o n 235(2)  interest  i n r a i s i n g a r e l i g i o u s defence  that  driving with  a r e p r o h i b i t e d by In  state  of  p o s s i b l e i m p a c t on human l i f e  context  or  to  Canada.97  t o any k i n d  be r a t h e r  cause p h y s i c a l  particularly  for  children.98  i t m u s t be s a i d  indirectly  in  s t a k e between  some t y p e s  t h e A m e r i c a n c a s e s go i n t o  already,  its  their  c a s e s seem t o  whether  life  to  be  reasons s i n c e the attempt  c o u l d be a t  a  i s some i n d i c a t i o n  r e l i g i o u s c o n v i c t i o n s are l i k e l y to  by p a r e n t s  treatment  life  refuse  t h e r e w o u l d be no  c o m m i t s u i c i d e i s no more a c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e The  to  and c a p a b l e , w o u l d  p r o s e c u t i o n s when an i n d i v i d u a l  religious  adults  of  an a c c u s e d member o f  provide  a breath  the C r i m i n a l  upheld the c o n v i c t i o n of  sample c o n t r a r y  Code.  the  the  Jehovah's to  The M a n i t o b a C o u r t  defendant  of  i n p o i n t i n g out  that  -  even a r e l i g i o u s f a i t h basis of  of  immunity  for  53  g e n u i n e l y h e l d c o u l d not c o n s t i t u t e a successful  t h e C r i m i n a l C o d e . 9 9 The C o u r t  that  public safety  i s doubtful The  that  of  importance  Chomokowski  but even w i t h  drugs.  the  I n R_^_ v .  B e a l e s and B e a l e s ,  the  forbidden  of Appeal  conviction  the a p p e l l a n t s i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t supersede the  appellants were  substances for r e l i g i o u s  The C o u r t  freedom c o u l d not  the  of  and m a r i j u a n a a r g u e d t h e y  purposes.100 of  Charter  s u c h a d e f e n c e w o u l d be a c c e p t a b l e .  charged with possession of L . S . D . p o s s e s s i o n of  a  was  same c a u t i o n m u s t be a d d r e s s e d a b o u t c o n s u m p t i o n  prohibited  of  i s d e s t i n e d to provide v.  Rights  the  s u b s e c t i o n 235(2)  also s t r e s s e d the  on t h e h i g h w a y s .  argued under the Canadian B i l l  in  defence under  p r o v i s i o n i n t h e C r i m i n a l Code a s i t  greater  it  -  of  British  i n t e r e s t s of  Columbia upheld  the  their religious  the s t a t e  in  the  matter. Similarly, Court  of  Appeal  charged with religious  i n T u c k e r and T u c k e r d i s m i s s e d an a p p e a l  will so  far.  probably When i t  religious will  deter  conduct.  by t h e  i n s p i t e of  the  Ontario  defendants a defense  of  freedom.  d i r e c t l y or  not  The Q u e e n ,  brought  p o s s e s s i o n of m a r i j u a n a ,  In c a s e s where l i f e either  v.  group,  and h e a l t h o f  other  people are i n  i n d i r e c t l y , Canadian c o u r t s under the swerve  from the p r e c e d e n t s t h a t  i s unlikely that  Charter  have been s e t  i s an a c t i v i t y o r a p o s i t i o n c e n t r a l it  to  the p o s s i b i l i t y of  questions w i l l  be e v e n t u a l l y  up  a sanctions  t h e members f r o m e x e r c i s i n g a p r o h i b i t e d c o u r s e Those  danger  presented to  of the  -  Canadian c o u r t s but The  l a s t category  range  of  values are  that  that  the  state  -  answers w i l  will  problems t h a t  usually the  it  supports.  group,  be  Generally values  positive. to a  broad  the  moral  of  the  religious  values  that  a society  promotes.  a c t i v i t i e s of a r e l i g i o u s  c o n f l i c t w i t h moral  values  group, consecrated  law.  F.  Public  Morality  The C a n a d i a n C r i m i n a l primary exact  probably  c a n be i d e n t i f i e d as i s s u e s  c a n happen t h a t  a minority  not  be c o n s i d e r e d now r e f e r s  i n c l o s e c o n n e c t i o n w i t h moral  However,  in  their  54  purpose  i s to p r e s e r v e  d e f i n i t i o n of  Generally certain  through  of  the m o r a l i t y  the  into  the category  l e g i s l a t o r i s a l s o aware the e v o l u t i o n  p r i n c i p l e s that  their  fluctuations.  n o t come t o  that  of  have For  that morality  the C r i m i n a l  no  protect. a  specific  w h a t was a c r i m e t h e n anymore.  dominated Canadian  the y e a r s  society  that  that  they  given  It  at  times,  that  in  it  would  between  does  not  i s used here  a r e i n a c c e p t a b l e by a m a j o r i t y  happens,  the  However  t h e Code  some a c t s p r o h i b i t e d by l a w do n o t  harm p e o p l e b u t  ago,  homosexuality  against public morality  and  appear  be a c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e . 1 0 3  i s now a c o n d u c t  Acts  Code o v e r  i s changing  i n s t a n c e , one h u n d r e d y e a r s  c o n s e n t i n g a d u l t s would not  society.  to  determine whether  c o v e r e d by a  t h e m i n d o f many C a n a d i a n s  the meaning t h a t  There i s  t h e Code w a n t s to  whose  Code.  moral  sanction  public morality.102  i s i n c u m b e n t upon j u d g e s  act f a l l s  provision The  it  Code c o n t a i n s many p r o v i s i o n s  with  physically of  a minority  people group  in a  can  -  comes w i t h  some r e l i g i o u s v a l u e s  The c l a s s i c a l decisions of  time,  refers  example  to  Very e a r l y  had t o  practice.104  that  -  that  go a g a i n s t p u b l i c  i s often  t h e Mormons  the p r a c t i c e of  doctrine. States  55  that  polygamy  cited  had,  in  judicial  during a certain period  a s an e l e m e n t o f  in their history  t h e Mormons  face legal  p r o h i b i t i o n s i n r e s p e c t to  i  there  n  Canada,  were p r o s e c u t e d f o r t h e C r i m i n a l Code  morality.  their religious i n the that  i s no a p p a r e n t c a s e w h e r e  the p r a c t i c e of  polygamy  but  United  Mormons  f o r many y e a r s  r e f e r r e d d i r e c t l y them t o condemn b i g a m y  and  polygamy. It  does n o t  defendants  seem t h a t  c l a i m i n g the defence of  charge of  bigamy  enforcing  the moral  is  some m o r a l  For  to  reappear  was no C a n a d i a n B i l l  Jehovah's  r o l e of  the  the s t a t e  group  in  in  society  i t m u s t be r e c a l l e d r e l i g i o u s freedom  that are  Courts.  respect that  Education. of  of Appeal  Witnesses to  Rights  an i n d i v i d u a l has t o  At let  a p e r i o d o f t i m e when alone a Charter  concluded that s a l u t e the  anthem w o u l d b e a r an undue freedom.107  very  t h e moment  the  with  show  for  s t a t e has r e c e i v e d a s e t b a c k i n D o n a l d e t a l .  Hamilton Board of  Ontario Court  The  have c o n f l i c t e d w i t h  before  i n s t a n c e , the the  For  be busy  r e l i g i o u s freedom w i t h  v a l u e s s h a r e d by a d o m i n a n t  values that  t h e emblems o f v.  or polygamy.106  perhaps q u e s t i o n a b l e .  unlikely  Canadian c o u r t s w i l l  of  Rights,  imposing c h i l d r e n  f l a g and s i n g t h e  there  of  national  i n f r i n g e m e n t upon t h e i r r e l i g i o u s  the  -  Ontario Court decision  of  of Appeal  is  s i m i l a r to  of  t h e Supreme  Education  the Donald  it  reappear the to  appears q u i t e  before  state  the c o u r t  has o t h e r m o r a l  grips with Public  condemned by s o c i e t y acts  that  for  having  after  almost  In t h i s c a s e  values  does not  it  of  of  e n f o r c e s and t h e y  that  the  cases  calm.  But  c o u l d come  expression.  refer  only  to  acts that  and p r o h i b i t e d by t h e S t a t e .  s o c i e t y and t h e  salute  these types years  in  Witnesses  r e f u s e d to  forty  the  of United Stated  Barnette.  unlikely that  r e l i g i o u s freedom  morality  v.  Court  case c h i l d r e n of Jehovah's  h a d been e x p e l l e d f r o m s c h o o l flag.108  -  f o u n d c e r t a i n l y an i n s p i r a t i o n i n  the m a j o r i t y  West V i r g i n i a B o a r d o f  56  state  expect  are  It  involves  from c i t i z e n s .  Salute  to  N  the in  f l a g was one o f t h e way o f The  expected and  it  that  a religious  attitudes  adherents,  that  and a i m a t  It  to  has n o t  make l a w f o r  to  perform  of  can  stand  p a r t i c i p a t i o n of  to  b a s i s of are not  of  analyzed  state It  is  in  citizens and  i s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n an  been e a s y  t h e good g o v e r n m e n t  then  the  them.  effort  be a c o n s c i e n t i o u s religious convictions.*^ i n c l i n e d to  control  i n p a r t i c u l a r i n the e x e r c i s e of  a l m o s t e v e r y t h i n g was t h e n  are  f o r many r e l i g i o u s g r o u p s  immoral  i n C a n a d a e v e n on t h e  Parliament,  the p r e s e r v a t i o n  refuse  In wartime Canadian c o u r t s Federal  that  symbolic or r e a l ,  imposes the  However,  what i s p r o p e r l y  support war.  objector  the State  service.  are others  adherent.  i s c o n s i d e r e d immoral  context  there  and b e h a v i o u r s ,  from c i t i z e n s  in military  to  those a c t s but  Canada.110  it  i n terms  the  of  the  i t s powers  i s true  to  that  separation  of  -  powers.  T h i s was t h e a t t i t u d e  by t h e P r i v y whether compel  Council.  With  -  adopted  by C a n a d i a n c o u r t s and e v e n  the C h a r t e r  it  i s p o s s i b l e to  t h e c o u r t s w o u l d s t r i k e down l e g i s l a t i o n s t h a t every  religious  beliefs.  It  i s also possible that  the C h a r t e r  could  i n such a case^  intervene  exercise  of  this  exploration  of  and i t In  i s u n c l e a r whether any e v e n t ,  Canadian law.  near  moral  It  the  their would  courts  issues  in  subject  some p r o b l e m s h a v e been i n d e n t i f i e d and  was i m p o r t a n t , between  the  future.  the p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s w i l l  conflicts  solutions.  i n the  section,  next s e c t i o n s . It possible  would  the P a r l i a m e n t  r e l i g o i u s f r e e d o m s h o u l d n o t be a common  the C o u r t s  In  wonder  c i t i z e n t o e n g a g e i n m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e no m a t t e r  u s e s e c t . 33 o f  before  57  though,  to  be c a r r i e d o u t identify  proceed to the quest  the  the areas  r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m and s t a t e  i s t i m e now t o  in  the  interest of  of in  -  58  -  Footnotes 1.  "Non-conventional groups" r e f e r to r e l i g i o u s denominations w h i c h d i d n o t s h a r e t h e f u n d a m e n t a l t e n e t s and v a l u e s o f e i t h e r the C a t h o l i c r e l i g i o n or the P r o t e s t a n t c h r u c h . In n o n - c o n v e n t i o n a l g r o u p s we w o u l d e s p e c i a l l y i n c l u d e D o u k h o b o u r s , H u t t e r i t e s , J e h o v a h ' s W i t n e s s e s , M e n n o n i t e s and Mormons.  2.  I n s p i t e o f t h e t r a d i t i o n a l r i v a l r i e s C a t h o l i c s and P r o t e s t a n t s had many v a l u e s i n common. After a l l , P r o t e s t a n t i s m d e r i v e d f r o m C a t h o l i c i s m and t h e s e c u l a r l a w s o f the c o u n t r y were g e n e r a l l y r e s p e c t f u l o f the t r a d i t i o n s p r a c t i s e d by r e l i g i o u s d o m i n a t i o n s b e l o n g i n g t o e i t h e r faith.  3.  See comment on J e h o v a h ' s W i t n e s s e s i n Quebec by T . R . Berger, F r a g i l e Freedoms, Toronto, C l a r k e , Irwin & C o . , 1981, pp. 163-189.  4.  See J . P e n t o n , J e h o v a h ' s M a c M i l l a n , 1976":  5.  See t h e s e c t i o n on Sunday o b s e r v a n c e l e g i s l a t i o n i n D . A . Schmeiser, C i v i l L i b e r t i e s , London, Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1964, pp. 101-110.  6.  R.S.O. 104.  7.  The f i r s t c a s e b e f o r e t h e P r i v y C o u n c i l on t h a t q u e s t i o n : A.G. f o r Ontario v. Hamilton S t r e e t Railway [1903] A . C . 524. Many d e c i s i o n s d e l i v e r e d a f t e r 1903 have r e f e r e d t o i t : s e e s u p r a , note 5 .  8.  I n Re L e g i s l a t i o n R e s p e c t i n g A b s t e n t i o n S u n d a y , ( 1 9 0 5 ) 35 S . C . R . 5 8 1 .  9.  Ibid.,  at p.  582.  10.  Ibid.,  at p.  592.  11.  ( 1 9 1 2 ) 46 S . C . R .  12.  I b i d . , p. 513. t h e L o r d ' s Day  1897,  c.  246;  Witnesses i n Canada,  see a l s o :  Con.  St.  Upper  Toronto,  Canada,  c.  from L a b o u r on  502.  The A . G . f o r Quebec was r e f e r i n g t o s . 4 Act that provided:  I t i s n o t l a w f u l f o r any p e r s o n on t h e L o r d ' s D a y , e x c e p t as p r o v i d e d h e r e i n , o r i n any p r o v i n c i a l A c t o r l a w now o r h e r e a f t e r i n f o r c e , to s e l l o r o f f e r f o r s a l e or purchase  of  -  59 -  any g o o d s " . . . " o r t o c a r y on o r t r a n s a c t any business of h i s ordinary c a l l i n g . . . [ e m p h a s i s added] 13.  Ibid.,  at p. 514.  14.  [1925]  A . C . 384.  15.  Ibid.,  at p. 394.  16.  [1959]  S.C.R. 497.  17.  Ibid.  18. read:  Sect.  6(1) of the L o r d ' s  Day A c t , R . S . C .  1952, c .  171,  I t i s n o t l a w f u l f o r any p e r s o n , on t h e L o r d ' s Day, e x c e p t a s p r o v i d e d i n any p r o v i n c i a l A c t o r l a w now o r h e r e a f t e r i n f o r c e , t o e n g a g e i n a n y p u b l i c game o r c o n t e s t f o r g a i n o r f o r any p r i z e o r r e w a r d , o r t o be p r e s e n t t h e r e a t , o r t o p r o v i d e , e n g a g e i n , o r be p r e s e n t a t any performance or p u b l i c m e e t i n g , elsewhere than i n a c h u r c h , a t w h i c h any f e e i s c h a r g e d , d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y , e i t h e r f o r admission t o such p e r f o r m a n c e o r m e e t i n g , o r t o any p l a c e w i t h i n w h i c h t h e same i s p r o v i d e d , o r f o r any s e r v i c e o r p r i v i l e g e t h e r e a t . [Emphasis added] 19.  Supra,  note 16, a t p .  20.  See D.A.  21.  [1905]  22.  Ibid.  Schmeiser,  509-510.  supra,  note  5, at p.  104-106.  16 M a n . R . 5 6 0 .  23.  [ 1 9 4 2 ] 4 D . L . R . 7 3 5 . See a l s o : O ' B r i e n v . Royal George [ 1 9 2 1 ] 57 D . L . R . 3 0 1 ; R^ v . E p s t e i n [ 1 9 3 1 ] O . R . 7 2 6 ; R^ v . Webber a n d C o . M e r c h a n t s L t d . L 1 9 5 6 J 19 W . W . R . 4 4 7 .  24.  R^ v . B a c h y n s k i [ 1 9 3 8 ] 2 D . L . R . 6 9 1 .  25.  Ibid.,  26.  ( 1 9 1 8 ) 30 C . C . C . 2 4 9 . S e e a l s o S t P r o s p e r v . R o d r i q u e ( 1 9 1 7 ) 56 S . C . R . 1 5 7 ; C l a r k v . R . M . o f Wawken [ 1 9 3 0 ] 2 D.L.R. 596.  27.  [1955]  p. 701, 702.  S.C.R. 799.  - 60 -  28.  I t was t h e o p i n i o n e x p r e s s e d by L . P .  R i g h t s and t h e B . N . A .  29.  Robertson  30.  [1973] 31 D . L . R .  31.  Idem.,  32.  A. v . Boardwalk  33.  and Rosetanni  at p.  S e e R. v .  Pigeon,  "The B i l l  of  A c t " , (1959) 37 C a n . B a r R e v . 66. v . The Queen,  [1963] S . C . R . 651.  162.  177. Merchandise Mart L t d . ,  B i g M. Drug M a r t  [1973] 31 D . L . R .  [1984] 1 W . W . R . 625 ( c o n f i r m i n g )  [1983T 4 W . W . R . 54. 34.  35.  Ibid.  [1953] S . C . R . 299. T h i s c a s e h a s r e c e i v e d much a t t e n t i o n o v e r t h e y e a r s . See comments by W . S . T a r n a p o l s k y , The C a n a d i a n B i l l o f R i g h t s , T o r o n t o , The C a r s w e l l C o . L t d . 1966.  36.  (1884) 29 L o w e r C a n a d a J u r i s t 134.  37.  Ibid.  38.  Re C r i b b i n a n d T h e C i t y  39.  Ibid.  of Toronto,  [1982] 21 O . R . 325.  40.  I b i d . , compare w i t h c a s e s i n v o l v i n g o n l y freedom o f s p e e c h : R. v . M u s t i n , R. v . M i l l a r d , [1940] O . R . 393; R. v . N a p i e r , IT941J O . R . 3CfTRi v - C a m p b e l l , [1962] O . R . 111?.  41.  S e e J . P e n t o n , s u p r a , n o t e 4 a n d a l s o t h e comment by L . Chafee J r . , Free Speech i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , Cambridge, H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1946, a t p . 399; " A n n a L o v e l l [303 U . S . 444(1938)] w a s t h e e a r l i e s t a r r i v a l i n t h e Supreme C o u r t o f J e h o v a h ' s W i t n e s s e s , a s e c t d i s t i n g u i s h e d by g r e a t r e l i g i o u s z e a l and a s t o n i s h i n g powers o f a n n o y a n c e " .  42.  [1949] 2 W . W . R . 195.  43.  Ibid.,  44.  [1950] 1 W . W . R . 987. The a c c u s e d , a J e h o v a h ' s W i t n e s s w a s c h a r g e d f o r u n l a w f u l l y d i s t r i b u t i n g h a n d b i l l s on a p u b l i c s t r e e t of t h e C i t y o f Saskatoon". See a l s o ex r e l . B u r n s v . S k o r e t z [1955] 114 C . C . C . 255.  a t p . 198,  199.  -  -  45.  Ibid.,  46.  Compare w i t h d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n s e x p r e s s e d by C a r t w r i g h t a n d R i n f r e t i n Saumur v . C i t y o f Q u e b e c , [ 1 9 5 3 ] S . C . R . 299 w i t h t h e d e c l a r a t i o n o f W a k e l i n g J . i n R. v . N a i s h , s u p r a , n o t e 44.  47.  Saumur v . C i t y o f Rand J .  48.  See S c h m e i s e r , s u p r a , n o t e 5 , a t 72 n . 4 . He o b s e r v e s : It i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t i n R. v . G i n g r i c h [ 1 9 5 8 ] 29 W.W.R. 471, t h e A l b e r t a C o u r t o f A p p e a l h e l d t h a t t h e 1851 s t a t u t e was s t i l l i n f o r c e i n A l b e r t a by v i r t u e o f s e c t i o n 129 o f t h e B . N . A . A c t and s e c t i o n 3 a n d 16 o f t h e A l b e r t a Act. I t i s r e s p e c t f u l l y s u g g e s t e d , however, t h a t t h i s position i s untenable.  49.  R.  50.  I b i d . , at p. 474. The r i g h t t o p r a c t i c e o n e ' s r e l i g i o n without being s u b j e c t to p e r s e c u t i o n s or r e p r e s s i o n or d i s c r i m i n a t i o n has a l s o o b e e n s e c u r e d by t h e c o u r t s . S e e R. v . G a u t h i e r [ 1 9 0 5 ] 11 C . C . C . 263 ( c o n v i c t i o n o f a C a t h o l i c who p e r t u r b e d an a s s e m b l y o f members o f t h e S a l v a t i o n A r m y ) ; C h a p u t v . Romain [ 1 9 5 5 ] S . C . R . 8 3 4 ; R o n c a r e l 1 i v . D u p l e s s i s [ 1 9 5 9 ] S . C . R . 1 2 1 ; Lamb v . B e n o i t [ 1 9 5 9 J S . C . R . 3 2 T 7  51.  S e e D . B . T h o m a s , "The F i r s t Amendment: The V a l i d i t y o f Neutral S t a t e R e g u l a t i o n s which I n h i b i t R e l i g i o u s E x p r e s s i o n " , ( 1 9 8 1 ) 83 W. V a . L . R e v . 6 7 3 . A l s o D.H. Byrne, "The T e n u o u s T o u c h s t o n e - A S t e p i n t h e Wrong D i r e c t i o n ? H e f f r o n v . I s k c o n " ( 1 9 8 2 ) 19 H o u s . L . R e v . 3 2 5 .  52.  [1971]  53.  Ibid.  v.  a t p.  61  996.  of Quebec,  G i n g r i c h [1958]  16  D.L.R.  ibid.,  29 W . W . R .  see e s p e c i a l l y the  opinion  471.  51.  54.  I b i d , at p. 56: As one w i t n e s s d e s c r i b e d t h e s o u n d s , t o h i m i t was l i k e t h e c o n s t a n t t a p p i n g o f a p e n c i l on t h e t a b l e o r t h e c o n t i n u o u s t a p p i n g by a p e r s o n on t h e n e x t d o o r w a l l . T h e i r e v i d e n c e was t h a t i t was d i s t r a c t i n g and r e n d e r e d c o n c e n t r a t i o n on t h e i r work w e l l - n e i g h i m p o s s i b l e .  55.  R. v . H a r r o l d [ 1 9 7 1 ] 19 D . L . R . 471 ( r e v e r s i n g ) [ 1 9 7 1 ] 16 T J . L . R . 51 ( a p p l i c a t i o n f o r l e a v e t o a p p e a l t o t h e Supreme C o u r t o f Canada d e n i e d May 5 , 1 9 7 1 ) .  56.  Ibid.,  at p.  479.  -  57.  58.  62  -  See J . F o s t e r , W o r k i n g f o r W i l d l i f e : The B e g i n n i n g o f P r e s e r v a t i o n i n Canada, T o r o n t o , U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1 9 7 8 , 283 p . Ibid.  59.  R__ ; v.  60.  Ibid.  Jack  and C h a r l i e [ 1 9 7 9 ]  50 C . C . C .  2d  337.  61.  [ 1 9 8 2 ] 67  C.C.C.  289 c o n f i r m i n g [ 1 9 7 9 ]  62.  [1982]  67  C.C.C.  289  63.  Ibid.,  at  p.  299.  64.  Ibid.,  at  p.  298.  65.  Ibid.,  at  pp.  66.  I b i d . , See d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n o f H u t c h e o n J . A . who t h o u g h t t h a t a l a w o f a g e n e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n s h o u l d n o t p r e v e n t an i n d i v i d u a l f r o m e x e r c i s i n g h i s r e l i g i o u s a c t i v i t y when ' n o competing i n t e r e s t of s o c i e t y e x i s t s ' ( a t p. 3 0 7 ) .  67.  S u p r a , n o t e s 59 a n d 6 1 . See a d i s c u s s i o n on t h e a s p i r a t i o n s o f a b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e t o s e l f - g o v e r n m e n t by D. S a n d e r s , " T h e R i g h t s o f t h e A b o r i g i n a l P e o p l e s o f C a n a d a " ( 1 9 8 3 ) 61 C a n . B. Rev. 314.  68.  See F . W . K i r k h a m , E d u c a t i n g a l l t h e C h i l d r e n o f a l l t h e P e o p l e , W a s h i n g t o n , U . S . G o v . p r i n t o f f . , 1 9 3 1 , 57 p .  69.  295,  50 C . C . C .  2d  337.  (B.C.C.A.).  296.  Ibid.  70.  406 U . S .  71.  See f o r i n s t a n c e : E d u c a t i o n A c t , R . S . S . 1 9 , c . E - 0 1 , Public Schools A c t , R . S . A . 1980, c . S - 3 , School A c t , R.S. P.E.I., 1974, c . S - 2 ; S c h o o l s A c t , R . S . N . B . 1973, c . S - 5 .  72.  R^ v .  73.  Ibid.  74.  (1972).  Jones,  [ 1 9 8 4 ] A.  R. v . H i l d e b r a n d , "R7 e x r e l . B r o o k s  75.  [1958]  76.  Ibid.  11  D.L.R.  v. (2d)  R-135.  v . D o e r k s e n ( 1 9 1 9 ) 31 C . C . C . Ulmer, L1923] 1 D . L . R . 304. 417  (B.C.C.A.).  419;  -  77.  Ibid.,  at p. 4 2 3 .  78.  Ibid.,  at p. 422.  79.  Ibid. It i s p l a i n that out of the q u e s t i o n .  80.  [1978]  81.  I b i d . , a t p. p p . 4 9 , 5 0 . testimony presented:  63 -  in that  c a s e a b a l a n c i n g t e s t was  3 W.W.R. 3 6 . The C o u r t  described part  of the  The a c c u s e d , E l m e r W i e b e , t h e n t o o k t h e s t a n d and t e s t i f i e s a s f o l l o w s : t h a t he had been a member o f t h e C h u r c h o f God i n C h r i s t f o r 35 y e a r s ; t h a t he p a y s a l l p u b l i c s c h o o l t a x e s a l t h o u g h h i s c h i l d now i s i n t h e K n e e H i l l S c h o o l . He t o o k the c h i l d o u t of t h e Or. E l l i o t School because of the d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e of other students i n o f f - h o u r s " . . . " . He s a y s t h e t r e n d s i n " c o u r t s h i p " - t h a t i s h i s word - c o r r u p t the minds of the young. C o n c e r n i n g t e a c h e r s , he s a i d t h e i r p o s t s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n he c o n s i d e r s t o be m o r a l l y c o r r u p t . He s a i d t h a t t h e p a r e n t s s h o u l d i n h i s v i e w , be a b l e t o d e c i d e on t h e b e s t e d u c a t i o n p o s s i b l e f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n . 82.  Ibid.,  at p. 6 2 .  83.  Ibid.,  at p. 6 3 .  84.  Ibid.,  at p. 60.  85.  Ibid.,  at p.  57.  86.  Ibid.,  at p.  61.  87.  Supra,  note 6 1 ,  88.  Ibid.,  at p. 302.  89.  See f o r e x a m p l e P e n t ! a n d v . P e n t ! a n d [ 1 9 7 8 ] 20 O . R . ( 2 d ) 2 7 . The p a r e n t s w e r e d e p r i v e d o f t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e i r c h i l d . On the ground o f t h e i r r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s they had r e f u s e d t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f a b l o o d t r a n s f u s i o n p r e s c r i b e d by d o c t o r s f o r the c h i l d .  90.  Re D. [ 1 9 8 2 ] 22 A l t a . L . R . L1982J A l t a D. 1 5 6 8 - 0 5 .  91.  In f a c t , matter.  92.  Supra,  there  note 6 1 ,  at p.  291.  ( 2 d ) 2 2 8 ; Re Baby  i s no r e p o r t e d  p.  291.  c a s e i n Canada  Boy  on  Davis,  that  -  64  -  93.  [1981]  62 C . C . C .  227.  94.  Ibid.,  at  p.  263.  95.  Ibid.,  at  p.  275.  96.  See A . G . o f B . C . v . A s t a f o r o f f , ( 1 9 8 3 ) 47 B . C . L . R . 2 1 7 ; a c o n t r a r i o P . G . du C a n a d a v . H o p i t a l N o t r e Dame, ( 1 9 8 4 ) 8 C . R . R . 3821 (No r e l i g i o u s c o n v i c t i o n was i n v o l v e d i n e i t h e r case.  97.  P.G.  98.  Supra,  note  99.  [1973]  11  100.  (1971  B.C.C.A.  101.  (1979  Ontario  102.  See f o r i n s t a n c e d i s p o s i t i o n s on p r o s t i t u t i o n ( s . 1 9 5 ) , on p o l y g a m y ( s . 2 5 7 ) a n d on ' O f f e n c e s t e n d i n g t o c o r r u p t m o r a l s ( s . 159-169) i n the Canadian C r i m i n a l Code. See t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f a d i s p o s i t i o n on p o l y g a m y i n t h e c a s e o f an I n d i a n m a r r i e d t o two women a c c o r d i n g t o t h e c u s t o m o f h i s t r i b e : R^ v . B e a r ' s S h i n Bone ( 1 8 9 9 ) 3 C . C . C . 3 2 9 .  103.  Compare d i s p o s i t i o n s on b u g g e r y i n t h e C r i m i n a l Code t o d a y w i t h t h o s e f o u n d on b u g g e r y and on i n d e c e n t a c t s i n t h e C r i m i n a l Code i n 1892 o r i n 1 9 0 6 .  104.  R e y n o l d s v . U . S . 98 U . S . 145 ( 1 8 7 8 ) ; D a v i s v . B e a s o n U . S . 3 3 3 (189U7T C h u r c h o f L a t t e r - D a y S a i n t s v . U . S . U.S. (1890).  105.  S . 8 9 2 Code C r . s . 2 7 8 ; 1 9 0 0 , c . 4 6 , s . 3 ; 1906 C o d e , s . 310 p r o v i d e d : " E v e r y o n e i s g u i l t y o f an i n d i c t a b l e o f f e n c e and l i a b l e t o i m p r i s o n m e n t f o r f i v e y e a r s , and t o a f i n e o f f i v e hundred d o l l a r s ( a ) who p r a c t i c e s " . . . " ( i ) any form of polygamy ( i i ) w h a t among t h e p e r s o n s commonly c a l l e d Mormons i s known as s p i r i t u a l o r p l u r a l o f m a r r i a g e ; " . . . " .  106.  T h e r e i s no r e p o r t e d c a s e i n v o l v i n g a d e f e n c e o f r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m and p o l y g a m y i n C a n a d a . Maybe i n R. v . B e a r ' s S h i n B o n e , s u p r a , n o t e 102 s u c h a d e f e n c e c o u l c T W a v e been r a i s e d .  107.  [1945] O.R.  108.  319  du C a n a d a v .  U.S.  N o t r e Dame,  Ibid.  90.  C.C.C.  624  Hopital  (2d)  #760-1) Court  518  (Ont.  (1943).  Of  562. (unreported). Appeal)  C.A.).  (unreported).  133 136  -  supra,  note  65  -  109.  See P e n t o n ,  4.  110.  See, F o r t Frances Pulp & Paper Co. T r e s s C o . L1923J A . C . 6 9 b .  Ltd.  v.  Manitoba  Free  -  III.  RELIGION,  Many fail  concepts For  that  the importance  to d i s t i n g u i s h that gravitate  around  the  activity.  action  In Walter  appellant  sought  legislation  i t does  did accept  activity  holding  though  i t was p a r t  that  h a s a l s o t o be made  lands  the idea  involved  even  necessity  of freedom  i n communal  that  refers  freedom o f r e l i g i o n . 4  Canadian the  doctrine.3 to freedom  t o c l a i m freedom  claim  that  three  preliminary  An o t h e r  members  was no  o f l a n d s by  Hutterites distinction  o f r e l i g i o n and t h e  to c l a i m i t .  I n R^ v .  a corporation  i t i s an o r i e n t a t i o n corporations  of r e l i g i o n .  the charges a g a i n s t questions  there  the  W . H . S m i t h L t d . e t a l . a n d R^ v .  law s i n c e p r e v i o u s l y  right  property,  t h e a p p e l l a n t s were  o f d e t e r m i n i n g who i s e n t i t l e d  that  concerning a provincial  V i d e o F l i c k s L t d . e t a l . , i t was h e l d t h a t have  of r e l i g i o n . 1  a c a s e where t h e  i n the h o l d i n g  v.  three  i s a religious  But f o r the Court,  of t h e i r  B i g M. Drug Mart L t d . ,  religion  n o t n e c e s s a r i l y mean  A.G. of Alberta,  a religious organization.2  religious  are at l e a s t  a d e c l a r a t i o n of n u l l i t y  prohibiting  Supreme C o u r t  of defining  i n w h i c h he was e n g a g e d v.  RELIGION  i s c o n s i d e r e d by a C o u r t a s  having a r e l i g i o n ,  prohibited  there  the notion  i n s t a n c e , when a d e f e n d a n t  effectively  of  RELIGIOUS A C T I V I T I E S AND FREEDOM OF  a u t h o r s who s t r e s s  generally  66 -  quite  h a d n o t been  could  new i n granted  S o , when a d e f e n d a n t  will  h i m s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d , t h e r e a r e  that  a judge  could address  to  himself.  -  These  action  A.  (1)  Does  the  defendant  c o n s t i t u t i n g the o f f e n s e  defendant  it  the Is  r e l i g i o u s freedom?  l o o k i n g f o r a d e f i n i t i o n of i s important  conscience  Law  category  of  the Canadian c o u r t s w i l l religion.  But the  important  even  of  conscience,  s e c t i o n 2(a)  therefore  under  conscience.5  religion,  i n Canadian law to  in i t s  and r e l i g i o n '  c a n n o t be c l a s s i f i e d  it  f i n d such d e f i n i t i o n .  protects  seems t h a t  draw t h e  line  prosecution.  When i t  will  t o a d e f e n d a n t who o b j e c t s t o a l a w t h a t  ultimately  freedom of  where  immunity  deal  of  religion.6  alledgedly  conscience.  of  No  Canadian judges  If  t h e r e w o u l d be no n e c e s s i t y t o t a l k  r e l i g i o n any more i n a c o n t e x t  with  of  There i s a d i f f i c u l t y i n the f a c t  e v e r y t h i n g c a n be a m a t t e r  s h o u l d be t h e c a s e ,  to  i s a question  i s not n e c e s s a r i l y a r e f e r e n c e to  his conscience.  the  quite  have  at t h i s point  grant  what  b e t w e e n c o n s c i e n c e and  defining religion is  the degree of  of  ranged i n  T h e r e i s no one who r e a l l y knows  i n C a n a d i a n l a w when j u d g e s w i l l  there  "freedom  i n any e v e n t  r e l i g i o n c o u l d be w e l l  n e c e s s i t y of  criminal  i t m u s t be a s k e d  one knows,  violates  Is  this  a r e l i g i o u s a c t i v i t y ? ; and ( 3 )  R e l i g i o n f o r Canadian  Canadian Charter  matters  (2)  in  B e t w e e n C o n s c i e n c e and R e l i g i o n  Before whether  be e x a m i n e d  have a r e l i g i o n ? ;  e n t i t l e d to a defence of  D e f i n i t i o n of (i)  The  -  are the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s t h a t w i l l  section:  the  67  immunity  in  that  such about criminal  -  prosecutions. might well people  When t h e C h a r t e r  s t r i c t l y for  reasons of  freedom of  definition  The  of  task  since  of  It  but  it  i s d i f f i c u l t , at  is yet  Definition  of  i s no d e f i n i t i o n o f  it  does not  h e l p to Canadian  seem t h a t  p o s s i b l e to  then f o r  freedom of first,  have  a  refer  to  find  Amendment.il  a necessary element f o r there  the  has t o  be f i l l e d .  But  be  of  discussion It  was  a d e f i n i t i o n of freedom of  in  the very  religion  r e l i g i o n and  opinion or conscience.10  i t was u n d e r s t o o d t h a t  that  the j u d i c i a r y  t o A m e r i c a n l a w when  religion.9  Amendment p r o t e c t s o n l y thought,  to  the American cases w i l l  U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t made i t  pointed out  the concepts  r e l i g i o n p r o p o s e d by  d e f i n i t i o n of  the Americans  c o v e r e d by t h e F i r s t  not  to  judges.  around the  the F i r s t  At  is  Religion  i s a c u r r e n t procedure to  United States  not  Charter  t h i s moment,  d i s t i n c t i o n between  T h e r e has been a l o n g and c o n t r o v e r s i a l  since  has  has no b e l i e f s and  i s some vacuum i n C a n a d i a n l a w t h a t  important  An a u t h o r  d e f i n i n g r e l i g i o n has been l e f t  there  It  time,  great  it  religion.  An O p e r a t i o n a l  Charter.  this  conscience.7  make t h e  " c o n s c i e n c e and r e l i g i o n "  (ii)  conscience,  c o n s c i e n c e a s g u a r a n t e e d by t h e  o r has no r e l i g i o n . 8  s e e how t h e C o u r t s w i l l  there  p r o t e c t s freedom of  r e f e r t o c a s e s where a p l a i n t i f f  atheist  level  -  be a p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t p e n a l i z i n g and p e r s e c u t i n g  suggested that might  68  But  non t h e i s t i c b e l i e f s w e r e i n Torcaso v.  clear  Watkins,  that a b e l i e f  the e x i s t e n c e of  i n God  the is  a r e l i g i o n and  a r e many r e l i g i o n s i n t h e c o u n t r y  that  do  -  not is  teach a b e l i e f an a g r e e m e n t  else  than  69 -  i n the e x i s t e n c e of God.12  between  the b e l i e f  the judges  that  i n a supreme  since then,  r e l i g i o n c a n be s o m e t h i n g  being.13  To f i n d a d e f i n i t i o n more c o m p a t i b l e w i t h societies  of today,  t h e Supreme C o u r t  the r e a l i t y  of the United  e n u n c i a t e an e x p l i c i t d e f i n i t i o n o f r e l i g i o n . e m e r g e n c e o f new r e l i g i o u s g r o u p s had t o e x t e n d protection  the notion  the C o n s t i t u t i o n In C a n a d a , their  did  f o r them.  not consider that  judges  had a l w a y s  the F i r s t  I n Saumur  though  v.  City  a liberal  t h e r e was no o f Quebec,  the judges Amendment of  approach  in  statutory  the a p p e l l a n t  he was a member o f a r e l i g i o n b e c a u s e h i s  g r o u p was o p p o s e d t o t h e t e r m r e l i g i o n t h a t traditional  States,  the  imagine.14  d e f i n i t i o n o f r e l i g i o n even  guidelines  with  had t o  the e x i s t e n c e of which the D r a f t e r s  c o u l d not even however,  of t h e  States  Then,  i n the United  of r e l i g i o n to grant  t o many g r o u p s  there  denominations.  Chief Justice  was a s s o c i a t e d t o t h e  Rinfret  observed:  During h i s testimony, t h i s witness i d e n t i f i e d a g r e a t number o f p u b l i c a t i o n s w h i c h a r e s a i d t o c o n t a i n the d o c t r i n e of the Jehovah's Witnesses"...". A l l those p u b l i c a t i o n s s t a t e t h a t J e h o v a h ' s Witnesses are not a r e l i g i o n , t h a t , on t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e i r g o a l i s t o f i g h t a g a i n s t r e l i g i o n s and t h a t r e l i g i o n i s a d e v i l ' s invention. •I  . . .  II  .  In t h o s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s I c a n n o t s e e how J e h o v a h ' s W i t n e s s e s c o u l d c l a i m the freedom of worship g u a r a n t e e d i n c . 307 o f t h e R e v i s e d S t a t u t e s o f Quebec, 1 9 4 1 " . . . " . 1 5 (Translation) In the  s p i t e of t h i s p o s i t i o n , a m a j o r i t y  of judges  recognized  a p p e l l a n t d i d have a r e l i g i o n and c o u l d c l a i m t h e r i g h t  freedom  of r e l i g i o n .  Mr. J u s t i c e Locke  said  in this  that to  respect:  -  70  -  To c l a i m t h a t t h o s e who b e l i e v e i n God and i n h i s s o n J e s u s C h r i „ s t do n o t h o l d a r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f and t h a t t o p r o f e s s t h a t b e l i e f and a t t e m p t t o c o m m u n i c a t e i t t o o t h e r s i n t h e manner w h i c h t h e J e h o v a h ' s W i t n e s s e s b e l i e v e t h e y a r e commanded t o do by t h e B i b l e , i s n o t e x e r c i s i n g a r e l i g i o u s p r o f e s s i o n and an a c t o f w o r s h i p , i s , i n my opinion, untenable.16 In of  the  Harrold  a non-theistic  group  t h a t the  appellant  Charlie,  the Courts  as n o n - r e l i g i o u s judeo-Christian reference  of  religions.  But  is  not  certain  It  to  on t h e  interested  s e t of of  side,  draws  religion,  h i m s e l f must proposed  pay  by  legal  it  values  not  not  i n the  of  facets  on t h e of  to  large  include  a  the  family of  and  defendants  has  contents  the  of  religion,  it  non-theistic t h a t make o f  of  of  a  a community. who was  that  i n any  It  religion  is  notably  basically  whitehead, definition  on  t h a t have  f o c u s on b e l i e f s and  his  of  c o n s c i o u s l y alone  definitions  ways  operation.  a s p e c t s of  religion.19  Most the  in different  i n s u c h an  social  a human b e i n g ,  s c h o l a r s put  the  preclude  by D u r k h e i m  fact  be i g n o r e d . 2 °  Jack  the C h a r t e r  are pursued  upon members  social  v.  the  definition  the  accepting  a religion.  that  proposed  in  member  in l i n e with  that  can a l s o  attention  phenomenon not  that  objectives  attention  the  would  from  b e l i e f s of  r e l i g i o n c a n be a p p r o a c h e d  definition i n the  fact  groups  the c o u r t  the  have an o p e r a t i o n a l  binding effect  k i n d of  The  a c c u s e d was a  Similarly,  1 7  they were  preamble  say  the  prevent  an e x a m i n a t i o n  A sociologist will  the  its  to  takes  that  consider  though  non-theistic  A definition  and t h e  d i d not  d i d not  in  system or  depending  fact  tradition.18  sufficient  groups.  the  had a r e l i g i o n .  even  t o God  acceptation  case,  with  been  practices  -  that  are  content It  a s s o c i a t e d to of  those  that  question.22 only  tactical  aspects  of  For  question  i t would  order  Charter, of  the  give  subordination  with  or  The  "subordination"  c o u l d be a r g u e d  other  All of  rules  opinion  of  religion will cover  be  all  the  too  large.24  dilemna  of  of Goodenough t h a t t h e r e With  previously  is  s u c h an  identified,  since i t  t h a t the  of  r e l i g i o n a s p e c i f i c meaning i s proposed:  as r e g a r d t o t h e  emphasis  the  is  universe  put  a certain  that  i n the  r e l i g i o u s conduct  is a  set  o r i g i n s and f u t u r e  source of  of  beings  on t h e  that  word  the  authority.26  exists  citizens.  t h a t do n o t  It  between But  super-empirical  of  relation  definition  obligation  and i t s  the  or imperceptible  same r e l a t i o n s h i p state  in  Religion  and t h e i r  in this  s t r e s s e s the  present  a  there  values  exist  father  in  are or  the  the  relations.  and u n i v e r s a l the  of  the  be u s e d i n a c o n t e x t  proposition  r e l i g i o n s have s o m e t h i n g  absolute  of  a s p e c t s of  t h a t cannot  sensorily perceptible  between  of  the  religion.23  place i n the  elements  types  definition  definition  assumes t o w a r d  fundamental  legal  such d e f i n i t i o n  the  values  their  universal  the  to  following  human b e i n g s ,  and h i s s o n ,  the  r e l i g i o n to  l e a d to  super-empirical  individual  exploring  w o u l d be a r e l i g i o n . to  things.25  really  acquire a definition  than  a religion is just  everything In  of  of  prosecutions,  approach  any  or a working  the  to  more  be s u r e ,  0  nobody w i t h o u t  is,  however,  a definition  criminal  r e l i g i o n without  integrate  j  -  concepts.21  i s important,  religions  71  truth  individual.27  i n common.  that  It  transcends  is a  proposition  the w i l l  and  -  This  s e t of  be i n t e g r a t e d proposed  values  -  t h a t make up a r e l i g i o n does n o t  i n an i n s t i t u t i o n a l o r c e r e m o n i a l  i n the Malnak  said that  72  only  v.  Yogi  an o r g a n i z e d  emerge  person. not  s i n c e many r e l i g i o n s h a v e  This  criteria  be c o n s i d e r e d b u t ,  system of  in  fundamental  d e f i n i t i o n of  religion.  of  only  criminal prosecutions,  a d e f i n i t i o n of  render the United  individual  sincere belief notion  of  judges  c o u l d be a  in that  v.  one  Yogi  should  decision,  the  of  the  have  had t o  never  have  It  to  be e x p e c t e d  i s t h e o n l y way  to  or s i n g u l a r t h e o r i e s . i t will  does not  In  rely  on t h e  i s a r e l i g i o n and  A depends  i n something  would  Even i n  broaden  of  accepted the  definition  idea that  to  only  r e l i g i o n meaningless. the  a  remain important  he has a r e l i g i o n . 3 0  defendant  from  the  everything  religion.31  will  be i n c u m b e n t  meaning they w i l l preferable  that  freedom of  S t a t e s where they  religion,  It  the  r e l i g i o n that  approach where e v e r y t h i n g  on t h e  i n Malnak  aspects that  perspective  subjective  it  a d d r e s s an u l t i m a t e c o n c e r n and be  r e l i g i o n from p h i l o s o p h y  assumption of  started with j u s t  was p r o p o s e d  distinguish  have  was  nature.29  i s these  an o p e r a t i o n a l  it  new r e l i g i o n s w o u l d  a s i t was p r o p o s e d  b e l i e f s has t o  comprehensive It  that  if  was  c a n be d e f i n e d a s a r e l i g i o n ,  w o u l d be a l m o s t a s u r e way t o e n s u r e t h a t never  to  s e t t i n g as i t  c a s e by J u d g e A d a m s . 2 8  group  have  they  give  will  to  have  upon C a n a d i a n j u d g e s freedom of  to  c o n s c i e n c e but  a d i s t i n c t d e f i n i t i o n of  a t h e i s m and n i h i l i s m w o u l d n o t  determine it  is  religion.  be e n c o m p a s s e d i n t h e  the  So,  definition  -  of  religion.32  conscience,  jf  it  i s another  consideration. religious  But  freedom  associated  to  judges  want to  has a r e l i g i o n , a n o t h e r  The  courts, that  certain Moody,  the  element  the  question  the  spirits.35  an e a s y  belief  task,  There  understanding practice  other  practice  is  activities  to  adherents jne  certainty  to  that  the  instances,  the  the  and a  defendant that  the  activity?  often  Court to  h a s t o be c e n t r a l  group.  of  Is  the  or  of  religious  to  determine  when a  In P e o p l e  v.  was c o n s i d e r e d as an e s s e n t i a l ritual.34  b e l i e v e d they understood,  Through  could  then,  of  the  communicate  that  the e l i m i n a t i o n of  survival  the  prohibiting religion  c a n be s i n g l e d o u t  a religious activity. the  the c o u r t w i l l  i n the  stressed  a r e l i g i o u s group.  of what can c o n s t i t u t e  important of  is  a religious  i s a f i r s t c r i t e r i a that  essential  of  s p e c i f i c that  however,  smoking peyote  s u c h a p r a c t i c e w o u l d amount itself.36  defence  be a s k e d .  have  i n the American N a t i v e Church  the  the  has t o  in c o n s i d e r i n g a defence  i s not  peyote  of  further  i s admitted  States,  defendant's  instance,  smoking of  In  it  offense  i n the U n i t e d  practice is central for  that  freedom  Activities  importance It  B u t e v e n when  base of  Religious  freedom.33  with  the  B.  primary  deserves  a s a c r e d r e l a t i o n s h i p between  defendant  importance  that  them u n d e r  to a concept q u i t e  authority.  a c t i o n at  protect  be remembered  source of  the  -  question  i t must  refers  73  In W i s c o n s i n v .  the  Is  the  religion?  c o n s i d e r whether  performance  in  of  the  Yoder,  c o m p e l l i n g the Amish c h i l d r e n to  the  religious there go t o  is  no  school  up  to  -  the  age o f  faith.37  of  t h e Supreme C o u r t  the Amish to  or important religious  such  religion  for a r e l i g i o n ,  because i f  has been w e l l  the  age  religious lifestyle  only  there  infringement  the defence  indicates that  of  of  the  i s i n f r i n g e m e n t and  i s undue.  determine whether  time  But  if  before  the defendant  has a  he c a n n o t engage  the C o u r t  gave  to  determine  the  a certain religion, established for  i n f l u e n c e the  was a bona f i d e  f i n d i n g s of attention  to  religious activity  in a  importance of  the  fact  that  a long p e r i o d of  a  the time can  the C o u r t .  In  v.  that  to  conclude  for  factor  the Indians  Jack  to o f f e r  and it  meat  their ancestors.39 T h e r e a r e a l s o c a s e s where the  correspond exactly O r t h o d o x Jew Act,  from door  it  carries i s not  on b u s i n e s s on S u n d a y  the  For  preach i n s p i t e of It  a l a w does  to  the  an  Lord's  W i t n e s s who  goes  a municipal ordinance  w o u l d be more d i f f i c u l t t o  r e l i g i o u s freedom  not  instance, if  contrary  same t h i n g a s a J e h o v a h ' s  such a c t i v i t y .  defence of  v i o l a t i o n of  to a r e l i g i o u s a c t i v i t y .  to door to  prohibiting the  It  he has no r e l i g i o n ,  practice for  favourably  Day  the  activity.  religious  Char!ie,  that  s c h o o l up t o  d o e s n o t mean t h a t  proceed to examine whether  When i t comes t h e  practice  it  be a c c e p t e d .  the Court w i l l  religious  held  when a c o u r t c o n c l u d e s a p r a c t i c e i s e s s e n t i a l  i s the case whether that,  the Amish  the United States  send t h e i r c h i l d r e n to  freedom w i l l  court will  for  of  s i x t e e n w o u l d be a s e r i o u s b u r d e n on t h e  the community.38  all  -  s i x t e e n would s i g n i f y the s u p p r e s s i o n of But  imposing  74  i n the case of  accept  the Orthodox  Jew.  -  To  75  be s u r e h i s r e l i g i o n commands him t o c l o s e  Saturdays Put  but  it  does n o t  in other words,  that  he i s t r y i n g  by c l o s i n g does his  when he o p e r a t e s  i s true the  offense  It  i s perhaps the only  intrinsically  t h e Supreme C o u r t  Ritchie  Canada,  of  i n the L o r d ' s  r e l i g i o u s thought  country.40  it  though  case,  the It  n a t u r e of  i s for  v.  The Q u e e n ,  and p r a c t i c e o f  faculties) that  the  sample to a  I n JR_^ v . express  Reed,  reason  held that affects  there the this  can argue t h a t  (suspected of give a breath  In R^  driving with sample.  the  offense v.  impaired  He t h e n  him from g i v i n g  said his  policeman.41 the defendant  argued t h a t  he was t r y i n g  to  h i s r e l i g i o u s c o n v i c t i o n s when he c o m m i t t e d t h e o f f e n s e  perturbing consumption  an  law.  his r e l i g i o u s c o n v i c t i o n s prevented  breath  the  i s not engaged i n a  the  the defendant  was r e q u i r e d t o  that  of  of  s i t u a t i o n where t h e r e e x i s t s  the defendant  defendant  that  any c i t i z e n o f  t h e l a w i s i n s p i r e d by h i s r e l i g i o u s m o t i v e s .  Chomokowsi,  But  religious character  A c t w h i c h i n any way  a c t i v i t y while offending  I n any o t h e r  undertakes  i n t h e o p i n i o n d e l i v e r e d by  i s perhaps the only  i n f r i n g e m e n t even religious  Day  he  he  argue  c a s e where the d e f e n c e  religious.  i n R o b e r t s o n and R o s e t a n n i  was n o t h i n g liberty  of  he c a n  r e l i g i o u s purposes.  freedom i s p r e s e n t e d even though i s not  that  disadvantage  not answer the q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e  religous  that  for  Sundays.  h i s b u s i n e s s on a S u n d a y ,  It  to compensate f o r  down on S a t u r d a y s  offense.  h i s b u s i n e s s on  ask him t o c a r r y on b u s i n e s s on  d o e s n o t obey any r e l i g i o u s l a w .  to  -  a r e l i g i o u s assembly.42 i n the United States  Many c a s e s  involving  drug  a r e a l s o b a s e d on r e l i g i o u s  of  -  arguments.43 that  But  76  -  i n most c a s e s c o u r t s w i l l  those p r a c t i c e s of  not  accept the  drug smoking are i m p o r t a n t  for  idea  a  religion.44 When c o u r t s important  for  character  of  of  the  of  the  there  to  a group,  determine whether  they  will  the p r a c t i c e . 4 5  tenets  of Jehovah's  have  of  the  it  v.  City  was no r e l i g i o u s d o c t r i n e for  If choice  it  In Lakewood,  Ohio  of  Ohio,  Lakewood,  of  a site for  doctrine  of a r e l i g i o u s g r o u p .  religious  A.  handing lands  G.  i n communal  of A l b e r t a  activity  i n the  of  it  the  that  the c o u r t does not m e n t i o n  a  sacred in  i s part  the  when  of  the  the  of Canada,  admit that  prohibit  appeal  4 6  in  t h e r e was a  the H u t t e r i t e s . 4 7  i n t e r e s t to  part  Congregation  is different  The Supreme C o u r t  has f a i l e d to  and a  s e l e c t i o n of  i s nothing  is  the  ground  hall.  property  p r a c t i c e of  perhaps a s u f f i c i e n t s t a t e the judgment  there  a religious edifice,  of  v.  i n the  an a s s e m b l y  that  practice  Walter  involved  the c o n s t r u c t i o n of  i s understandable  to  c a n be s a c r e d o r n o t  r e l i g i o u s c o n g r e g a t i o n was d i s m i s s e d on t h e  location  But  a l s o pay a t t e n t i o n  group o r n o t .  Witnesses Inc.  a certain activity  T h e r e was  such a p r a c t i c e . anything  on  that  question.48 To  summarize,  religious practice  freedom defence for  into  i s an i m p o r t a n t that  r e l i g i o u s group.  the p r a c t i c e i n the activity  there  on t h e  survival  l i f e s t y l e of  refers  the  the  the  s u c h as t h e  r e l i g i o n , the  The  of  a  importance i m p a c t of  r e l i g i o u s group w i l l  c o n s i d e r a t i o n by t h e c o u r t s . 4 9  issue  to the c e n t r a l i t y of  Factors of  aspect of  be  of  the  taken  situation associated with  -  the  enforcement  offense It  of  i s not  upon  freedom  t h e L o r d ' s Day  fundamentally  seems t h a t t h e of  courts  Finally,  it  as an i m p o r t a n t  perceived  by  they  Act  is quite  a practice  a c c e p t more  defendant  not  -  the c o u r t s  i s not  and more  every  t h a t an  infringement  those  conduct  l a b e l l e d by  that w i l l  There are c o u r s e of  c o n s i d e r e d as r e l i g i o u s e v e n when  the  the  by a r e l i g i o n .  under  religious activity,  as s u c h .  peculiar since  dictated  r e l i g i o n i s p o s s i b l e even  conditions.50  are  77  a  be  conduct  adherents  that  pretend  are.51 Judges  will  also address  of  religion.  A definition  It  i s not  question  the  A definition  of  a satisfactory  about  freedom  of  definition  a defintion  religion is of  religious  activities  then  there  i s no r e s t r a i n t  legal  that  or  question  The  a corporation  of  not  freedom  one's  of  any  i m p o s e d on t h e i s capable  question  of  to  kind either person. to  freedom  activities. religion. there of  perform  one's  involves physical,  There i s  no  have a r e l i g i o n s i n c e be e x a m i n e d  defence  of  is  Freedom  beliefs.52  that will  can r a i s e the  of  d i f f i c u l t when  as t h e c a p a c i t y  a c c o r d i n g to  t h a t a human b e i n g  c a n have a b e l i e f . whether  be d e f i n e d ,  is  nature  religious activities.  then,  mental  i s s u e on t h e  r e l i g i o n and r e l i g i o u s  religion,  that  will  of  the  now  he  is  religious  freedom.53  C.  Are  Corporations  e n t i t l e d to  the Defence  of  Religious  Freedom? In k e e p i n g identified  i n mind the  i n the  categories  second s e c t i o n ,  of  i t must  c o n f l i c t t h a t have be s a i d t h a t  the  been  defence  -  of Day  religious Act.  Indeed i n a l l  engages it  freedom w i l l  i n an a c t i v i t y  i s in shooting  preaching practice  of  -  a r i s e only  the  other  to  areas  for  door,  the  corporation  c o u l d engage  i n those  significant  that corporations,  prosecuted  for  different (i) To  for  would  i n the  Pastor the  appellants  ground  that  certain violated The  the  phrases their  commercial  the  defendant  as r e l i g i o u s .  of  Lord's  Whether  or  in be  to  the  s e e how a  a c t i v i t i e s and i t  t h e Sunday c l o s i n g  r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m when But  the  problem,  they  situation  is  is  are.  somewhat  corporations,  production  of  interest the  literature  in their  i n the  the Market  of  materials This  i  n  the Commission to  promoting  force  in  this on  case,  the  them t o  a religious  and  problem  Human R i g h t s  Sweden.56  Court  for  change  product  freedom.57  concluded that  enterprise  v.  before  advertising  religious  or other  distribution.  Scientology  lodged a complaint r u l i n g by  c o u l d be i n v o l v e d ,  European Commission  Church of  Commission  the  Corporations  before  X a n d The  conflict,  is difficult  types  besides  to  of  i s a l l e g e d to  a religious corporation  have a d i r e c t  was p r e s e n t e d  It  to a l a w . 5 5  religious  be s u r e ,  instance,  right  a breach  Religious  of  offense  activity.54  c l a i m e d the  context  a r e l i g i o u s ceremony  a religious  have n e v e r  i n the  t h a t he i d e n t i f i e s  an a n i m a l  from door  78  and n o t  selling  t h e E - m e t e r was  a religious activity.  The  a  right  -  of  the Church  examined.  of  The  decision  to  Scientology  79  to  -  c l a i m r e l i g i o u s freedom  Commission r e v i s e d i t s view expressed i n a  observe  that  the  d i s t i n c t i o n between In  Commission,  i s c a p a b l e to  freedom  a religious corporation of  Convention  r e l i g i o n protected  on Human R i g h t s . 5 8  Scientology  constitutional  entitled  to  different,  it the  non-profit  rights  freedom upon  discussion will i s the o n l y  corporation  Accordingly,  of  of  of  their  a s s e r t the the  The  corporation  profit  of  the meaning in  the  problem  is  is a profit  closing statutes  Two  are l i k e l y to  than  has t o  c l o s e on a day  other  Sunday  because i t s managers  o r key  employees  to  response  of  rest other  the c o u r t s  than  in either  a Sunday. case?  raise  s i t u a t i o n s may a r i s e :  t o c l o s e on a day o t h e r  have  an  issue since  a corporation  of  is  organization.  or  day  be  quite  Sunday  religious  of  harmony  l a w when t h e r e  corporations  r e l i g i o u s freedom.  has no o b l i g a t i o n  (2)  is  right  European  religious corporations will  b r i n g on Sunday  area where  and a  members.59  that  the  pervious  the  c o r p o r a t i o n s c o u l d defend  r e l i g i o n i n Canadian  when  of  the Church  the Commission  r e l i g i o u s freedom.  however,  defence  i n s e c t i o n 9 of  d e c i s i o n of  c a n be e x p e c t e d  infringement  The  The  c a s e s where  So i t  opinion  was c o n s i d e r e d as an a p p l i c a n t w i t h i n  the C o n v e n t i o n . other  the  a Church  member was e s s e n t i a l l y a r t i f i c i a l .  to  was  (1)  a  than  a  observe  a  What s h o u l d be  the  a  -  (ii)  When t h e C o r p o r a t i o n day o t h e r  It W.H.  was t h e  of  Act  v.  right  Day A c t ,  religion if  Religion,  a non-human  to  on a day o t h e r  human b e i n g ,  it  that  the  being.  compels i t  void.  and t h e y  held that  i m p l i e s a s e t of  a Sunday,  undertake to c l o s e  any  and i t  disadvantage  on a day o t h e r  The Queen a n d l a t e l y  and R^ v .  B i g M. Drug M a r t L t d .  view that  the presence or absence of  c o n t r a v e n e d to  freedom of  absolutely  null.62  discussion.  For  This  for  for  it  than a  but the  Day  Act  i n R^ v .  W.H.  is  has  be  i n Robertson  Smith L t d .  et  and al.  the  a r e l i g i o n i n the a p p e l l a n t s ' fact  r e l i g i o n of  that  the  Lord's  one c i t i z e n made  Day  i t may be s a i d  that  freedom  Act  it  q u e s t i o n i n i t s e l f i s an o t h e r m a t t e r  t h e moment  no  absolutely  where the j u d g e s e x p r e s s e d  the o n l y  any  Sunday.  r e l i g i o u s freedom s h o u l d not  v.  since  have  beliefs  i s true  was t h e o p i n i o n e x p r e s s e d by C a r t w r i g h t  was i m m a t e r i a l  of  corporations  r e l i g i o u s process i s within  Rosetanni  lives  Lord's  religion?  u n l e s s the c o u r t s admit the L o r d ' s  It  the  s. 4  When a c o r p o r a t i o n has no o b l i g a t i o n  than  does n o t  that  " E v e r y o n e has f r e e d o m  c a n n o t have a  such a case the defence of  accepted  v.  religious  B u t how c a n a c o r p o r a t i o n  as i t was d e f i n e d ,  reach of  In  it  i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t  religion  and  religion.61  idea that  included in "Everyone".  close  down on a  r a i s e the defence of  a s s t a t e d by t h e C h a r t e r  freedom of  there  to  and t h e j u d g e s c o n s i d e r e d t h a t  The j u d g e s m a i n t a i n e d t h e  were  to c l o s e  B i g M. Drug M a r t L t d .  i n f r i n g e d upon f r e e d o m o f  religion"  n o t have  The c o r p o r a t i o n s w e r e c h a r g e d w i t h v i o l a t i o n o f  the L o r d ' s  Day  does  e t a l . and i n e i t h e r c a s e the c o u r t s d e c i d e d  t h e c o r p o r a t i o n s had t h e freedom.60  -  t h a n a Sunday  situation in  Smith L t d .  80  of  of  -  religion  means t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f  and when s o m e t h i n g o r religious entitled  to  (iii)  however,  the A l b e r t a  r e l i g i o n of  Court  than  of  Appeal  o r he s h o u l d n o t  r e l i g i o u s freedom.  its  be  There  the C o r p o r a t i o n  are  c a n be  managers.  has to c l o s e  expressed,  t h e mens r e a o f  a Sunday.64  r e l i g i o n of  the  There  Then,  t h e c o u r t was t o  Appeal  the  o f f i c e r s to  down on a day  other  the m a j o r i t y  in obiter,  that  its officers,  of  as a  it  could  was no s u g g e s t i o n t h a t  c o u r t d i d not  have  the  shareholders  to  convictions  on c h a r g e s o f  e t a l . the Ontario gave t h e  right  t h e c o r p o r a t i o n whose t h e  day.65  Eight  a p p e a l s were  selling  g o o d s on a S u n d a y ,  s e c t i o n 2 of  the R e t a i l  that  i n f r i n g e d upon t h e f r e e d o m o f  the Act  must o b s e r v e a Sabbath  Business Holidays  other  attribute  Day  The  main  Act  was  t h a n Sunday  Act.  The  Court to  two  and m a n a g e r s w e r e O r t h o d o x J e w s who had t o  as t h e i r S a b b a t h  rest  religion.  Video F l i c k s Ltd.  r e l i g i o n only  to  the L o r d ' s  adopted a s e l e c t i v e approach t h a t  freedom of  have  the c o r p o r a t i o n accused.  determine whether  freedom of  H o w e v e r i n JR^ v .  Saturday  a  i n t h e B i g M. D r u g M a r t c a s e had t o o b s e r v e a day o f  inconsistent with  of  it  i n d e l i v e r i n g the o p i n i o n of  religion likewise.63  of  restraint  a Sunday  c o r p o r a t i o n c o u l d have  task  b e l i e f s without  when t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f  the  Laycraft J.A.  the  defense of  When t h e C o r p o r a t i o n than  other  one's  someone c a n n o t have a r e l i g i o n o r  the personal  c l o s e d because of  officers  -  p r a c t i c e e n c r o a c h e d by t h e l a w ,  situations,  their  81  observe  from contrary court  r e l i g i o n of  and r e f u s e d t o  to  held  those  who  quash a l l  -  convictions that  only  but  one on t h a t  t h o s e whose  82  -  p a r t i c u l a r ground.  rights  The C o u r t  are v i o l a t e d c o u l d c l a i m  observed  its  inapplicability.66 The like  d i s t i n c t i o n that v.  Video F l i c k s L t d .  corporation of  third  Appeal  has t o  to  a s s e r t not  parties.  et  be made h e r e al.  is  rights  observance  statute  upon  on t h o s e who h a v e  because of Court  of  saying  infringes  their  Appeal  that  to  observing  a corporation  shareholders.  It  has  seems t h a t  the  right  behalf  its  shareholders.  that  of  of  other  the  the the  breach of  One  of  prevent  a citizen  In G r i s w o l d provide down.  any  rights  of  v.  the m a r r i e d people w i t h  relationship.67  Sunday  the  r e l i g i o n of  to  Ontario  its  be  c h a l l e n g e the  duty  it  without  to  statute  the  on  rule  r u l e s has  been the  i m p o s e d on h i m w o u l d  rights. making  it  a crime  t o m a r r i e d p e o p l e was  league's  acquitted  The  approach would to  a  its  disadvantage  a Sunday.  of  of  people,  same c o n c l u s i o n  a statute  contraception  consequently  If  a  those  A l i t i g a n t charged with  that  Connecticut,  parenthood  parties.  its constitutional  from a s s e r t i n g h i s  help with  A planned  d o c t o r were  c o u l d argue  but  asserting  the e x c e p t i o n s  i n some A m e r i c a n c a s e s .  a statute  than  proper  a l i t i g a n t must a s s e r t o n l y  illustrated  other  freedom  corporation  for  in the Ontario Court  r e l i g i o u s freedom of  reached the  recognize  rights  assume an e c o n o m i c a l  a day  c o u l d have  of  i n cases  standing  no d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n  and a s s e r t i n g t h e  only  the  i t s own c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  own r i g h t s  is  t h e r e was  There i s a c o n f u s i o n  d e c i s i o n as t h e r e  is that  executive  by a f f i r m i n g whom t h e y  to  striken  d i r e c t o r and a the  constitutional  had a p r o f e s s i o n a l  -  The  same p r i v i l e g e  h e l p e r who p r o v i d e d in  contravention In C r a i g  acquittal age.84  a Massachusetts  in asserting  the  u n d e r 21 w h e r e a s  beer  only  females  it  contrary on t h e  to  s . 4 of  rights  economic Indeed,  of  the  inconvenience.  assumes  corporation  standing  to  s h o u l d have t h e managers  would  Laycraft J.A.  acquitted  for  right  to  of  these  to  of  any  kinds  standing to  of  is  are  But  freedom  from  any  employee  to a f i n a n c i a l  corporation  has  available,  it  that  s h o u l d not  of  r e l i g i o n but  to  give  to  only  others. c i r c u m s t a n c e s such the out  corporations  r e l i g i o u s freedom in  v.  B i g M.  to a s i t u a t i o n where that  rest  beliefs.  subject  not  should  be exempt  religious  when t h e  to  assert  was p o i n t e d  referred  their  rest  burden.  i n those  a  of  Drug  i n h i s name c o u l d  t h e L o r d ' s Day  Act while  their Mart  corporation  individuals could have.70  c a r r y i n g on b u s i n e s s  a breach of  beer  c l o s e on S u n d a y ,  of  right  be r e f u s e d a p r i v i l e g e  an O r t h o d o x J e w  of  on b u s i n e s s on S u n d a y  employees  a personal  standing  person  u n d e r 21 y e a r s  3.2  s a l e of  Act,  hand,  a financial  or employees  sale of  their  to  day  other  A n o t h e r r e a s o n why  Ltd.  has  another  a s s e r t the  a verdict  o r managers  because of  the  benevolent  to a s i n g l e  male b u y e r s  carry  employees  down b e c a u s e t h e k e y  certainly the  On  a  eigtheen.69  corporation  has t o o b s e r v e  of  t h e L o r d ' s Day  their  obtained  r e s t r i c t e d the  have t o  disadvantages if  to  statute.68  prohibited  under  When c o r p o r a t i o n s  close  rights  An O k l a h o m a s t a t u t e  to  on e x t e n d e d  Boren a beer vendor  male  that  was l a t e r  -  an a r t i c l e on c o n t r a c e p t i o n  with  v.  83  the  So,  be corporation  -  whose o n l y  type  of  appears  t h e same o f f e n s e .  carries  then  all  corporations  that  null of  the  under h i s p e r s o n a l  solution offered  and  For  it  in  v.  s h o u l d have  W.H.  Smith L t d .  neither  i n the  the  one.  reasoning i s  Day  Act  right  of  next  in all all.  section.  is true  Ltd.  not  v.  B i g M.  those  r e l i g i o n nor  It  one  It  Video F l i c k s  et a l • , supra,  freedom of  r e l i g i o u s freedom.  i n f r i n g e s the  discussion  v.  an  name i n  the p o s i t i o n s expressed i n  considered the L o r d ' s  since  the  i s even p o s s i b l e t h a t  i s p r e f e r a b l e even though  r a i s e a defence of  judges  It  on b u s i n e s s b o t h  criticism.  Drug M a r t L t d .  to  i s an O r t h o d o x J e w w o u l d be  b u s i n e s s and u n d e r a c o r p o r a t e name i n a n o t h e r  et a l . , supra, above  -  s h a r e h o l d e r and manager  convicted for individual  84  that  standing the  respects absolutely But t h a t w i l l  be  part  -  85  -  Footnotes  1.  A m e r i c a n a u t h o r s seem t o be a b o v e a l l c o n c e r n e d w i t h d e f i n i n g religion. T h e y pay l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n t o t h e n e c e s s i t y o f d e f i n i n g w h a t c o n s t i t u e s r e l i g i o u s a c t i v i t i e s ; See i n t h i s r e s p e c t : e . g . , M. Sanderson, "Objective C r i t e r i a for D e f i n i n g R e l i g i o n f o r t h e F i r s t A m e n d m e n t " , ( 1 9 8 0 ) 11 U . To!. L. R e v . 988; J . H . M a n s f i e l d , "The R e l i g i o n C l a u s e s of the F i r s t Amendment and t h e P h i l o s o p h y o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n " ( 1 9 8 4 ) 72 C a l i f . L . R e v . 847.  2.  Maiter v.  3.  A.G.  of  Alberta,  [1969] S . C . R .  383.  Ibid.  4.  R^ v . B i g M . D r u g M a r t , [ 1 9 8 4 ] 1 W . W . R . 625 ( A l t a . C.A.) c o n f i r m i n g [ 1 9 8 3 ] 4 W . W . R . 5 4 ; R. v . W . H . S m i t h L t d . e t a l . , [ 1 9 8 3 ] 5 W . W . R . 2 3 5 ; R. v . V i d e o F l i c k s L t d . e t a l . , L1985J 48 O . R . (2d) 3 9 5 . "~"  5.  C a n a d i a n C h a r t e r o f R i g h t s and Freedoms, C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1 9 8 2 , P t . 1 , s . 2 ; See t h e d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n o f J u s t i c e B e l z i l i n R. v . B i g M . D r u g M a r t , [ 1 9 8 4 ] 1 W . W . R . 6 2 5 , a t p . 656.  6.  S e e Thomas v . R e v i e w B o a r d o f t h e I n d i a n a D i v i s i o n e t a l . 67 L. E d . 2 d 624 ( 1 9 8 1 ) .  7.  I t i s t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n h e l d by J u s t i c e B e l z i l o f t h e A l b e r t a C o u r t o f A p p e a l i n R. v . B i g M. D r u g M a r t , s u p r a , n o t e 5 , c o n c e r n i n g f r e e d o m o f c o n s c i e n c e and r e l i g i o n . It i s s u g g e s t e d , h e r e , h o w e v e r , t h a t f r e e d o m o f r e l i g i o n c o u l d be a v a l i d defence i n case of c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s w h i l e freedom o f c o n s c i e n c e w o u l d p r o t e c t o n l y a g a i n s t o p p r e s s i o n and discrimination.  8.  S e e H . B r u n , " Q u e l q u e s n o t e s s u r l e s a r t i c l e s 1 , 2 , 7 e t 15 de l a C h a r t e C a n a d i e n n e d e s d r o i t s e t l i b e r t e s " , ( 1 9 8 2 ) 23 C a h i e r s de D r o i t , 7 8 1 , 787.  9.  See J . P . M o o r e , " P i e r c i n g t h e R e l i g i o u s V e i l of C u l t s " (1980) 7 P e p p e r d i n e L. R e v . , 6 5 5 - 7 1 0 .  10.  I t h a s a l w a y s been a d i f f i c u l t t a s k f o r t h e A m e r i c a n c o u r t s t o d e t e r m i n e what i s c o v e r e d under freedom of r e l i g i o n i n the F i r s t Amendment. See L. T r i b e , A m e r i c a n C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law, M i n e o l a , New Y o r k , The F o u n d a t i o n P r e s s I n c . , 1 9 7 8 , a t p . 826-833, 859-865.  11.  I n D a v i s v . B e a s o n , 133 U . S . 3 3 3 , 342 ( 1 8 9 0 ) ; R e y n o ! d s v . U n i t e d S t a t e s 98 U . S . 145 ( 1 8 7 8 ) . T h e r e was no d i s c u s s i o n on the d e f i n i t i o n of r e l i g i o n but a t h e i s t i c n o t i o n of r e l i g i o n  Employment  Security  the s o - c a l l e d  -  86 -  was o b v i o u s i n t h e o p i n i o n s o f t h e Supreme C o u r t United States.  of the  12.  367 U . S . 488 ( 1 9 6 1 ) .  13.  S e e U . S . v . S e e g e r 3 8 0 U . S . 163 ( 1 9 6 5 ) ; W e i s h v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 9 8 U . S . 3 3 3 ( 1 9 7 0 ) ; M a l n a k v . YogTT~592 F . 2 d 197  TT979T. 14.  See e . g . , J . M . C l a r k , " G u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e F r e e E x e r c i s e C l a u s e " , ( 1 9 6 9 ) 83 H a r v . L . R e v . 327 ( 1 9 6 9 ) ; Comment, " T o w a r d a C o n s t i t u t i o n a l D e f i n i t i o n o f R e l i g i o n " , ( 1 9 7 8 ) 91 H a r v . L . R e v . 1 0 5 6 ; Comment, D e f i n i n g R e l i g i o n : o f G o d , t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a , and t h e D . A . R . , 32 U . C h i . L . R e v . 533 (1965).  15.  [1953] S . C . R .  16.  Ibid.,  17.  R^ v . H a r r o l d ,  18.  R. v . J a c k  299, at p. 315.  at p. 368. [1971]  19 D . L . R .  and C h a r l i e ,  ( 3 d ) 471  [ 1 9 8 2 ] 67 C . C . C . C  (B.C.C.A.). (2d) 289  TB.C.C.A.). 19.  S e e E. D u r k h e i m , " T h e S o c i a l F o u n d a t i o n s o f R e l i g i o n " i n S o c i o l o g y o f r e l i g i o n e d i t e d by R. R o b e r t s o n , M i d d l e s e x , E n g . , Penguin B o o k s , 1 9 6 9 , 4 2 - 5 4 ; a t p . 4 6 , Durkheim d e f i n e s a r e l i g i o n a s : " a u n i f i e d s y s t e m o f b e l i e f s and p r a c t i c e s r e l a t e d to sacred t h i n g s , that i s to s a y , things s e t apart and f o r b i d d e n , b e l i e f s and p r a c t i c e s w h i c h u n i t e i n t o one s i n g l e m o r a l c o m m u n i t y c a l l e d a c h u r c h a l l t h o s e who a d h e r e to them."  20.  A . N . W h i t e h e a d , R e l i g i o n i n t h e M a k i n g , New Y o r k , T h e M a c M i l l a n C o . 1 9 2 6 , a t p . 1 8 : R e l i g i o n , so f a r a s i t r e c e i v e s e x t e r n a l e x p r e s s i o n i n human h i s t o r y , e x h i b i t s f o u r f a c e t s o r sides of i t s e l f . These f a c t o r s a r e r i t u a l , e m o t i o n , b e l i e f , rationalization.  21.  Supra,  22.  S e e comments by E . S h a r p e , U n d e r s t a n d i n g D u c k w o r t h and C o . , 1 9 8 3 , a t p p . 3 1 - 3 6 .  23.  I b i d , a t p . 3 5 : " D e f i n i t i o n s o f r e l i g i o n may s e r v e d i f f e r e n t p u r p o s e s , d e p e n d i n g on t h e p a r t i c u l a r i n t e n t i o n s and p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s o f whoever f o r m u l a t e s them. Doubtless p r a c t i c a l d e f i n i t i o n s and w o r k i n g d e f i n i t i o n s a l i k e w i l l t e l l us s o m e t h i n g a b o u t r e l i g i o n i n one o r a n o t h e r o f h i s a s p e c t s ; b u t g e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g t h e f o r m e r w i l l t e l l u s r a t h e r more about t h e s t a t e o f mind o f t h e i r c r e a t o r than about o b s e r v a b l e phenomena."  note  14. religion,  London,  -  87  -  The d e f i n i t i o n t h a t w i l l be p r o p o s e d h e r e w i l l be a w o r k i n g d e f i n i t i o n t h a t s h o u l d w e l l d e s c r i b e from a l e g a l p e r s p e c t i v e what i s r e a l l y i n v o l v e d i n the r e l i g i o n p r o c e s s . 24.  W.H. Goodenough, "Toward an A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l l y U s e f u l D e f i n i t i o n of R e l i g i o n " i n Changing P e r s p e c t i v e s i n the S c i e n t i f i c S t u d y o f R e l i g i o n , e d i t e d by A . W . E i s l e r , New York. J o h n W i l e y & S o n s , 1974 a t p . 1 6 6 , he e x p l a i n s : " I n t h i s e n d , I am s u g g e s t i n g t h a t we t a k e s e r i o u s l y t h e v i e w t h a t p e o p l e ' s major emotional preoccupations e s p e c i a l l y t h e i r c o n c e r n s w i t h t h e c u l t i v a t i o n and m a i n t e n a n c e of t h e s e l f i n t h e s o c i a l and s y m b o l i c m i l i e u s i n w h i c h t h e y l i v e , a r e t h e s t u f f f r o m w h i c h t h e phenomenon o f r e l i g i o n a r i s e s .  25.  " S u p r a - e m p i r i c a l " r e f e r s t o s o m e t h i n g t h a t c a n n o t be t e s t e d o r p r o v e n ; See A . F . C . W a l l a c e , R e l i g i o n , an A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l V i e w , New Y o r k , Random H o u s e , 1 9 6 6 , a t p . 5 2 : "It i s the p r e m i s e o f e v e r y r e l i g i o n and t h i s p r e m i s e i s r e l i g i o n ' s defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c - that s o u l s , supernatural beings, a n d s u p e r n a t u r a l f o r c e s e x i s t " ; J . M . Y i n g e r , "What i s R e l i g i o n ? " , New Y o r k , H a r p e r C . Row, 1973 a t p . 1 6 : " A t l e a s t some o f t h e v a l u e s w h i c h i t u p h o l d s a r e s u p e r - e m p i r i c a l . T h i s d o e s n o t mean t h a t t h e y a r e b e y o n d t h e r e a c h o f c o n s t a n t r e f u t a t i o n by t h e f a c t s o f i m m e d i a t e e x p e r i e n c e . "  26.  See t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f r e l i g i o n p r o p o s e d by J . B . P r a t t , T h e R e l i g i o u s C o n s c i o u s n e s s , New Y o r k , M a c M i l l a n C o . , 1 9 2 0 , a t p . 2 : " t h e s e r i o u s and s o c i a l a t t i t u d e o f i n d i v i d u a l s o r c o m m u n i t i e s t o w a r d t h e power o r powers w h i c h t h e y c o n c e i v e as h a v i n g u l t i m a t e c o n t r o l o v e r t h e i r i n t e r e s t s and d e s t i n i e s . "  27.  S e e R. C a i l l o i s , a t p. 18.  28.  M. S a n d e r s o n , s u p r a , n o t e 1 , o b j e c t i o n to that approach. 13.  29.  Malnak  30.  S e e Brown v . P e n a 441 F. S u p p . 1382 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , a f f ' d , 5 8 9 F . 2 d 1113 ( 1 9 7 8 ) . The p l a i n t i f f Brown a l l e g e d t h a t a c e r t a i n b r a n d o f c a t f o o d enhanced h i s energy l e v e l , work p e r f o r m a n c e , and o v e r a l l s t a t e o f b e i n g . He was s u i n g t h e Equal Employment O p p o r t u n i t y Commission a l l e g i n g r e l i g i o u s discrimination. I n s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s w o u l d i t be a p p r o p r i a t e t o c o n c l u d e t h a t he p l a i n t i f f h a s a r e l i g i o n ? On t h e same m a t t e r , s e e : A f r i c a v . The Commonwealth o f P e n n s y l v a n i a , 662 F . 2 d 1025 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ; r e h e a r i n g d e n i e d N o v . 2 4 , 1981 ( a n i n t e r e s t i n g d i s c u s s i o n a b o u t w h a t i s a r e l i g i o n according to the U . S . Court of Appeals, T h i r d C i r c u i t . Re: The a p p e l l a n t was an immate t h e n ) .  v.  Yogi,  L'homme e t l e s a c r e ,  Paris,  Gallimard,  1970,  a t p . 1 0 1 5 , 1 0 1 6 , e x p r e s s e d some See Malnak v . Y o g i , s u p r a , note  Ibid.  -  88  -  31.  See J o n e s v . B r a d l e y 590 F . 2 d 2 9 4 ( 1 9 7 9 ) a t p . 2 9 5 : " I t i s c l e a r l y i m p e r m i s s i b l e to i n q u i r e i n t o the ' t r u t h ' of r e l i g i o u s d o c t r i n e s o r b e l i e f s [ r e f e r i n g to U . S . v . B a l l a r d , supra]. T h e r e i s no p r o h i b i t i o n , h o w e v e r , a g a i n s t r u l i n g whether or not a s e t of b e l i e f s c o n s t i t u t e a r e l i g i o n . "  32.  T h a t w o u l d l e a v e a more s p e c i f i c s u p r a , n o t e s 30 a n d 3 1 .  33.  S e e W i s c o n s i n v . Y o d e r , 406 Review Board of the I n d i a n a a l . , s u p r a , note 6 (even i f certain doctrinal position, adherent).  34.  394 P .  35.  Ibid.  36.  Ibid.  37.  Supra,  38.  Ibid.  39.  Supra,  40.  R o b e r t s o n and R o s e t a n n i p. 657, 658.  41.  (1973)  42.  R.  43.  See J . T . D o y l e , " C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law: D u b i o u s I n t r u s i o n s P e y o t e , D r u g Laws and R e l i g i o u s F r e e d o m " , ( 1 9 8 0 ) 8 Am. I n d . L. R e v . 7 9 - 9 6 .  44.  See e . g . S t a t e v . S o t o , 537 P . 2 d 142 T o r r e s , 184 C a l . R p t r . 39 ( 1 9 8 2 ) .  45.  See P a s t o r X and t h e C h u r c h o f S c i e n t o l o g y v . S w e d e n , ( 1 9 7 9 ) Y . E . C . H . R . 2 4 4 , at p. 2 5 0 : "The Commission i s of t h e o p i n i o n t h a t the c o n c e p t , c o n t a i n e d i n the f i r s t paragraph of A r t . 9 , c o n c e r n i n g t h e m a n i f e s t a t i o n of a b e l i e f i n p r a c t i c e does not c o n f e r p r o t e c t i o n on s t a t e m e n t s o f p u r p o r t e d r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f w h i c h a p p e a r as s e l l i n g " a r g u m e n t s " i n a d v e r t i s e m e n t s o f a p u r e l y c o m m e r c i a l n a t u r e by a r e l i g i o u s g r o u p . "  46.  699 F .  2 d 303  47.  Supra,  note  v.  2 d 813  note  See  U . S . 205 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ; a l s o Thomas v . Employment S e c u r i t y D i v i s i o n e t a c o r e l i g i o n i s t does n o t s h a r e a y e t i t c a n be c e n t r a l f o r an  33.  at p.  C.C.C.  Reed,  religion.  (1964).  note 19,  11  d e f i n i t i o n of  (2d)  [1983]  2.  294. v.  562  The Q u e e n ,  (Man.  8 C.C.C.  (1983).  (3d)  [1963] S . C . R .  651,  at  C.A.). 153  (B.C.S.C.).  (1975);  People  v.  -  89  -  48.  I b i d . ; I t i s n o t e w o r t h y t h a t t h e Communal P r o p e r t y A c t was r e p e a l e d n o t l o n g a f t e r t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e Supreme C o u r t i n Walter v. A.G. of A l b e r t a , supra. See S t a t u t e s o f A l b e r t a ( 1 9 7 2 ) , ChTTTJTi  49.  Supra,  note  33.  50.  Supra,  note  4.  51.  Supra,  note  46.  52.  T h i s d e f i n i t i o n i s s u g g e s t e d by a r t i c l e 9 ( 1 ) o f t h e E u r o p e a n C o n v e n t i o n on Human R i g h t s w h i c h r e a d s : E v e r y o n e has t h e r i g h t t o f r e e d o m o f t h o u g h t , c o n s c i e n c e ad r e l i g i o n ; t h i s r i g h t i n c l u d e s f r e e d o m t o c h a n g e h i s r e l i g i o n o r b e l i e f and f r e e d o m , e i t h e r a l o n e o r i n c o m m u n i t y w i t h o t h e r s and i n p u b l i c or p r i v a t e , to m a n i f e s t h i s r e l i g i o n or b e l i e f , i n w o r s h i p , t e a c h i n g , p r a c t i c e and o b s e r v a n c e .  53.  Supra,  54.  v . J a c k and C h a r l i e , s u p r a , Saumur, s u p r a , note 15.  55.  I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t t h e r e i s no m e n t i o n o f c l a i m s t o r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m s by c o r p o r a t i o n s f r o m any o f t h e s e two studies i n r e l i g i o u s freedom: D.A. Schmeiser, C i v i l L i b e r t i e s i n Canada, O x f o r d , Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1964. L. P f e f f e r , R e l i g i o u s F r e e d o m , S k o k i e , 1 1 1 . , National T e x t b o o k C o . , 1977 (U.S.A.).  56.  Supra,  57.  Ibid.  58.  Ibid.  note  note  4.  See N . A . A . C . P .  60.  Supra,  61.  Ibid.  62.  City  o f Quebec  v.  45.  59.  note  note 18;  v.  Alabama,  357  U.S.  449  (1958).  4.  F o r i n s t a n c e , i n R^ v . B i g M . D r u g M a r t , s u p r a , n o t e 4 , a t p . 636. L a y c r o f t speaking f o r the m a j o r i t y of the A l b e r t a Court o f A p p e a l s a i d : "The t a s k o f t h e C o u r t i s t o see w h e t h e r a l l o r p a r t o f t h e L o r d ' s Day A c t i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h f r e e d o m o f c o n s c i e n c e and r e l i g i o n a n d t h e r e f o r e o f no f o r c e o r e f f e c t . I t does n o t a f f e c t t h a t t a s k t h a t a p e r s o n c h a r g e d has no r e l i g i o n o r e v e n t h a t he h a s no f e e l i n g s o f c o n s c i e n c e . It i s t h e n a t u r e o f t h e l a w w h i c h m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d and n o t t h e a t t r i b u t e s of the person c h a r g e d . In t h i s c o n t e x t t h a t w h i c h  -  i n f r i n g e s the r i g h t s r i g h t s of a l l . "  90 -  o f one C a n a d i a n ,  thereby,  infringes  the  63.  Ibid.,  at p. 636.  64.  Ibid.  65.  Supra,  66.  I b i d . , a t p . 4 3 0 : " I n accordance w i t h s . 52(1) of t h e C o n s t i t u i t o n A c t , 1982, the Act ( R e t a i l Business Holidays Act) i s i n c o n s i s t e n t with the p r o v i s i o n s of the Charter to t h e e x t e n t t h a t i t does n o t p r o v i d e f o r a d e q u a t e r e l i g i o u s exemptions. Otherwise, the Act i s v a l i d i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n t o a l l a p p e l l a n t s who c a n n o t make s u c h a c l a i m s i n c e r e l y o r genuinely. The o n l y a p p l i c a n t t o e s t a b l i s h s u c h a c l a i m i s Norton Foods L t d . "  67.  381 U . S .  481  68.  Eisentadt  v.  69.  429 U . S .  218  70.  S u p r a , note 4 , a t p . 637: " I f t h i s w e r e n o t so a l e g a c y o f t h e C h a r t e r w o u l d be t h a t a s t a t u t e h e l d t o i n f r i n g e t h e f u n d a m e n t a l f r e e d o m s o f one i n d i v i d u a l w o u l d n e v e r t h e l e s s c o n t i n u e to s t r i k e a t o t h e r s , l e a v i n g a patchwork of i n d i v i d u a l l i a b i l i t y and n o n - l i a b i l i t y under t h e s t a t u t e . In t h e e x t r e m e c a s e , u n d e r t h e L o r d ' s Day A c t , l i a b i l i t y w o u l d t u r n on w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e f a m i l y b u s i n e s s had been incorporated."  note  4.  (1965). B a i r d , 405 U . S . 438  (1972).  (1976).  -  IV.  THE TERM "INFRINGEMENT"  When a d e f e n d a n t to  obtain  judges  a verdict  have  challenged Palmer J .  have  whether  of a c q u i t t a l  of the Ontario Court Smoling and S c o t t ,  been d e v e l o p e d  that  of Justice there  that  c a s e where  among t h e t a s k s  that  the s t a t u t e  and f r e e d o m s  Canada o r i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , meaning of i n f r i n g e m e n t .  impermissible?  paper,  of the Charter  i s p r e c i s e l y to  the nature  there  range  that  issue.^  of areas;  are involved.3 there  of the l e g i s l a t i o n that  them?  These  dealing with  necessity  of determining  more p r e s s i n g t h a n  doubt  The t e r m  At t h i s point,  either in  upon a r i g h t  always  an i n f r i n g e m e n t ?  deserve day a f t e r  To  i s i t the purpose o r the  h a s t o be l o o k e d a t o r i s i t b o t h  the Charter  ever.  is little  p r a c t i c a l l y i n every  I s an i n f r i n g e m e n t  are the questions that  decisions  find  i s no c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e  i s an i n f r i n g e m e n t ,  effect  determine  are few, i f any,  What k i n d o f b u r d e n c a n c o n s t i t u t e  determine whether  to  of t h e concept of  There  since there  d i r e c t l y with  i s used i n a wide  "few p r i n c i p l e s  f r e e d o m o f c o n s c i e n c e and  i s not easy  have d e a l t  rights  a r e , however,  of r e l i g i o u s freedom.  in i t s e l f  As  p o i n t e d o u t i n R^ v .  since the adoption  can help to determine  in matters  the task  infringement  real  from a c o u r t ,  Our c o n c e r n , i n t h i s  infringement  studies  r a i s e s the defence o f r e l i g i o u s freedom i n o r d e r  i n f r i n g e s upon t h e r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m o f t h e a c c u s e d .  religion."!  that  AND THE DEFENCE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM  l e g i s l a t i o n i n f r i n g e s upon  principles  -  t o assume i s t h e n e c e s s i t y t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r  Morgentaler, that  91  some a t t e n t i o n .  of  Meanwhile  day a r e d e l i v e r e d a n d t h e  the r e a l meaning of t h e term i n f r i n g e m e n t  is  -  A.  Necessity of  The  -  a definition  term i n f r i n g e m e n t to which r e f e r s  Charter Rights  92  s e c t . 24 o f  i s n o t a new c o n c e p t i n C a n a d i a n l a w . 4 of  1960,  In  the  Canadian  the Canadian B i l l  s e c t i o n 2 c o n t a i n s p r o v i s i o n s aimed a t p r o h i b i t i n g  of the  i n f r i n g e m e n t upon r i g h t s and f r e e d o m s by t h e P a r l i a m e n t o f C a n a d a . 5 either other of  document  the term " t o  expressions l i k e  Rights It  or "to  deny"  i s noteworthy  Canadian B i l l  of  "to  infringe"  abrogate",  i n the that  Rights  i s used i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h "to  abridge"  the  two  that  never  meaning of  the  However, Cartwright J . Court of  have e x t e n s i v e l y  documents,  of  every  paid attention  author  i n 1963,  seemed t o is  a p p e a r e d i n R^ v .  the  that  Day  l a t t e r case,  the L o r d ' s  g u a r a n t e e d by t h e C h a r t e r . 1 1 assumed by t h e m a j o r i t y conclude  Act.9  freedom  instances  have  the  t h e b o o k s and  for  granted that  of  review  protections offered  the m a j o r i t y  by  the  Queen,  an i n f r i n g e m e n t upon  freedom  Ltd.  of  The  Supreme  some t w e n t y y e a r s  of  v.  the  B i g M. Drug M a r t  l a t e r the  same  1 0  the A l b e r t a  Court  of  Appeal  i n f r i n g e d upon r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m Meanwhile B e l z i l J .  i n R o b e r t s o n and R o s e t a n n i  in the Lord's  different  and  obvious.8  in his dissenting opinion that  religious  Bill  the n e c e s s i t y  i n R o b e r t s o n and R o s e t a n n i  the m a j o r i t y  Day A c t  to  In  take  Canada c o n c e r n i n g t h e p r e s e n c e of  dissonance  held  the  d i s s e n t e d from the o p i n i o n of  r e l i g i o n i n the L o r d ' s  In  dealt with  term " i n f r i n g e m e n t " already  i n the Canadian  on t h e C h a r t e r  d e t e r m i n i n g w h a t c o n s t i t u t e s an i n f r i n g e m e n t . 7 articles  some  Charter.6  the commentators  have  In  Day  r e t a i n e d the v.  position  The Queen  to  t h e r e was no i n f r i n g e m e n t  Act.12  Cases d e c i d e d i n  o p i n i o n s on t h e q u e s t i o n .  Not  upon  other  l o n g ago R.  v.  -  Video F l i c k s L t d . the  s i d e of  religious Courts  t h o s e who s e e i n Sunday  freedom.13  i n Ontario  offend  necessity only  of  meaning of recent real  However,  p r i o r to  Sunday  infringement  i n the  that  terms  i s made  In many  d e c i s i o n s d e l i v e r e d by  same e f f e c t  laws.  dictionaries  to  give  as t h e L o r d ' s  u s e d by t h e C h a r t e r  the C h a r t e r  approach a c e r t a i n problem.17 d e t e r m i n e w h a t c o n s t i t u t e s an  violation definition  of"..."  a right  task  almost  intact.  The  up t h e  n e c e s s i t y to  So,  to  determine whether  two  s t e p s have  to  of  in  play  The  effect.16 a key  role in  be f o u n d ,  have  recourse  to  has been a s u c c e s s f u l way  to  same t a c t i c c a n be d e v e l o p e d  to  vested  t o Law  i n f r i n g e m e n t means  in a n o t h e r " . ^ the  f i n d a meaning to  to  the  Canadian  nature  of  But w i t h  there (1)  the  infringement  t e r m s v i o l a t i o n and  i s an i n f r i n g e m e n t to  f i n d what  s p e c i f y what  the  remains  of  constitutes a violation.  brings  right.  upon s o m e o n e ' s right  "a  such a  d e f i n i t i o n p r o p o s e d by t h e O x f o r d d i c t i o n a r y  i s and ( 2 )  show a  infringement.  determining  be made:  the The  the C h a r t e r  full  will  frequently  the O x f o r d Companion  the  individual  its  felt  direction.  and i n many o c c a s i o n s i t  to  Act, The  i s not  is uncertainty  i n s t a n c e s when a d e f i n i t i o n has t o  According  the  Day  r e l i g i o u s freedoms.15  the C h a r t e r  upon  i n the C h a r t e r . 1 4  There  i n many a r e a s o f  was on  Retail  c o n s t i t u t e s an i n f r i n g e m e n t  closing  in that  dealing with  Appeal  the Video F l i c k s case held the  d e t e r m i n i n g what of  of  l a w s an i n f r i n g e m e n t  d e c i s i o n s d e l i v e r e d by C a n a d i a n c o u r t s u n d e r  Precision  judges  Court  r e l i g i o u s freedom p r o t e c t e d  d e s i r e from judges  effort  closing  different  A c t w h i c h has t h e  the  in matters  -  e t a l . d e c i d e d by t h e O n t a r i o  Business Holidays d i d not  93  the  right  -  In m a t t e r s charged with argument  a certain offense,  In a f i r s t  the o f f e n s e , practice.  it will  For  freedom w h i l e  time,  the  if  those  this activity  i s p r o t e c t e d by  d e t e r m i n e what r e l i g i o u s freedom  Section 2 of h i s work  by t h e C h a r t e r  the Charter  as " a c l a i m o r an a d v a n t a g e  which  i s conferred or protected  c o r r e s p o n d i n g d u t y on t h e with  such a d e f i n i t i o n u n t i l  p r o t e c t e d by  clearly  states:  of  will  the  another."19  in  therein.  Tarnopolsky  freedom defined  persons,  difficulty  d e t e r m i n e what  is  r e l i g i o n , S e c t i o n 2(a)  "Everyone h a s " . . . " f r e e d o m all  forms of  of  of  the  Charter  c o n s c i e n c e and r e l i g i o n " .  r e l i g i o u s a c t i v i t i e s are  protected  Charter?  When a c l a i m o f  r e l i g i o u s freedom  criminal  p r o s e c u t i o n , and t h e  areas  r e l i g i o u s freedom,  of  a  implies a  T h e r e i s no  time to  is  next  be e x a m i n e d  p o s s e s s e d by a p e r s o n o r and w h i c h  step  Thus  In  i s guaranteed  Rights,  i t comes t h e  freedom of  d o e s i t mean t h a t  by t h e  of  by l a w , of  first  law.  In m a t t e r s  But  part  one.  religious  and t h e r i g h t t o r e l i g i o u s  on t h e C a n a d i a n B i l l  right  this  the C h a r t e r .  the v i o l a t i o n a l l e g e d i s a real  protection offered  constitutes  defence of the  his  the  protects  smoking m a r i j u a n a ,  order  In  two a s p e c t s o f  an a c c u s e d r a i s e s t h e  the  B.  determine whether  the C h a r t e r  section, to  to  i n c o n s i d e r i n g the a c t i o n t h a t  he i s c h a r g e d w i t h  secondly whether  r a i s e d by an a c c u s e d  o n l y way  be a s k e d w h e t h e r  instance,  see whether  -  r e l i g i o u s freedom defence  c a n be a c c e p t e d i s t o e x a m i n e  question.  to  of  94  i s lodged i n a context  same o b s e r v a t i o n  the  scope of For  the  of  c o u l d be made i n  rights protected  Charter  i s not c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d . 2 0  i n s t a n c e does t h e  protect  even a r e l i g i o u s p r a c t i c e t h a t would promote  human  in  other the  Charter sacrifices  -  with  the  restriction,  however,  that  s u c h a p r a c t i c e as s e t up by S e c t . limitation. that  interest  intervene  the U n i t e d S t a t e s  Wisconsin v. to  protects a l l  would have,  to  i n every  1 since  it  can i n t e r f e r e  case,  is a justifiable  the theory  all  it  is  said  the  a justifiable  it  However,  there  i s no  in  interest  clear  first  sight  Amendment.23  i n the f a c t  for  V e r n e r and  takes a compelling state  s p e c i f y i n g whether  prima f a c i e a c e r t a i n a c t i v i t y  in Sherbert v.  r e l i g i o u s p r a c t i c e s are at  the F i r s t  lies  look  demonstrate  developed  that  forms of  importance of  by t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n  If  religious practices, to  with  and r e f r a i n a p r a c t i c e c o n s i d e r e d i n a d m i s s i b l e . 2 1  under the p r o t e c t i o n of  necessary to  legislation  r e l i g i o u s freedom.22  i n d i c a t i o n whether  not  the  forms of  Yoder p o i n t s out  interfere with  The  -  d i s t i n c t i o n i s not p u r e l y a c a d e m i c a l .  the Charter  legislator  In  The  95  that  or not a r i g h t  is  protected  when a c o u r t c a n c o n c l u d e  i s not c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d i t  an i n f r i n g e m e n t  is  and a p o s s i b l e b a l a n c i n g  test.24 In m a t t e r s that  of  freedom of  s p e e c h , t h e r e are c e r t a i n forms of  are c o n s i d e r e d o u t s i d e the scope of  Justice  Harlan observed  in Konigsberg v.  Many c a s e s f r o m t h e Supreme C o u r t that  t h e r e a r e some f o r m s o f  protection with  of  the F i r s t  the q u e s t i o n of  aspects  of  Charter  i n s p i t e of  of  Amendment.26  freedom of  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n as State  It  l e a v e no  doubt  the  i s p o s s i b l e t o draw a  parallel  would i n d i c a t e t h a t  i n c l u d e d i n S e c t i o n 2(a)  the broad language t h a t offer  California.25  a r e e x c l u d e d from  r e l i g i o n that  r e l i g i o u s p r a c t i c e s are not  Amendment a l s o seems t o  Bar of  the United States  speech t h a t  speech  i s used i n i t . 2 7  a l a r g e p r o t e c t i o n and some  of  The  reputed  some the First  -  jurists  have  already  absolute.28 position States  But  that  States  the  v.  later  that  protected v.  to  damned r a c k e t e e r  statute  to  in question  involved  of  United  i n the  United  opinion protection  criminal Court  the c h a l l e n g e of for  of an  distributing for a  observed  area  Smith  to  the  t h e Supreme  the C o u r t  not  on  racial  that  of  speech. a member  a violation any  of  person to  Marshall  charges of  of  of  the  Jehovah's  t h e P u b l i c Laws o f  call  others  i n any  and d e r i s i v e n a m e . 3 3  with  and a damned F a s c i s t  the  i n an  p a r t i c u l a r l y outrageous  are F a s c i s t s or agents  as a d e f e n s e  the  t h e r e was no a b s o l u t e  in his canvassing,  the C i t y  held,  s p e e c h was u n d e r  New H a m p s h i r e ,  prohibited  w h i l e he was hampered  Rochester  of  or w i l l f u l l y  who was c o n v i c t e d  p u b l i c p l a c e by any o f f e n s i v e  evidence,  a majority  the Government of  Court  the m a j o r i t y  W i t n e s s e s was c h a r g e d w i t h that  of  i n 1952,  leaflets  once a g a i n  In C h a p ! i n k s i  the  of  a n d Young s u c h a  I l l i n o i s d e c i d e d by  by a p e t i t i o n e r  Chicago  constitutionally  other  The  and o b s c e n e u t t e r a n c e s w e r e  Hampshire  Rotunda  person knowingly  when u n d e s i r a b l e  one y e a r  of  minority.32 libelous  any  or v i o l e n c e " . 3 0  Statute  streets  Amendment i s an  p e t i t i o n e r s were c h a l l e n g i n g the  or d e s t r u c t i o n  Beauharnais  States,  Illinois  States,  "a crime f o r  the C o n s t i t u t i o n  United  the F i r s t  approbation  by C h i e f J u s t i c e V i n s o n  sanction.31  the  United  overthrow  by f o r c e  delivered in  v.  made i t  advocate  gained the  -  Court.29  In Dennis Act  that  as o b s e r v e d by Nowak,  has n e v e r  Supreme  advocated  96  had a d d r e s s e d , these words:  and t h e w h o l e  Fascists."34  burden  street j  n  e  are  of  appellant that  to  a"..."  government  jhe  or  appellant  according  "You  cursing a public officer  p l a c e d an u n r e a s o n a b l e  New  raised  the  on h i s f r e e d o m  of  -  speech, Court  freedom of  without  r e a l l y examining the  statute  the Court  to  " f i g h t i n g words" to  incite  area of  r e i t e r a t e d the  the  There religious  the l i b e l o u s ,  v.  state  idea that  phrasing of  possible utterance  i s no t h e o r y  that  nineteenth century  dealing with doctrine  the F i r s t  given  the  i s in matter  Amendment religion  with i s at  the i d e a t h a t  of  These  the  include  i n s u l t i n g or inflict  the United  The C o u r t  Amendment is  States  to  recalled  Amendment. of  a certain activity  that that  some Around  the  the U n i t e d S t a t e s  as p a r t  that  of  idea.  in  their But  no  clear  there.39  speech t h a t  not  the  was u n c o n d i t i o n a l ,  the F i r s t  some t h o u g h t  or  protected.38  t h e Supreme C o u r t  t h e c o u r t s have  injury  peace."36  a theory  a l i m i t e d s c o p e has b e e n a r t i c u l a t e d . stake,  such a  never  has been d e v e l o p e d as t o e x c l u d e  freedom of  even  o b s c e n i t y was n o t w i t h i n  and s y s t e m a t i c p o s i t i o n h a s r e s u l t e d f r o m It  Then,  o f w h i c h have  utterance  t h e Mormons who t h e n had p o l y g a m y  seems t o have  Supreme  i n adopting  and t h e  United States,  a c t i v i t i e s from the scope of  the  defense.  prevention  t h o s e w h i c h by t h e i r v e r y  l a t e r i n Roth  The  a r e c e r t a i n w e l l - d e f i n e d and  s p e e c h , the  the p r o f a n e ,  n o t mean e v e r y  end o f  of  "there  the  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y protected speech.37  even though did  i n t e r e s t of  an i m m e d i a t e b r e a c h o f  Some y e a r s Supreme C o u r t  l a t t e r means o f  r a i s e any c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o b l e m .  l e w d and o b s c e n e ,  tend  two  observed that  limited classes  been t h o u g h t  -  t h e p r e s s and f r e e d o m o f w o r s h i p . 3 5  d i s m i s s e d q u i c k l y the  narrowly  97  of  a  First  When f r e e d o m  generally given attention  i s n o t c o v e r e d by t h e F i r s t  of to  Amendment.  -  They u s u a l l y important the  examine whether  religious activity  infringement,  proceed  if  position  respect.  Even  for  instance,  the  problem  of  i n terms  religious  activity  scope of to  Appeal  appeal  of  appellant  on t h e  treatment  for  The  d i s m i s s e d the  In  of  ground  to of  h i s twelve  a recent  i s not  health  of  d i d not  the his  Had  the  arguments  because Court  they  of  in simply  appellant  had t o  had a c t e d on a c c o u n t o f  h e l d t h a t the  defense  of  Similarly, a outside  principle,  case,  a would  the  d e c l i n e d any  suffering  medical  from a c a n c e r .  that in this  case  the  yield.43  charged with had r e f u s e d  had c u r e d him o f  a p p e l l a n t s was  analyze  i n Re H a m i l t o n  in this  the Ontario Court  a c c u s e d were  to  facie  this  Court  stating  stake,  p r a c t i c e of  religious beliefs,  appeal  that  i s at  obligation  observed  o l d daugther  c o n v i n c e d God the  of  they  in  interest.41  appellant.42  son t o whom t h e y  t h e y were  it  the J u v e n i l e  the  since  the  people  hold the  year  d e c i s i o n from  their  finally  a c h i l d ' s l i f e as prima  the  of  an  character  different  other  have f e l t  T u t t o n and T u t t o n , death  And  courts  Amendment.  denied  r e l i g i o n the  or not.  compelling state  d e c i s i o n of  perhaps  freedom  courts  endangering  h a v e been  Court  the  the  of Tennessee  the  r e l i g i o n and  t h e y d e c i d e on t h e  substantial  the Canadian  the F i r s t  fide  test.40  the Canadian  of  leave  is  -  i s a bona  and t h e n  i n c a s e s where  the Court  the  it  to a b a l a n c i n g  The  there  98  t h a t the their  of  Appeal,  criminal to  R^  negligence  administer  his diabetes.  charges  v.  insulin One  s h o u l d be  not  be  of  dropped  religious beliefs.44  r e l i g i o u s freedom would  in  The  accepted  -  in  s u c h a c a s e and t h a t  religion that  has n o t h i n g  when l i f e  "the  guarantee  t o do w i t h  and h e a l t h o f  this  other  religious  p r a c t i c e s the c o u r t s w i l l  practices  from the p r o t e c t i o n of  i n what d i r e c t i o n they religious  u s e d as a f r a m e w o r k  for  -  of  freedom of  issue".45  Is  people w i l l at  lives  fraudulent  It  it  It  is yet  seems, however,  or h e a l t h of  other  a c t i v i t e s , the  the  t h e p r o t e c t i o n g r a n t e d by s e c t i o n 2 ( a )  of  States  peoples.46  understood under the  that  Supreme C o u r t  T h e r e a r e nOt  p r o t e c t e d by that  there  Charter  religious a leave  to  of  the  lives  is  stake  it  from  Charter. freedom  and h e a l t h  i n t e r e s t s are i n j e o p a r d y ,  s e c t i o n 2(a) r e s t r i c t i o n to  of  the  i n human s a c r i f i c e s  s e c t i o n 2(a)  of  section 1 w i l l ,  extremism. appeal,  the C h a r t e r .  It  a p p l i c a t i o n of  many who w o u l d be o f f e n d e d  of  s h o u l d be  by t h e  i s not the  an  attempt  Charter.  idea that  as a r e l i g i o u s p r a c t i c e i s  the C h a r t e r .  i s no r e a s o n t o l i m i t  since  peoples or  some r e l i g i o u s a c t i v i t i e s w o u l d n o t e v e n be c o n s i d e r e d  scope of  belief  to  see  t h a t when a  has done so i n t h e c a s e o f  t h e r e was no t h r e a t  when v i t a l  t o p u t an e x t r e m e  sincere  e a r l y to  s u c h a p r a c t i c e s h o u l d be p r i m a f a c i e e x c l u d e d  s p e e c h , when h o w e v e r  other  by  i n t e r e s t s at  that  The U n i t e d  an i n d i c a t i o n  f i r s t s i g h t e x c l u d e such  a r e so v i t a l scope of  c o n s c i e n c e and  be e n d a n g e r e d  the C h a r t e r ?  are moving.  practice threatens  99  It  the scope of  i n any e v e n t ,  T h a t s h o u l d be t r u e  of  p r o t e c t everyone  e x c e p t when i t  t h e d i s t i n c t i o n c a n be i m p o r t a n t  c a n h a v e d r a m a t i c e f f e c t s on t h e p e r s o n s  not  c o u l d be a r g u e d , s e c t i o n 2(a)  involved.47  the  however, the  from  comes t o  any grant  and i n some c a s e s  -  Thus,  the  right  to  100  -  r e l i g i o u s freedom p r o t e c t e d  c o u l d be d e f i n e d as t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t o e x e r c i s e any that not  does n o t  seriously affect  constitute a fraudulent Religious  restrictions a deer out in  f r e e d o m so d e f i n e d w i l l  season f o r  the C h a r t e r  The  but  state  "a v i o l a t i o n of  the  C.  subtle  of  why  the  courts  For  to  and  does  the  instance  was p r o p o s e d a t  for  the  a p p l i c a t i o n of  has y e t  to  be  between  d e t e r m i n e what c o n s t i t u t e s a r e no s p e c i f i c  to  killing  protected of  are easy  to  has t o  explained that  right  to  s e c t i o n 2(a)  of  examined.  Sect.  24 and S e c t .  that  have  1  of been  Undoubtedly,  there  are  j h e d e s i r e to  s e e some  laws i s a l e g i t i m a t e one.  That  is  b r i n g as much as p o s s i b l e a common m e a n i n g . School of  Board v .  A t t o r n e y General  the S u p e r i o r Court  the Charter  a l i m i t a t i o n and a d e n i a l  Deschenes observed t h a t  the  was  i d e n t i f y w h i l e some more  i n a s i g n i f i c a n t way.49  i n the a p p l i c a t i o n of  the o u t s e t  a violation  criteria  d e c i d e on t h e m a t t e r .  C h i e f J u s t i c e J u l e s Deschenes  betwen  be s u b m i t t e d  Once a d e f i n i t i o n o f  r e l i g i o u s freedom:  I n Quebec P r o t e s t a n t  then was,  that  violation  v i o l a t i o n that  language  yet  p o t l a t c h w o u l d be a r i g h t  another".  of  there  d i v i d e judges  consistency  of  notion  freedom,  some f o r m s  a funeral  has been f o u n d  comes t o  by t h e  l i v e s and h e a l t h  the C h a r t e r .  infringement  V i o l a t i o n of  religious  activity  c o u l d be s u p e r s e d e d by a d e m o n s t r a t i o n  a right  the  When i t  religious  interest.48  freedom  Charter,  adopted  it  d e f i n i t i o n of  religious  peoples'  Charter  activity.  s e t up i n s e c t i o n 1 o f  of  compelling  other  i n the  of  of  Quebec,  of Quebec,  a s he  c l e a r l y makes a b a s i c d i s t i n c t i o n a right.50  'legislature"..."may  Furthermore  Mr.  l i m i t a guaranteed  Justice right,  -  but  i t may  opinion, School  not  abrogate  or  i t m u s t be k e p t  Board v.  A.G.  "deny"  i n mind t h a t  Quebec d e a l t  o f Quebec t h a t w e r e  of  the Canadian  Charter.52  1 of  the C h a r t e r  denied.53  it  valid  within  the  only  Charter  section  2(a)  of  the  of  a primary  school  comes t o  determine  the  education  the  in matters  Protestant  School  the deny  instance,  grounds to  the  of  parents  their  parents  to  to  Charter.56  d i s t i n c t i o n between  the  regulate  an a c t i v i t y  fundamental sphere of harmful  traditional  to  freedoms  survive  are  the  the  the not  to  S e c t i o n 23  their  it.57  in  a  particular  have  received  the  When  Charter  indeed,  children  statute  that  s e c t i o n 1 of or  denying  a municipality  on  would in  the it to  However when  that  is  it  i n Quebec  a legislature acting  a conduct  of  religious beliefs  s e t up by  not  perhaps  very h e l p f u l . 5 5  limiting a right  prohibit  that  or French.54  a provincial  t o be c o n t r o l l e d ,  peace.58  is  parents  of  101  be l i m i t e d b u t  distinction  education  test  j u r i s d i c t i o n could prohibit public  held  section 1 of  r e s t r i c t i o n s p l a c e d upon  and n o t  to  C.J.  case.  exercise their  probably  recalls  s e c t i o n 23  so e x p r e s s e d  that  Quebec i s  t h a t way w o u l d The  of  in English  violation  object  right  a violation  c h i l d r e n whose  religious beliefs the  Bill  s p e c i f i c than what i s found  i n Canada  A.G.  Protestant  of  particular  r e l i g i o u s freedom  Board v .  this  and 73  guaranteed  opinion  that  the  kind of of  s e c t i o n s 72  S e c t i o n 23 i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h  of  instruction  can a c c e p t  for  the  of  Charter.  d e c i s i o n i n Quebec  allegedly  rights  i s a d i s p o s i t i o n more  situation  if  allows  limits  in reading  h i s d e c i s i o n Deschenes  n  m u s t be s a i d t h a t the  the  with  the Province  i  -  such a r i g h t " . 5 1  of  section  101  in  considered  its  -  Section to  disturb  172  i n the Criminal  an a s s e m b l y  a dissenter believes certain by  argue his  that  Code,  of people  f o r i n s t a n c e , makes  gathering  of the Criminal  s e c t i o n 172 o f t h e C r i m i n a l  Code  the offense  Code.  i s void  Witnesses' outside  C o u l d he t h e n since i t  Reed,  t h e a c c u s e d , a d i s s e n t e r from  prohibits  organization,  an a s s e m b l y  hall  was c o n v i c t e d  f o r having  the Jehovah's used a l o u d  t o condemn b e l i e f s o f w o r s h i p p e r s .  a c c u s e d w h o , on many o c c a s i o n s , h a d i n t e r f e r e d w i t h persons  entering  views  points  the hall  argued  expression After  before  of d e p r i v i n g  as g u a r a n t e e d  by t h e  v.  cases i n Canadian  c a n be b r o u g h t  upon  The Q u e e n ,  d i s m i s s e d the appeal  priest  s i x a c c u s e d were  of the Criminal  Among t h e  of r e l i g i o n and  Court  charged with  contrary  In examining  and A m e r i c a n l a w freedoms,  of the a c c u s e d . 6 2  Code a f t e r  c h u r c h t o r e c e i v e communion  c e l e b r a t i n g the mass.  present  the c o n v i c t i o n s  fundamental  was u p h e l d by t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a C o u r t  s u b s e c t i o n 172(3) Catholic  that  o f freedom  In a r e c e n t c a s e d e c i d e d by t h e Supreme Graham  to  of  Charter.61  an a n a l y s i s o f r e l e v a n t  o f the County Court  The  the s e r v i c e started.60  him o f h i s r i g h t  hailer  t h e movement  he was t r y i n g  by t h e a c c u s e d was t h e a l l e g a t i o n  on t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s t h a t  decision  was a r r e s t e d w h i l e  to the congregation  had t h e e f f e c t  J.  s e t up  r e l i g i o u s conduct? I n Rj, v .  his  if  f o r him t o d i s t u r b a  he w o u l d be c h a r g e d w i t h  o r 172(3)  i t a crime  f o r r e l i g i o u s worship.59  i t i s a r e l i g i o u s duty  r e l i g i o u s meeting,  s u b s e c t i o n 172(2)  102 -  they  Hyde  His  o f Appeal . 6 3 o f Canada  i n Skoke  a violation  of  had k n e e l e d i n a  to the d i r e c t i v e s of the  the facts  of the c a s e , the  -  Court  p a y e d much a t t e n t i o n  that  in this  amounting  to  a d i s t u r b a n c e of  -  the meaning of  p a r t i c u l a r case the  to  103  " d i s t u r b i n g " and c o n c l u d e d  a c c u s e d had n o t  adopted  a r e l i g i o u s assembly.64  i n s t a n c e s where a s e r i o u s d i s t u r b a n c e i s c r e a t e d , the  o p i n i o n of  will of  the c o u r t ,  remain d i f f i c u l t f o r a defendant  to  j  that  other  n  is,  depending  probable.  disturb  attitude  In  fact,  an a s s e m b l y on  on it  account  his religious b e l i e f s . To  be s u r e ,  government admitted  when a m u n i c i p a l i t y r e c e i v e s f r o m  t h e power  that  it  prohibitions  that  would invade  the  there  to  regulate  an a c t i v i t y ,  cannot  prohibit  it.65  provincial  has been  there  denial  federal  of  and l i m i t s  the C h a r t e r . 6 8  legislature completely  cannot  a r e many  j u r i s d i c t i o n in criminal matters.66  that  A.G.  r e l i g i o u s freedom  as M r . J u s t i c e D e s c h e n e s To  be s u r e ,  if  found  r e l i g i o u s freedom  The  However,  between  c o n c e r n i n g s e c t i o n 23 it  i s only  that  the e f f e c t  This  his  appear.69  of  would not  c a n n o t be d e n i e d i f  mean,  there  the  possible violations the  different  is  School  i n i t s own p e r s p e c t i v e .  c o u l d o c c u r and t h e r e b y  are l i k e l y to  a  reflection  o p i n i o n e x p r e s s e d i n Quebec P r o t e s t a n t  identify  of  activities.67  i n the C h a r t e r ,  in general.  they  own s p h e r e  i s no f r o n t i e r  w h a t he m e a n t ,  guaranteed  becomes e a s i e r t o  that  religious  p a s s , l e g i s l a t i o n s t h a t w o u l d have  r e l i g i o n that  infringement  there  Quebec has t o be u n d e r s t o o d  i s done i t  freedom of  incidentally affect  a particular religious right  a justification.69 Board v .  will  abolishing a right  w o u l d be v a l i d f o r however,  generally  p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e s cannot p r o c l a i m because  that  In m a t t e r s  this  Also  it  the  a r e p r o h i b i t i o n s l e g i s l a t u r e s c a n s e t up i n t h e i r  jurisdiction  of  a conviction i s quite  an  Once of  forms  of  -  Religious activities  of  D.  to  try  to  -  i s mentioned of  here r e f e r s  religious  r e l i g i o u s freedom:  some g e n e r a l  s u g g e s t t h a t an i n f r i n g e m e n t  impermissible.70  infringement,  In  of  used i n l e g a l  the e x e r c i s e of  infringement  a right.71  "interfere with  International  interruption  be a p r o h i b i t i o n b u t  Dictionary  or  To  By l o o k i n g a t  freedom  has been a l l e g e d ,  i s a denial  examination  or  said  a  that  since  in  infringement that deserve  the  of  violate  that  infringement,  says about (or  to  v i o l a t i o n or infringe)  d i s t u r b s the e x e r c i s e of  the  be e a s i e r t o before Is  the  identify that,  there  purpose of  an i n f r i n g e m e n t ?  it  s h o u l d be a s k e d w h e t h e r  the  has to  it  be o n l y  now.  infringement The  can  a  possible are  two  a legislation  the e x i s t e n c e of  infringement.  action  Thus an i n f r i n g e m e n t  it will  But  the  means  religous  some a t t e n t i o n .  an a p p r e h e n d e d  what  s i t u a t i o n s where v i o l a t i o n of  or v i o l a t i o n .  is  situations.7^  an e s s e n t i a l c o n d i t i o n f o r  examined  A.G.  always  different  disturbance".  also anything  right.  questions  Board v.  a l w a y s mean p r o h i b i t i o n and i t  v i o l a t i o n h e r e i s u s e d as synonymous  of  in  consideratons  was p r e v i o u s l y  an a t t e n t i v e  does n o t  " v i o l a t i n g " w o u l d be h e l p f u l .  kinds  is  It  discussions in connection with  Webster's Third of  is  human r i g h t s p r o h i b i t i o n i s n o t a p r i o r i i m p e r m i s s i b l e . 7 2  addition,  If  School  as i t was u n d e r s t o o d ,  such a p o s i t i o n does not w i t h s t a n d matters  Now i t  freedom.  Quebec seemed t o  of  those r e l i g i o u s  v i o l a t i o n c a n be f o u n d  d i s t i n c t i o n made i n Quebec P r o t e s t a n t  prohibition  to  the C h a r t e r .  d e t e r m i n e what k i n d of  V i o l a t i o n of  The  that  p r o t e c t e d by s e c t i o n 2 ( a )  appropriate matters  freedom  104  And  be e f f e c t i v e  f i r s t question w i l l  also  o r can be  -  E.  Infringement:  The  long t r a d i t i o n  constitutional influence the  of  the c o u r t s  t h e i r approach of  many c a s e s w h e r e about  -  purpose  problems i n terms of  e x i s t e n c e of  divided  effect vs.  105  i n Canada i n d e a l i n g w i t h  s e p a r a t i o n of  t h e C h a r t e r when i t  powers  is likely  comes t o p r o n o u n c e on  an i n f r i n g e m e n t upon r i g h t s and f r e e d o m s . 7 4 the P r i v y  Council  intent  other  constitutional  a legislation.75  The  ,  has d e f i n i t e l y  Court  of  Appeal  the e f f e c t determine In  of the  of Ontario  a legislation i m p a c t of  the U n i t e d  separation  of  fundamental  freedoms,  that the  to  group or  the C o u r t ,  the  Day  S t a t e s where they  its Act  came t o  t h e Supreme C o u r t the  fact  the  favoured had  to  the  and t h e S t a t e s ,  i n overthrowing  However i n many c a s e s the U n i t e d S t a t e s  the  some  involving did  not  t h a t a l e g i s l a t i o n was n o t a i m e d a t  Verner,  e i t h e r the purpose or the e f f e c t , qualify  i t might c o n t a i n . 7 9  a legislation  a  f o c u s on t h e e f f e c t  of  This  freedoms.  a legislation  according  i n terms  preference for  in looking for  putting  the presence  i s the most p r o p e r approach i n m a t t e r s  Indeed  the primary  of  T h e r e i s some i n d i c a t i o n  Canadian c o u r t s are moving toward a c l e a r  fundamental  of  upon r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m . 7 6  government  of  the  religion.78  that  an i n f r i n g e m e n t . 8 0  recent decision  p u r p o s e when i t  has a t t i m e s been c e n t r a l 7 7  one  d e c i d e upon  a l s o know t h e p r o b l e m o f  the Federal  c o u l d be r e t a i n e d t o  infringement  it  before,  than  a f f e c t i n g human r i g h t s .  In S h e r b e r t v . to  rather  the L o r d ' s  motive  pay much a t t e n t i o n particular  as s a i d  powers between  unconstitutional legislations  of  hand when  are  been  and p u r p o s e on t h e  h a n d and t h e e f f e c t on t h e validity  There  a n d C a n a d i a n c o u r t s have  t h e p i t h and s u b s t a n c e o r  to  test  of  of  s h o u l d be c o n c e r n e d w i t h  -  the  effect  of  obejctive  of  a l e g i s l a t i o n upon r i g h t s a Charter  w o u l d be f a r the Charter It not  i s to promote  reduced i f  real  Meanwhile,  Commenting Palmer v.  the  Thompson,  d e c i s i o n of  different  everyone",  wrote  closed  swimming p o o l  and b l a c k s . " 8 2  racial  However,  violate  the  l e g i s l a t o r does  its  are c o n c e a l e d . States  observed  Supreme C o u r t  how i l l i c i t  tribunals.81  Mississipi only  for  to  that  its  the c i t y  integration  a c t i o n was g r o u n d e d  i n s p i r e d by an o f f i c i a l  can  "Almost  knew t h a t  avoid  in  motives  of  the m u n i c i p a l i t y s u c c e s s f u l l y argued  r e a s o n s and was n o t  purpose of  determining  of  desirable validity  the  in favor  only  had  whites  even  on  opposition  of  l e g i s l a t o r s h o u l d r e m a i n an i m p o r t a n t  but  the that  that  not  a g a i n s t the  should matter  freedoms,  the  illicit  should not  legislation.  the e x i s t e n c e of  fundamental  an i n f r i n g e m e n t  l e g i s l a t o r i s not  objective,  legislation determine  the  the e x i s t e n c e of  should play  purpose  motives  l e v e l s of  facilities  scope  l e g i s l a t i o n is challenged  the U n i t e d  " i n Jackson,  Its  to  integration.  The  It  Brest,  t h e Supreme C o u r t  economical  i n most c a s e s ,  an A m e r i c a n a u t h o r  be c o n c e a l e d e v e n t o  its  real  basic  validity.  i n n o c u o u s c a n be p r o p o s e d  the  The  l e g i s l a t i o n a l l e g e d to  When t h e  reasons apparently  justification.  and f r e e d o m s .  purpose of  purpose.  -  and s e c u r e r i g h t s .  w o u l d be t h e m a i n t e s t o f  its  different  before  the  m u s t be r e c a l l e d a l s o t h a t ,  reveal  106  upon a g u a r a n t e e d defendant.  and n o t  When  right.  the  o r even o r i e n t e d toward  be s u f f i c i e n t t o  Ultimately  factor  it  secure  i s the e f f e c t  of  the the  i t s p u r p o s e when i t comes  an i n f r i n g e m e n t . p o s s i b i l i t y for  the  In  the  state  a  to  s e n s i t i v e area  of  to  an  demonstrate  in  -  important Thus,  i n t e r e s t to  with  relation  such d i s t i n c t i o n s l i k e  other  question that  has t o  the  infringement  d o e s i t mean t h a t  its  in legal  this  paradox  infringement  for  i n the area of  in  and R.  the C h a r t e r has t o  the defense of  i n the  use of  the  the refers  be e f f e c t i v e ?  religious  notion  freedom  of  human r i g h t s and f r e e d o m s .  criminal prosecutions that  to  t h i s paradox  It  is  finds  best i l l u s t r a t i o n .  the  alleges that  l e g i s l a t i o n in virtue  reality  i s that  T h a t does n o t upon  i n the  views  on t h e  h i s f r e e d o m has been t h r e a t e n e d  n e c e s s a r i l y mean t h a t  is a favourite s u b j e c t might  d e s i r e to The  implies  second element  that  the  i n the  saying,  he has b o t h  notion  of  legal  that  freedom.  The  factor  f i r s t one  ability  to  is  do  in a definition  someone i s f r e e  d e s i r e and t h e  their  scholars.  s e c o n d one i s t h e a b i l i t y  instance,  the  infringed  p h i l o s o p h e r s and some o f  i s the most i m p o r t a n t  for  in  word.  be e n l i g h t n i n g f o r  do s o m e t h i n g and t h e  freedom but  by  by t h e l e g i s l a t i o n .  h i s f r e e d o m was r e a l l y  subject for  T h e r e a r e two e l e m e n t s  it.84  h i s f r e e d o m has been i n f r i n g e d  o f w h i c h he i s c h a r g e d , w h a t he i s s a y i n g  s t r i c t e s t sense of  Freedom  of  be a n s w e r e d now d e a l s w i t h  cases i n v o l v i n g  When a d e f e n d a n t  the  in pith  appropriate.83  When s e c t i o n 24 o f  "infringement"  i s an o b v i o u s  infringment perhaps  infringment.  Defining  There  "legislation in  "legislation related  w o u l d be no more  immediacy of  F.  out.  r e l i g i o n o r c o n s c i e n c e " t h a t w e r e made by P a r k e r J .  Edwards Books L t d . The  -  them s h o u l d be t h e o n l y way  r e l i g i o n or c o n s c i e n c e " or  substance to v.  interfere with  s u c h an a p p r o a c h  to  107  to  t o do s o .  worship 8 5  In  -  instances means  where  that  there  108  -  i s an a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n o f  the  individual  is prohibited  According  to M i l l e r ,  there  to  freedom  it  usually  do w h a t he w a n t s  by  external  forces.86  are or  s a i d to to  be u n f r e e :  that  do s o m e t h i n g  the  it  do i t w o u l d be so c o s t l y  legislations to  either  breach of  efficient  by t h e  the  fines,  that  someone  it  infringe  When  a conduct,  from d o i n g  upon  or  people  them t o  do  something  doing  it.87  Most  i s not worth  penalties  legislation. of  two c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n w h i c h  is impossible for  are a l l e g e d to  deterrent  prohibited  are  f r e e d o m make i t  imprisonment  that  costly  accompany  s u c h a l e g i s l a t i o n a c t s as an  it  c a n be s a i d t h a t  something  that  it  otherwise  really  he w o u l d  have  done. However, that  his  what the  for  freedom  any  of  challenges  There  how c a n i t  be  said  s i n c e he h a s p r e c i s e l y  done  him f r o m d o i n g ?  criminal  prosecutions  That  before  ordinance prohibits  i s then  law,  prohibit  i n s t a n c e s where  its validity  ask f o r  s i n c e the  context.  of  upon  the  i n d i c a t e s the  That  i s quite  n e c e s s i t y of  question different  a particular  infringement.  There are  will  infringed  perspective  other  definition  municipal  has been  l a w was s u p p o s e d t o  shows how t h e from  t h e one who has b r o k e n  a declaratory  the  i s not  any v i o l a t i o n . door  judgment  an i n f r i n g e m e n t  law  to  door  but  upon t h e  broken It  and a p e r s o n  h a p p e n s when a  s o l i c i t a t i o n and an  i n the meantime petitioner's  o r d i n a n c e a c t s as an e f f i c i e n t d e t e r r e n t  a b i d e s by  religious of  adherent  conduct.  it.88  freedom  -  109  -  O t h e r c a s e s d i s p l a y some p e c u l i a r f o r m o f statute  refuses a benefit  conduct. benefit  to  for  attitudes  denial of  o r who q u i t s a  d o e s n o t mean t h a t  i s not always e v i d e n c e  has f o r c e d t h e p e r s o n t o  renounce h i s r e l i g i o u s  there  job  there  there  Furthermore,  Indeed,  unemployment  t o t h e a p p l i c a n t s e v e n when  are r e l i g i o u s l y motivated  such a d e p r i v a t i o n convictions.  on S a t u r d a y s  any b e n e f i t  p r i m a f a c i e an i n f r i n g e m e n t .  those  i n s t a n c e r e f u s e any  someone who r e f u s e s t o work The  When a  someone who e n g a g e s i n a p a r t i c u l a r  A l e g i s l a t i o n may,  voluntarily. their  to  infringement.  is that  i s no c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n i n v o l v e d  in  cases. An o t h e r  type  of  infringement  that  i s o c c a s i o n a l l y mentioned  h a p p e n s when a l e g i s l a t i o n c o m p e l s someone i n a c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n engage  i n conduct that  d i r e c t l y o r i n c i d e n t a l l y goes a g a i n s t  person r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s . responsibility examples of  to  provide  The the  o b l i g a t i o n to n e c e s s a r i e s of  those s i t u a t i o n s where,  c o m p r o m i s e by t h e  this  s a l u t e the f l a g or life  to  the  to the c h i l d  are  the c o n f l i c t a r i s e s before  any  adherent.89  A d e f i n i t i o n of  infringement  c o m p r e h e n s i v e enough t o c o v e r a l l  for  freedom of  r e l i g i o n has t o  those s i t u a t i o n s .  i s s u e of  c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s i s the  flexible  definition.  situation that  A few more w o r d s  have  be  Undoubtedly  the  r e q u i r e s the  t o be s a i d a b o u t  most  this  matter. As  i t was s a i d b e f o r e ,  legislation,  the  real  in a criminal prosecution for  situation i s that  from doing the p r o h i b i t e d a c t ; in other words,  the defendant  therefore  a breach of  t h e a c c u s e d was n o t  deterred  he a c t e d as a f r e e a g e n t .  acted f r e e l y  a  i n h i s b r e a k i n g the  law;  Put  -  t h e r e was no i n f r i n g e m e n t the  punishment  To  infringe  hinder or o b s t r u c t person free  -  upon h i s f r e e d o m .  s e t up by t h e  upon o n e ' s  110  It  legislation constitutes  freedom  a p o s s i b l e punishment,  break  the  law t h a t  the  punishment  His  to  prevent,  i n the  When  the  he was n o t  less  freedom  lost  and c o n s i d e r s i t  he r e f r a i n s f r o m e n g a g i n g  that  infringement.  an a c t i v i t y .  s i n c e he e x e r c i s e d h i s c a p a c i t y t o do i t .  o n l y when he c o n t e m p l a t e s  the  i n a s t r i c t s e n s e means  someone i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f  has a c t e d i n s p i t e o f  c o u l d be a r g u e d  is  so c o s t l y  to  prohibited  conduct.90 Lucas  e x p l a i n s on t h a t m a t t e r  infringement  because a punishment  that  there  i s not  n e c e s s a r i l y an  i s a s s o c i a t e d to a course  of  conduct.91 So,  one has t o  legislation that The  it  will  keep an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  i n f r i n g e s upon r e l i g o u s f r e e d o m when  only  s o l u t i o n i s to  as p o s s i b l e s t a t e punishments  cover  the  defendant  fact  that  accept that if  interferences with  in reality  the  language  the  objective  it  a  has t o  definition.  r e f l e c t those For  instance,  does  human r i g h t s  i s to and  preoccupations.  as much  a definition  That c a l l s  for  s u c h a d e f i n i t i o n m u s t be a b l e  is  c a n be s u m m a r i z e d  as  one  impede  r e l i g i o u s freedom i s r a i s e d .  in reality  not.92  prevent  c a s e when a d e f e n c e o f invoking  ground  used i s a t a c t i c a l  a p p l i c a b l e on t h o s e who e x e r c i s e s u c h r i g h t s ,  infringement  flexible  the  be c h a l l e n g e d i n a c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n on t h e  and s e r v e s a c e r t a i n p u r p o s e . 9 3  of  of  follows:  T h i s l e g i s l a t i o n c o n t a i n s a p r o h i b i t i o n of a c e r t a i n e x p r e s s i o n o f my r e l i g i o u s p r a c t i c e g u a r a n t e e d i n t h e Charter. ( I t s u c c e e d e d f o r t h o s e who a b i d e by i t i n similar circumstances). H o w e v e r , I b r o k e t h e l e g i s l a t i o n and a c t e d as a free person. (Then t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n f a i l e d to keep my f r e e d o m i n c h e c k ) .  What  a  to the  - Ill The l e g i s l a t i o n s e t s up p u n i s h m e n t a g a i n s t me b e c a u s e I a c t e d as a f r e e p e r s o n . T h i s l e g i s l a t i o n s h o u l d be d e c l a r e d i n v a l i d , as f a r as I am c o n c e r n e d , s i n c e i t c o u l d i n f r i n g e upon my f r e e d o m . W i l l the Court c o n s i d e r i n v l a i d a l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t c o u l d i n t e r f e r e w i t h my r e l i g o u s practices? (Even though the p r o h i b i t i o n s were not efficient). I f the l e g i s l a t i o n i s d e c l a r e d i n v a l i d ( s u b j e c t to s e c t i o n 1 of the C h a r t e r ) the p e n a l t i e s a c c o m p a n y i n g i t s h o u l d a l s o be c o n s i d e r e d i n v a l i d . So,  a definition  situations there  where the  i s any  any w i l l f u l obstructs  other  t h a t compels  With possible  infringement  prohibitions  h i s or  directly  of  it  efficient  cover  even  the  and a l s o when may  that prohibits,  be s a i d t o  hinders  or  h i s or her r e l i g i o u s r i g h t s t o engage  be  or  i n a conduct  in  beliefs.  should  infringement  be f o u n d t o  infringement  indirectly  her r e l i g o u s  such a d e f i n i t i o n forms  action  or  not  An  i n the e x e r c i s e of  someone  to  state  has t o  were  interference.94  or u n w i l l f u l  someone  opposition  of  be p o s s i b l e  existing  in  the  to  identify  area of  the  religious  freedom. G.  Infringement:  Classifying associated As  i n any  into  to  the  contribution  investigator. "degree exercise  of of  different  religious  exercise  In  different  of  intrusion"  types  freedom  of  requires  infringement usage  to  study, applied  the the  objectives common  of  that  are  a common  variables pursued  denominator  by  denominator.  c o u l d be  put  the  c o u l d be  by a l e g i s l a t i o n o r a r e g u l a t i o n  the upon  the  religion.  A c l a s s i f i c a t i o n c o u l d be made i n t a k i n g severity  of  classification different  according this  types  the  punishment  set  up by  the  into  state.  consideration  But,  t h a t would  the not  be  -  a r e l i a b l e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n for penalty the  that  a p p l i c a t i o n of  criteria. the  in  addressed'by To  be s u r e ,  consideration But  enough  that  conduct. state  to  the  It  the  c a n be j u s t average  r e l i g i o u s adherent  behind  such a c h o i c e i s t h a t  i s the  punishment give  to  starting point  people  taking that  into  be drawn  from  the  to  put  will  them.98  The m o s t e x t r e m e  Total  prohibition  The  of  the  is  heavy  prohibited of  the  basic  idea  important forms  of  T h e r e i s no p r o b l e m w i t h  form of  that  believes. the  state  the  It  is  can  i n t r u s i o n i s the  one  considered.  A r e l i g i o u s group prohibition.  the  the  intrusive.  The  and d i f f e r e n t  i n t r u s i o n of  a r e l i g i o n that  i n the  be u s e d .  has a number  forth  account  t h e most  p r a c t i c e of  (i)  by  claim  demands  in  be f i r s t  abide  penalty  engaging  in starting with that  the  w h a t an o t h e r  will  to  requirement.  into  s i n c e no one c a n r e a l l y c o n t r o l  that  in  regulation  very  state  belief  itself.  is  c a n be d e c i s i v e i n  the  presumed  an a d h e r e n t  a c t i o n can i n t e r f e r e w i t h  manifest  in  use such a  may compel  person  variable  and p r a c t i c e s he w a n t s  the  the  disparity  l e g i s l a t i o n or  c a n be m e a s u r e d w i t h o u t  of  state  the  the  c a n be u s e d i s t h e  adherent w i l l  Degree  beliefs  of  classification will  intrusion  The  aware o f  adherent.  d i s c o u r a g e the The  d i f f i c u l t to  that  that  always  Moreover  be f o u n d .  strength  severity  the  penalties.  to  the  the  an i n f r i n g e m e n t  possible  has t o  best v a r i a b l e  law to  it  the punishment,  i t s e l f a moral  Then t h e  9 7  i s not  law would b r i n g . 9 5  factor  no m a t t e r  -  the adherent  s a n c t i o n s makes  Another  9 6  idea that  carries it.  a breach of  112  (or  (with all  punishments  or without  religions) are u s u a l l y  forced  i s under severe,  conversion) complete  often  ban  and  imprisonment  -  and s o m e t i m e s d e a t h . 9 9  j  n i  -  113  -  - j s t h e most d r a s t i c m e a s u r e t h a t c a n be  s  taken a g a i n s t a r e l i g i o u s group.  The  intent  of  the  legislator is  r e v e a l e d e v e n t h o u g h j u s t i f i c a t i o n i s u s u a l l y f o u n d on g r o u n d s than to  religious.  the  The g r o u p c o u l d be p r e s e n t e d a s s u b v e r s i v e o r a  s e c u r i t y of  Sometimes  the  it  i s the v e r y  f o r c e d c o n v e r s i o n of  s p o n s o r e d by t h e t h e o c r a c y where to  It  this  cases  a r e l i g i o u s group t h a t are o f t e n  for  say t h a t  the o f f i c i a l  generally there  that  There i s a l s o the p o s s i b i l i t y of  such forms of  the C h a r t e r ,  p r o h i b i t i o n of  and 1 9 4 3 ,  government  according But  2  in history  a r e l i g i o u s group  However,  f o r whatever  i t m u s t be k e p t  i n mind  t h e r e was a c o m p l e t e ban o f J e h o v a h ' s  upon r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m . 1 0 4  t h e S e c o n d W o r l d War c o n t e x t that  the  s t a t e would f a i l  legislation  the  and f a r t e s t of  even  it  before  i s true  that  the C h a r t e r .  s e c t i o n 1 of  it It  reason that  Witnesses illegal happened is  the Charter  But  the  s t a t e does not  a l w a y s go t o  wants  r e s t r a i n a r e l i g i o u s group.  s u c h e x t r e m e s when  S e l e c t i v e p r o h i b i t i o n or  in  likely if  a  p r o h i b i t i n g a r e l i g i o u s g r o u p was c h a l l e n g e d now b e f o r e  courts. to  and  Canadian c o u r t s would  C a n a d a and t h e C a n a d i a n c o u r t s d i d n o t c o n s i d e r i t was an  infringement  a  today.1°3  under  l e g i s l a t o r could f i n d .  is  denomination  or a l e a d e r r u l e s the country  in Iran  are  accompanied w i t h  S u c h was t h e c a s e i n a n c i e n t I s r a e l . 1 °  like  i s doubtful  b e t w e e n 1940 in  the government  day,  accept the t o t a l the  r e l i g i o n but  a r e many e x a m p l e s o f  down t o  Those  1 0 0  secular state.101  a r e l i g i o u s code.  there  d o c t r i n e s of  p e o p l e and n e e d l e s s t o  any o t h e r  threat  state.  a t t a c k e d by a l e g i s l a t i o n .  no room f o r  other  the  it attempt  -  to  r e p r e s s one o r some p a r t i c u l a r  displayed  sometimes  by t h e  (ii)  Selective  prohibition  For  political  impose a complete completely will  nation.  The s t a t e  or i n j u r i o u s  literature  targets Courts  i n the United  Canada,  concern with  toward  freedom  change  this  of r e l i g i o n . H  situation  t h a t c a n be n o t i c e d  it.  quite  as  of a certain Different  Preaching,  to w o r s h i p ,  are the  expressed  their  repugnance  a certain activity.HO  obiter  i s a hope  i n a s i g n i f i c a n t way.  the courts  that  prohibition.109  completely  It  in  general  Code.108  In  d i c t a s h a r e d t h e same  B u t some d e c i s i o n s  have a l s o showed a c e r t a i n 2  group  of t h e  i n a law of  assembly  indifference  that the Charter A n o t h e r form o f  i s the c o n f l i c t of o r d e r s .  common b e f o r e  interest  disposition.  have o f t e n  in their  of  i t s motives  i n the C r i m i n a l  book,  to  c a n be m e n t i o n e d  o r moral  colleagues.m  courts  instead  i t c o u l d be t h e p r o h i b i t i o n  States  t h e i r American  d e l i v e r e d by C a n a d i a n  reveals  c a n be a l s o  of s e l e c t i v e  have o f t e n  Then,  some a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e  by a p r o h i b i t i v e  that prohibits  some j u d g e s  i n t r u s i v e way  i t inappropriate  r e l i g i o u s groups  or a c e r t a i n  o f measures  any m e a s u r e  only  generally  or of a conduct  c a n be a f f e c t e d  distributing  may f i n d  to the s p i r i t u a l  For i n s t a n c e ,  activity  activities  is  a religion,  The s e l e c t i v e p r o h i b i t i o n  religious  for  the s t a t e  r e l i g i o n or d i f f e r e n t  application.107  usual  a c t i v i t i e s i s an o t h e r  ban on a r e l i g i o u s g r o u p . 1 0 5  be f o r b i d d e n . 1 0 6  subversive  -  state,  reasons,  prohibiting  a certain  114  It  will intrusion  is a situation  and some a t t e n t i o n  m u s t be g i v e n  that to  -  (iii) This intent  category  by  and t h e  C o n f l i c t of  the  state  l e g i s l a t o r to  activities.113  The  from the  ask t h e  adherent  adherent  to  this  c o n f l i c t of  values.114  The  is inevitable  that  apparently with  neutral  of  (medical  taxes,  treatment  to  renounce  state  has a l w a y s  some o f  (from a s e c u l a r p o i n t Salute  o b l i g a t i o n to  to  its of  the  provide  and b l o o d t r a n s f u s i o n e n t e r  practising that the  his  school  very  does not  religion.  But  a religious  The  have  courts test  arise.117  toward  the  under  to  it  someone t o  the  certain conditions.  conflict  latter  not  refrain  adherent  to  do  state  all it  life  sub-  of  the  is  true  from something action  s p i r i t u a l convictions that  takes  are  the  engagement.116  the  problems where  i s also a pragmatic that  to  service,  no d e f i n i t e p o s i t i o n on t h e q u e s t i o n .  next category  from  are  arise.115  h i s c o n s c i e n c e , the  i s used f o r most of  orders  ask  that  a r e some b u t  by a s k i n g t h e  an i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h  essence of  balancing  attendance,  apparently  he c o n s i d e r s as c o n t r a r y form of  something  n e c e s s i t i e s of  into  t e n s i o n where c o n f l i c t s a r e l i k e l y to  state  religious)  in  come i n t o  to a c h i l d  no  his religious  flag, military  sources the  is  some o b j e c t i v e s  view)  compulsory  that  (qua  demands t h a t  category), of  there  h i s r e l i g i o u s c o n v i c t i o n s and t h e c l a s h comes  spiritual convictions.  payment  in that  i s s i m p l y r e q u i r e d t o engage  is contrary  and i t  two f o r m e r  repress a r e l i g i o u s conduct  that  pursue  -  orders  is different  does n o t  115  approach  i s the p r a c t i c e or  that  Generally  such c o n f l i c t the c o u r t s  of  have  religious activities  a  -  (iv)  116  -  R e s t r i c t i o n s and C o n d i t i o n s  Then t h e d e g r e e o f no p r o h i b i t i o n o f  intrusion is getting less  a religious activity  important.  as s u c h a t t h i s p o i n t b u t  some r e s t r i c t i o n s and c o n d i t i o n s a r e i m p o s e d by t h e s t a t e . the requirement t h a t  anyone w i l l i n g  a p e r m i t from the m u n i c i p a l i t y . 1 1 8 participating conditions  in solicitation  that  to  solicit  A tax  It  c a n be l e v i e d upon any  observed in matters  These a r e of  is  only  c a n be  from door to door  in public a r e a s . 1 1 9  are frequently  There  obtain group  the  freedom  of  reli gion. The certain  r e s t r i c t i o n s can r e f e r  to the t i m e ,  religious activity will  conditions however,  be c a r r i e d o n .  These  freedom.121  their effect,  a  r e s t r i c t i o n s and  a r e n o t g e n e r a l l y a i m e d a t a r e l i g i o u s group.1-20  c o n s i d e r e d because of  religious  p l a c e and manner t h a t  jhey  as i n f r i n g e m e n t  upon  G e n e r a l l y c o u r t s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s  tend  are,  to  d i s r e g a r d l e g i s l a t i o n s c a r r y i n g s u c h r e s t r i c t i o n s and c o n d i t i o n s when they  tend to c o n t r o l  compelling  state  r e l i g i o u s p r a c t i c e , a r e vague o r a b u s i v e . 1 2 2  i n t e r e s t must e x i s t ,  i n any e v e n t ,  to  sustain  A  their  v a l i d i t y . 123 The  l a s t category  that w i l l  be c o n s i d e r e d now i s n o t  a c c e p t e d as an i n f r i n g e m e n t upon r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m . that  was g i v e n t o  effort  of  (v)  it  indicates that  it  But the  attention  has t o be t a k e n s e r i o u s l y i n  classification. E c o n o m i c B u r d e n as  infringement  I n Canada and i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s cases  unanimously  i n v o l v i n g Sunday  closing  e c o n o m i c b u r d e n c o u l d amount t o  laws t h a t  as w e l l  it  i s , at f i r s t ,  in  some j u d g e s c o n s i d e r e d an  i n f r i n g e m e n t upon r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m .  any  -  It  was a m i n o r i t y  p o s i t i o n i n 1963  Queen i n Canada and i n 1966 Supreme C o u r t  117  i n R o b e r t s o n and R o s e t a n n i  in a series  of U n i t e d S t a t e s  -  of  in Sherbert States  i n the d e c i s i o n  e s p e c i a l l y in Braunfeld v.  v.  Verner.125  Supreme C o u r t  of  t h e Supreme C o u r t  Since then,  i n Thomas  v.  of  the  might  of  In Canada a l s o ,  Video F l i c k s Ltd.  is  understandable that Indeed  it  there  i s not  has t o  on S a t u r d a y s  and S u n d a y s ,  about they  that  is still obvious  face f i n a n c i a l  do n o t w a n t  t o work  the  and  same d i r e c t i o n . 1 2 7  some r e s i s t a n c e t o t h a t when,  for  the  i n s t a n c e , an  is likely  closed to  on S a t u r d a y s  or q u i t v o l u n t a r i l y a job  construction.129  survival  of  infringement.1^0  There  i s a real  In t h i s c a s e t h e o n l y  to idea  h a v e t o c h o o s e b e t w e e n h i s r e l i g i o n and  economical s u c h an  force  same o b s e r v a t i o n c a n be made  i n f r i n g e m e n t upon r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m .  an i n d i v i d u a l m i g h t  it  current  However c o u r t s a r e d e v e l o p i n g a more and more s e n s i t i v e t e s t  that  R^  i n s u r a n c e i s denied e i t h e r because  i n v o l v e d w i t h m i l i t a r y equipment  detect  what  States.126  p r e s s u r e i n k e e p i n g h i s shop  The  t h o s e t o whom u n e m p l o y m e n t  support to  i n the U n i t e d  such economic d i s a d v a n t a g e  renounce h i s r e l i g i o n . 1 2 8  United  B i g M. Drug M a r t L t d .  e t a l . , s u p r a , go i n t o  O r t h a d o x Jew  him t o  judges  r e c e n t d e c i s i o n s i n R^ v .  v.  trend.  a majority  the  in  Indiana  has g i v e n a f u r t h e r  view of  Brown.124  of U n i t e d S t a t e s  the d e c i s i o n  Review Board o f  the  found a  Employment S e c u r i t y D i v i s i o n e t a l . be now t h e  The  d e c i s i o n s d e l i v e r e d by  B u t w h a t was a d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n i n t h e f o r m e r y e a r s consecration  v.  s u f f i c e s to  the Courts  n e c e s s i t y to  f r e e d o m and t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y  define  to conclude i n the presence  i n f r i n g e m e n t upon r e l i g i o u s  i s an a t t e m p t  in this direction.  There  -  is  no d o u b t  of  r e l i g i o u s freedom w i l l  model  that  that  a defense of however  less  d e c i s i o n s of  help a l o t  i s not  r e l i g i o u s freedom  an e s s e n t i a l o n e . through  be f r o m now o n .  the Canadian c o u r t s  to measure the  validity  in  matters  of  the  the  only  task  that  awaits judges  when  is raised in a criminal prosecution. In  d e a l i n g w i t h more p r e c i s e c o n c e p t s  a classification,  it  is possible that  When d e f i n i t i o n and m e a s u r e a r e  d i f f i c u l t i t may be f a i r  facilitated.  -  here.  infringement  a s y s t e m a t i c method duty w i l l  future  i s proposed  Defining  is  the  118  to  say t h a t  It and  the  rendered  j u s t i c e i n general  has  been  -  119  -  Footnotes 1.  R. v . M o r g e n t a l e r , ( H . C . ) a t p. 4 1 0 .  2.  T h e r e i s no d i s c u s s i o n a b o u t t h e t e r m i n f r i n g e m e n t i n none o f t h e classical studies in c o n s i t u t i o n a l law. See f o r i n s t a n c e L. T r i b e , A m e r i c a n C o n s t i t u t i o n a l L a w , M i n e o l a , New Y o r k , The Foundation P r e s s , I n c . , 1978; L a s k i n ' s Canadian C o n s t i t u t i o n a l L a w , e d i t e d and r e v i s e d by A . S . A b e l , T o r o n t o , The C a r s w e l l C o . , 1973; P . W . H o g g , Canada A c t 1982 A n n o t a t e d , T o r o n t o , The C a r s w e l l C o . , 1982.  3.  D . M . L o w , "The C a n a d i a n C h a r t e r o f R i g h t s a n d F r e e d o m s and t h e R o l e o f t h e C o u r t s : An i n i t i a l S u r v e y " , ( 1 9 8 4 ) 18 U . B . C . L. Rev., 69.  4.  Canadian Charter Pt.  1,  s.  S m o l i n g and S c o t t  of  Rights  ( 1 9 8 4 ) 47  and F r e e d o m s ,  O.R.  (2d)  353  Constitution Act,  1982,  24(1):  " A n y o n e whose r i g h t s o r f r e e d o m s as g u a r a n t e e d by t h i s C h a r t e r , have been i n f r i n g e d o r d e n i e d may a p p l y t o a c o u r t o f c o m p e t e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o o b t a i n s u c h remedy a s t h e c o u r t c o n s i d e r s a p p r o p r i a t e and j u s t i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . " 5.  Canadian B i l l  of  Rights,  R.S.C.  1970,  App.  I l l ,  s.  2:  " E v e r y l a w o f C a n a d a s h a l l , u n l e s s i t i s e x p r e s s l y d e c l a r e d by a n A c t o f t h e P a r l i a m e n t o f Canada t h a t i t s h a l l o p e r a t e n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e C a n a d i a n B i l l o f R i g h t s , be so c o n s t r u e d and a p p l i e d as n o t t o a b r o g a t e , a b r i d g e o r i n f r i n g e o r t o a u t h o r i z e t h e a b r o g a t i o n , a b r i d g e m e n t o r i n f r i n g e m e n t o f any o f t h e r i g h t s o r f r e e d o m s and d e c l a r e d . . . " 6.  Supra,  notes 4 et  7.  G . A . B e a u d o i n , Le p a r t a g e d e s p o u v o i r s , O t t a w a , E d i t i o n s de 1 ' U n i v e r s i t e d ' O t t a w a , 1982, at p. 135-153; Canada a n d t h e New C o n s t i t u t i o n , e d i t e d by S . Beck a n d I . B e r n i e r , M o n t r e a l , The I n s t i t u t e f o r R e s e a r c h on P u b l i c P o l i c y , 1 9 8 3 .  8.  T.R.  Berger,  1981; (1959)  B.  F r a g i l e Freedoms,  Laskin,  37  the B.N.A.  5.  Can.  B.  Act",  "An  Inquiry  Rev. (1959)  77;  Toronto,  into  L.P.  37 C a n .  Clarke,  Irwin  the Diefenbaker  Pigeon,  "The  Bill  B.  66;  Ibid.  Rev.  Bill  & Co. of  Ltd.,, Rights",  of Rights  and  -  120  -  9.  R o b e r t s o n and R o s e t a n n i v . The Q u e e n , [ 1 9 6 3 ] S . C . R . 6 5 1 . The a p p e l l a n t s w e r e c o n v i c t e d on a c h a r g e t h a t t h e y had o p e r a t e d a b o w l i n g a l l e y on a S u n d a y , c o n t r a r y t o t h e L o r d ' s Day A c t , R . S . C . 1952, c . 171.  10.  R^ v . B i g M . D r u g M a r t , [1983] 4 W.W.R. 5 4 .  11.  Ibid.  12.  Ibid.  13.  14.  [1984]  1 W . W . R . 625 ( A l t a .  C.A.)  aff'g  R^_ v . V i d e o F l i c k L t d . ( 1 9 8 4 ) 48 O . R . (2d) 3 9 5 . The R e t a i l B u s i n e s s H o l i d a y s A c t , R . S . O . 1 9 8 0 , c . 453 p r o h i b i t e d the c a r r y i n g on o f c e r t a i n c o m m e r c i a l a c t i v i t i e s on h o l i d a y s as d e f i n e d i n t h e Act i n c l u d i n g Sundays. I t m u s t be k e p t i n m i n d t h a t t h i s c a s e was d e c i d e d on a d i f f e r e n t g r o u n d t h a n R^ v . B i g M. D r u g M a r t ( S e e Rj_ v . Video F l i c k s , s u p r a , at p. 4 2 3 ) . R^ v .  Books and A r t  [1984]  4 C.R.D.  90-04.  Appeals note  Ltd.  [1984]  5 2 5 , 9 0 - 0 2 ; ]L  4 C.R.D. v.  525 9 0 - 0 3 ; R^ v .  Magder [ 1 9 8 4 ] 4 C . R . D .  d i s m i s s e d i n R^ v .  Video F l i c k s L t d . ,  Commisso 525,  ibid.  15.  Supra,  1.  16.  R. v . B i g M . D r u g M a r t , s u p r a , n o t e 1 0 ; F e d e r a l R e p u b l i c o f Germany and R a u c a [ 1 9 8 3 ] 11 O . R . ( 2 d ) 225 ( O n t . C . A . ) ; _R;_ v . F l i c k s L t d . , s u p r a , n o t e 1 3 ; Law S o c i e t y o f U p p e r C a n a d a v . S k a p i n k e r , [ 1 9 8 5 T " l l C . C . C . ( 3 d ) 481 ( S . C . C ) .  17.  R^ v .  B i g M. Drug M a r t ,  18.  D . M . W a l k e r , The 1980.  19.  W.S.  Tarnopolsky,  Carswell  Co.  Ltd.,  supra,  note 10,  at p.  O x f o r d Companion t o Law,  The C a n a d i a n B i l l 1966,  at p.  of  635.  Oxford,  Rights,  Video  Clarendon P r e s s ,  Toronto,  The  1.  20.  T h e r e i s no d e f i n i t i o n o f t e r m s i n t h e C h a r t e r . Canadian judges have the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o f i n d the meaning of t h e words used therein.  21.  S e c t i o n 1 of  the Charter  states:  " T h e C a n a d i a n C h a r t e r o f R i g h t s and F r e e d o m s g u a r a n t e e s t h e r i g h t s and f r e e d o m s s e t o u t i n i t s u b j e c t o n l y t o s u c h r e a s o n a b l e l i m i t s p r e s c r i b e d by l a w a s c a n be d e m o n s t r a b l y j u s t i f i e d i n a f r e e a n d democratic s o c i e t y . "  -  The  burden  incumbent 13, 22.  -  o f p r o o f as t o t h e r e a s o n a b i l i t y upon t h e s t a t e .  R^ v .  Video  of the l i m i t s i s  Flicks Ltd.,  supra,  note  at p. 4 2 9 .  Sherbert  v.  Verner,  Wisconsin v. 23.  121  Sherbert  v.  374 U . S .  Y o d e r , 406 U . S . Verner,  10 L.  4 9 8 , 10 L .  E d . 2 d 965 ( 1 9 6 3 ) ;  205 ( 1 9 7 2 ) .  E d . 2 d 965 ( 1 9 6 3 ) ,  at p. 9 6 9 , 970:  "The C o u r t h a s r e j e c t e d c h a l l e n g e s u n d e r t h e F r e e E x e r c i s e C l a u s e t o g o v e r n m e n t a l r e g u l a t i o n o f c e r t a i n o v e r t a c t s p r o m p t e d by r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s o r p r i n c i p l e s , f o r " e v e n when t h e a c t i o n i s i n accord w i t h o n e ' s r e l i g i o u s c o n v i c t i o n s , i t i s not t o t a l l y f r e e from l e g i s l a t i v e r e s t r i c t i o n s . " 24.  Wisconsin v.  25.  Konigsberg v. 105,  at p.  Yoder,  supra,  State  note 2 2 .  B a r o r C a l i f o r n i a , 366 U . S .  3 6 , 6 L.  Ed.  2d  116:  "Throughout i t s h i s t o r y t h i s C o u r t has c o n s i s t e n t l y r e c o g n i z e d a t l e a s t two ways i n w h i c h c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d f r e e d o m o f s p e e c h i s n a r r o w e r t h a n an u n l i m i t e d l i c e n s e t o t a l k . On t h e one h a n d , c e r t a i n forms o f s p e e c h , o r s p e e c h i n c e r t a i n c o n t e x t s , have been c o n s i d e r e d o u t s i d e t h e s c o p e o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l protection"...". On t h e o t h e r h a n d , g e n e r a l r e g u l a t o r y s t a t u t e s , n o t i n t e n d e d t o c o n t r o l the c o n t e n t of speech b u t i n c i d e n t a l l y l i m i t i n g i t s u n f e t t e r e d e x e r c i s e , have n o t been r e g a r d e d as t h e t y p e o f l a w t h e F i r s t o r F o u r t e e n t h Amendment f o r b a d e C o n g r e s s o r t h e S t a t e s t o p a s s , when t h e y have been f o u n d j u s t i f i e d by s u b o r d i n a t i n g v a l i d governmental i n t e r e s t s . " (emphasis m i n e ) . 26.  S c h e n c k v . U . S . , 249 U . S . 4 7 , 63 L . E d . 470 ( 1 9 1 9 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s , 354 U . S . 298 ( 1 9 5 7 ) .  27.  The a b s o l u t e forms  language  of the F i r s t  Yates  v.  Amendment seemed t o c o v e r a l l  of speech:  "Congress  shall  make no l a w " . . . " a b r i d g i n g  the freedom  of speech,  or of the p r e s s " . . . " .  28.  The p o s i t i o n o f t h e A m e r i c a n C o u r t s s p e e c h c o u l d be a d o p t e d f o r f r e e d o m  i n m a t t e r s o f freedom of r e l i g i o n i s s u e s .  See P . H .  and t h e J u d i c i a l  (1967)  Freund,  14 U . C . L . A .  "Mr. J u s t i c e L.  Black  Rev. 467.  of  Function",  -  122  -  29.  J.E. Law,  30.  Dennis  31.  I b i d . , p . 5 0 8 . The C o u r t c o n s i d e r e d a l s o t h e t e s t o f t h e " c l e a r and p r e s e n t d a n g e r " t h a t i s t h e p r e c u r s o r y t o t h e n o t i o n o f compelling state i n t e r e s t .  32.  Beauharnais v.  33.  Nowak, R . D . R o t u n d a , J . N . Y o u n g , Handbook on C o n s t i t u t i o n a l S t . P a u l , M i n n . , W e s t P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1978 a t p . 7 2 0 . United  Chaplinski v.  34.  Ibid.,  35.  Ibid.  36.  Ibid.,  37.  Roth  38.  Ibid.,  39.  v.  v.  568 ( 1 9 4 1 )  States,  5 6 8 , 86 L .  (1951).  E d . 1031  (1941).  at p. 569.  354 U . S . 4 7 6 , 1 L .  E d . 2 d 1498 ( 1 9 5 7 ) ,  and p o l y g a m y  E d . 2d 1498  (1957).  p. 1506.  B e a s o n 133 U . S . 3 3 3 ( 1 8 9 0 ) ,  t h e Supreme C o u r t  "Bigamy  315 U . S .  E d . 919  (1956).  and 5 7 2 .  United  In Davis for  New-Hampshire,  p . 571  1 L.  341 U . S . 4 9 4 , 95 L . e d . 1137  I l l i n o i s , 343 U . S . 2 5 0 , 96 L .  315 U . S .  v.  States,  Mr. Justice F i e l d  wrote  at 342, 343, 344: a r e c r i m e s by t h e l a w s o f a l l c i v i l z e d a n d  Christian countries. They a r e c r i m e s by t h e l a w s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , a n d t h e y a r e c r i m e s by t h e l a w s o f I d a h o . They t e n d t o d e s t r o y the p u r i t y of the m a r r i a g e r e l a t i o n , to d i s t u r b t h e peace o f f a m i l i e s , t o d e g r a d e woman and t o d e b a s e m a n . Few c r i m e s a r e more p e r n i c i o u s t o t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f s o c i e t y and r e c e i v e more g e n e r a l o r more d e s e r v e d p u n i s h m e n t . II  ...  n  .  I t was n e v e r i n t e n d e d o r s u p p o s e d t h a t t h e Amendment c o u l d be i n v o k e d as a p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t l e g i s l a t i o n f o r t h e p u n i s h m e n t a c t s i n i m i c a l t o t h e p e a c e , good o r d e r a n d m o r a l s o f s o c i e t y . " See a l s o : R e y n o l d s v . U . S . , 98 U . S . 145 ( 1 8 7 8 ) a n d C h u r c h L a t e r - D a y S a i n t s v . U n i t e d S t a t e s 136 U . S . 1 ( 1 8 9 0 ) . 40.  Supra,  note 24.  of  of  -  41.  Re D . , [ 1 9 8 2 ] 22 A l t a . A l t a . D. 1 5 6 5 - 0 5 .  42.  I n Re H a m i l t o n  43.  Ibid,  at p.  657  L.  S.W.  R.  123  (2d)  2 d 425  -  228;  Re Baby Boy D a v i s  (Tenn.  App.  [1982]  1983).  429:  " O u r C o n s t i t u t i o n g u a r a n t e e s A m e r i c a n s more p e r s o n a l f r e e d o m t h a n e n j o y e d by any o t h e r c i v i l i z e d s o c i e t y , b u t t h e r e a r e t i m e s when the freedom o f the i n d i v i d u a l must y i e l d . " 44.  R^ v .  45.  Ibid.  46.  Supra,  47.  On M a r c h 2 9 , 1 9 8 5 , P a m e l a H a m i l t o n d i e d . Apparently the delay i m p o s e d by t h e l e g a l d i s p u t e s o v e r h e r t r e a t m e n t s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced her c a p a c i t y of r e c o v e r y . Vancouver Sun, March 2 9 , 1985.  48.  That would g i v e such a r e s u l t i f Canadian c o u r t s f o l l o w e d the d e c i s i o n o f an A m e r i c a n C o u r t i n F r a n k v . The S t a t e o f A l a s k a , P . 2d 1068 ( 1 9 7 9 ) . .  49.  T u t t o n and T u t t o n ,  note 3 1 ,  6 C.R.D.  525-90-01.  40.  604  S u p r a , n o t e s 9 and 1 0 . D i f f i c u l t i e s a r i s e e s p e c i a l l y when j u d g e s h a v e t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r any e c o n o m i c a l b u r d e n c o n s t i t u t e s an i n f r i n g e m e n t upon r e l i g o u s f r e e d o m s , s e e i n A m e r i c a n L a w : S h e r b e r t v . V e r n e r , s u p r a , n o t e 2 2 ; B r o w n f e l d v . B r o w n , 366 U . S . 5 9 9 ( 1 9 6 1 ) ; Thomas v . Review Board o f t h e I n d i a n a Employmnet S e c u r i t y D i v i s i o n e t a l . , 67 L. e d . 2 d 6 2 4 ( 1 9 8 1 ) . T h e r e a r e some f o r m s o f i n f r i n g e m e n t t h a t a r e r e c o g n i z e d u n a n i m o u s l y f o r i n s t a n c e when a m u n i c i p a l i t y g i v e s t o an o f f i c e r t h e d i s c r e t i o n a r y power t o g r a n t p e r m i t f o r s o l i c i t i n g from door to door f o r r e l i g i o u s p u r p o s e . See C a n t w e l l  50.  36 a t  (1985)  v.  Connecticut,  Quebec  Protestant  D.L.R.  (3d)  School  33 ( Q u e .  310  U.S.  Boards v .  S.C.).  296  A.G.  (1940).  of Quebec,  [1983]  140  -  124 -  51.  Ibid.,  p. 5 9 .  52.  Canadian Charter  53.  Ibid.,  p. 59.  54.  Supra,  note 5 6 .  55.  The C o u r t a c k n o w l e d g e d t h e p o s i t i o n e x p r e s s e d by t h e A . G . o f Quebec t h a t r e s t r i c t i o n c o u l d i n v o l v e p r o h i b i t i o n i n r e f e r r i n g t h e t r e a t i s e " C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law o f I n d i a " w r i t t e n by H . M . S e e r v a i i n r e f e r e n c e t o Re v a l i d i t y o f s . 5 ( a ) o f t h e D a i r y I n d u s t r y A c t ( M a r g a r i n e C a s e ) 1949 S . C . R . s . [ a f f d [ 1 9 5 1 ] A . C . ( P . C . ) ] a n d t o Commonwealth o f A u s t r a l i a v . Bank o f New S o u t h W a l e s, [1950] A . C . 2 3 5 . B u t Deschenes C . J . observed t h a t  of Rights  and Freedoms,  supra,  note 4 , S e c t . 2 3 .  to  179  "[T]he Court cannot accept t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o r a simple reason r e l a t e d t o t h e t e x t o f t h e C h a r t e r " and he c o n s i d e r e d t h a t a d e n i a l o f a r i g h t c o u l d n o t be a r e a s o n a b l e l i m i t . When i n c o n t e x t s o t h e r t h a n t h e l i n g u i s t i c a r e , i t m i g h t be r e a s o n a b l e t o p r o h i b i t a conduct that threatens peoples' l i v e s . It i s true that n o t h i n g would a t f i r s t s i g h t j u s t i f y a complete denial of a l i n g u i s t i c r i g h t t h a t by t h i s v e r y n a t u r e c a n n o t e n d a n g e r p e o p l e ' s l i v e s and h e a l t h . " 56.  P r o v i d e d s u c h l e g i s l a t i o n w o u l d l e a v e open t h e p o s s i b i l i t y f o r p a r e n t s t o o f f e r an a l t e r n a t i v e e d u c a t i o n t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n , s e e v. "The  Jones  [1984]  Alberta  religion  49 A . R .  School  135.  held:  A c t does n o t o f f e n d  under S e c t .  2(a) of the  freedom  of c o n s c i e n c e and  Charter".  57.  A . G . o f C a n a d a a n d Dupond v . M o n t r e a l , [ 1 9 7 8 ] 2 S . C . R . W e s t e n d o r p v . The Q u e e n , [ 1 9 8 3 ] 1 S . C . R . 4 3 .  58.  A . G . o f C a n a d a a n d Dupond v . M o n t r e a l ,  59.  Sect. "Every  172(2)  of the Criminal  one who w i l f u l l y  Code  disturbs  p e r s o n s met f o r r e l i g i o u s w o r s h i p benevolent  purpose  conviction."  is guilty  770;  Ibid.  reads as f o l l o w s : or interrupts  an a s s e m b l y  or f o r a moral,  o f an o f f e n s e  social  of  or  p u n i s h a b l e on summary  -  60.  R^_ v . R e e d , ( 1 9 8 4 ) C •C •C • X 53 •  61.  Ibid.  62.  Ibid.  63.  Ibid.  64.  Skoke-Graham unreported,  supra, Court  ( 3 d ) 573 ( B . C . C . A . )  e t a l . v . The Q u e e n , 841937.  was no e v i d e n c e , defendants  10 C . C . C .  125 -  aff'g  (1983) 8  14 M a r c h , 1 9 8 5 , O t t a w a ,  The c o n v i c t i o n s w e r e q u a s h e d b e c a u s e  a c c o r d i n g t o t h e Supreme C o u r t ,  had r e a l l y  note 6 0 , where  disturbed the assembly.  there  that the  S e e R.  v.  Reed,  t h e c o n v i c t i o n was u p h e l d by t h e B r i t i s h  of Appeal.  65.  B u t i t m u s t be s a i d t h a t many r e g u l a t i o n s a d o p t e d i n o r d e r t o c o n t r o l an a c t i v i t y w i l l i n e v i t a b l y have a p r o h i b i t i v e a s p e c t ; See A . G . o f C a n a d a a n d Dupond v . M o n t r e a l , s u p r a , n o t e 6 1 .  66.  A . G . Westendorp  67.  S e e R_^ v . H a r r o l d ( 1 9 7 1 ) 19 D . L . R . ( 3 d ) 471 ( p r o h i b i t i o n o f n o i s e ) ; R. v . J a c k a n d C h a r l i e ( 1 9 8 2 ) 67 C . C . C . ( 2 d ) 2 8 9 . T h e p r o h i b i t i o n s contained i n the W i l d ! i f e A c t , f o r instance, are not n u l l f o r the only reason that they a f f e c t r e l i g i o u s freedom. T h o s e two c a s e s were d e c i d e d b e f o r e t h e C h a r t e r .  68.  Supra,  69.  R. v .  70.  I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t t h e f r e n c h v e r s i o n of S e c t i o n 24(1) m e n t i o n s " v i o l a t i o n " ( t o i n f r i n g e ) a n d " n e g a t i o n " ( t o deny) t h a t are not interchangeable words. In M r . J u s t i c e Deschenes' o p i n i o n , i t seems t h a t i n f r i n g e m e n t was synonymous o f d e n i a l . He s a i d a t p. 59 ( s u p r a , n o t e 5 0 ) :  v . The Q u e e n ,  supra,  note 5 7 .  note 5 0 . Reed,  supra,  note 6 0 .  " H o w e v e r i n s . 2 4 , t h e C h a r t e r s p e a k s o f an " i n f r i n g e m e n t o r d e n i a l " of these guaranteed r i g h t s . The C h a r t e r d o e s n o t r e c o g n i z e any l o o p h o l e s a n d i t e x p r e s s l y o p e n s t h e d o o r t o j u d i c i a l s a n c t i o n a g a i n s t such i n f r i n g e m e n t o r d e n i a l i n favour the i n d i v i d u a l a f f e c t e d . " (emphasis added).  of  -  126  -  J u s t f o r a c o m p a r i s o n , i t m u s t be s a i d t h e t h e " S e c o n d Amendment i n the American B i l l o f R i g h t s s t a t e s t h a t "the r i g h t of the p e o p l e t o keep and b e a r A r m s , s h a l l n o t be i n f r i n g e d . " The C o u r t s , h o w e v e r , have n e v e r c o n s i d e r e d t h a t s u c h a w o r d was an a b s o l u t e p r i v i l e g e f o r A m e r i c a n s as t o t h e u s a g e o f f i r e a r m s . See S t a t e s v . M i l l e r , 307 U . S . 1 7 4 , 83 L. E d . 1206 ( 1 9 3 8 ) . 71.  Quebec  Protestant  School  Board v .  A.G.  of Quebec,  Ibid.  72.  A d e c i s i o n o f t h e Supreme C o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s assumes opinion. See S h e r b e r t v . V e r n e r , s u p r a , note 2 3 , a t p. 9 7 2 :  that  "We m u s t n e x t c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r some c o m p e l l i n g s t a t e i n t e r e s t e n f o r c e d i n the e l i g i b i l i t y p r o v i s i o n s of the South C a r o l i n a s t a t u t e j u s t i f i e s the s u b s t a n t i a l i n f r i n g e m e n t of a p p e l l a n t ' s F i r s t Amendment r i g h t " . 73.  See M a l a r t i c Hygrade 953;  Re O n t a r i o  Board of  74.  75.  76.  Gold Mines  v.  R^,  [1983]  C.S.  Ontario  ( 1 9 8 4 ) , 45 O . R .  (S.A.)  Censors  Fira-Less  Marketing Co.  T-9104-82  (Fed.  G.A. Beaudoin, fondamentaux",  (Quebec) L t d .  F i l m and V i d e o A p p r e c i a t i o n S o c i e t y and  Ct.  of  Ltd.,  (2d)  80;  (delivered  Source P e r r i e r on J a n .  5,  1983)  Rj_ v .  Video F l i c k s L t d . , cases.  no  Canada).  " L a C o u r Supreme e t l a p r o t e c t i o n des (1975) C a n . B. Rev. 674, a t p. 6 8 3 .  those  v.  supra,  note  13,  414-419:  for  droits  a review  of  Ibid.  77.  G r i f f i n v . C o u n t y S c h o o l B o a r d , 377 U . S . 218 ( 1 9 6 4 ) (The c l o s i n g o f a c o u n t y s c h o o l s y s t e m s i n s p i r e d by a r e j e c t o f r a c i a l i n t e g r a t i o n , was i n v a l i d a t e d by t h e Supreme C o u r t . Gomillion v. L i g h t f o o t , 3 6 4 U . S . 3 3 9 , ( 1 9 6 0 ) ( a l t e r a t i o n o f t h e shape o f t h e C i t y o f T u s k e g e e w i t h t h e s e c r e t m o t i v e o f s e g r e g a t i n g w h i t e and colored voters declared i n v a l i d ) .  78.  S e e C a n t w e l l v . C o n n e c t i c u t , 310 U . S . P e n n s y l v a n i a , 319 U . S . 105 ( 1 9 4 3 ) .  79.  Supra,  80.  R^ v . supra,  note 23,  p.  13.  (1959);  Murdock  v.  970.  B i g M. Drug M a r t , note  296  supra,  n o t e 10;  R^ v .  Video F l i c k s  Ltd.,  -  Palmer v.  82.  P . B r e s t , " P a l m e r v . T h o m p s o n : An a p p r o a c h t o t h e p r o b l e m o f u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l e g i s l a t i v e m o t i v e " , ( 1 9 7 1 ) Supreme C o u r t R e v i e w , 95. v.  403 U . S .  B o o k s and A r t  Ltd.,  217,  -  81.  83.  Thompson  127  supra,  note  Ed.  2 d 438  (1971).  14.  84.  S e e D.  Miller,  85.  Ibid.,  p.  68.  86.  Ibid.,  p.  69.  87.  Ibid.,  p.  68.  88.  See I n t e r n a t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r K r i s h n a C o n s c i o u s n e s s v . E d m o n t o n , [ 1 9 7 9 ] 16 A . R . 3 6 5 .  City  See D o n a l d  518  89.  to  v.  "Constraints  29 L.  Hamilton  the F l a g ) ;  Re D.  on F r e e d o m " ,  Board of  [1982],  (1983)  Education,  22 A l t a .  L.  94(1)  Ethics,  [1945] O.R.  R.  (2d)  228  66.  of  (Salute  (blood  transfusion). 90.  S.I. Man",  Benn,  W.L.  (1980)  Weinstein,  80 ( 3 1 8 )  Mind,  "Being Free 194.  At  p.  to Act  and B e i n g a F r e e  209:  "The c l a i m now i s t h a t by a t t a c h i n g p e n a l s a n c t i o n s t o a c o u r s e o f a c t i o n , t h e l a w has made i t u n a v a i l a b l e t o any r e a s o n a b l e p r u d e n t man." 91.  Q u o t e d i n Benn and W e i n s t e i n ,  Ibid.,  p.  198:  "To be f r e e d o e s n o t mean t o be a b l e t o a c t w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f c o n s e q u e n c e s ; i t means r a t h e r t o be a b l e t o c h o o s e among a v a i l a b l e c o u r s e s b e a r i n g i n mind t h e i r expected consequences, b o t h good and i l l " . See a l s o H.  Steiner,  "Individual  Liberty",  Aristotelian Society Proceedings, 33.  At  ( 1 9 7 4 - 5 ) LXXV p.  " I t would appear t h a t n e i t h e r the making of o f f e r s c o n s t i t u t e s a d i m i n u t i o n of personal does n o t c o u n t as p r e v e n t i o n . 92.  (75),  47: t h r e a t s nor t h a t o f liberty. Intervention  See F . E . O p p e n h e i m , D i m e n s i o n s o f F r e e d o m , New Y o r k , S t . M a r t i n ' s P r e s s , 1961, Ch. 4 . In t h i s a u t h o r ' s o p i n i o n , a l l t h r e a t s o f punishment i n f r i n g e the a d d r e s s e e ' s freedom even i f the punishment is quite s l i g h t . B u t t h i s p o s i t i o n i s d e b a t a b l e a s Benn and Weinstein p o i n t out a t s u p r a , note 90, p. 197:  -  128  -  " T h e c o n c e p t i o n o f f r e e d o m as t h e a b s e n c e o f i m p e d i m e n t s o r c o n s t r a i n t s i s u n s a t i s f a c t o r y p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e n e i t h e r t h e man who w o u l d have a c t e d i n t h e same way i n any e v e n t , n o r t h e one who g o e s a h e a d d e s p i t e t h e p e n a l t y , seems t o be i m p e d e d , b u t o n l y t h e one a c t u a l l y d e t e r r e d b u t i t i s odd t h a t he a l o n e i s t h e r e f o r e unfree." At  p.  209:  "When a man d e l i b e r a t e l y v i o l a t e s an o f f e n d e r , judgement 93.  the  law,  h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as  w h i c h j u s t i f i e s t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s , r e s t s on  that  S e e E.  Sharpe,  1983.  The  he a c t e d f r e e l y . " Understanding  author  (emphasis  Religion,  e x p l a i n e d about  London,  the  added) Duckworth  d e f i n i t i o n s at  p.  and  Co.,  33:  "Some s e r v e a s t r i c t l y d e s c r i p t i v e p u r p o s e and t h e s e may c a l l w o r k i n g d e f i n i t i o n s , i n t e n d e d t o f a c i l i t a t e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and s t u d y . . Many s u c h f o r m s o f w o r d s . . . a r e r e a l l y ' t a c t i c a l d e f i n i t i o n s ' , produced i n the heat of a c t i o n " . . . " . 94.  Ibid.  95.  S e e G.  Gardiner,  W.L.R.  117  at  "The  Purposes  of  C r i m i n a l Punishment"  (1958)  21  122:  "The b e l i e f i n t h e v a l u e o f d e t e r r e n c e r e s t s on t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t we a r e r a t i o n a l b e i n g s who a l w a y s t h i n k b e f o r e we a c t , and t h e n b a s e o u r a c t i o n s on a c a r e f u l c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e g a i n s and l o s s e s i n v o l v e d . . . t h e a b i l i t y t o i g n o r e h a r d f a c t s and t o s e e o n l y w h a t y o u w a n t t o s e e , i s s h a r e d by a s u r p r i s i n g l y l a r g e and i n f l u e n t i a l s e c t i o n of the community. 96.  I b i d . , p. 125. In modern s o c i e t i e s , t h e r e i s so much u n c e r t a i n t y o f c o n v i c t i o n t h a t t h e t h r e a t o f p u n i s h m e n t does n o t have a g r e a t persuasive force.  97.  Supra,  98.  See W. T o r p e y , J u d i c i a l D o c t r i n e s o f R e l i g i o u s R i g h t s New Y o r k , Da Capo P r e s s , 1970 a t p . 3 .  in  99.  See M. M c D o u g a l ,  note  90.  Public Order, 653-698.  H.  Lasswell, L.C.  New H a v e n ,  America,  Chen,  Human R i g h t s  and W o r l d  Yale University  P r e s s , 1980,  at  pp.  -  100.  129  -  See I n C o r p u s J u r i s C i v i l i s , v o l . X I I ( T r a n s l a t e d f r o m L a t i n by S.P. S c o t t ) , C i n c i n a t t i , C e n t r a l T r u s t C o . , 1973. T h e r e i s an e l o q u e n t e x a m p l e o f t h e t r e a t m e n t r e s e r v e d t o non C a t h o l i c s a t that time: "Title XI, their  Book  I:  Concerning the Pagans,  their  sacrifices  and  temples:  The E m p e r o r C o n s t a n t i n u s  to Taurus,  Praetorian  Prefectus:  "We have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e t e m p l e s s h a l l be i m m e d i a t e l y c l o s e d i n a l l c i t i e s . . We a l s o w i s h e v e r y o n e t o o b s t a i n f r o m s a c r i f i c e s , and i f any p e r s o n s h o u l d do a n y t h i n g o f t h i s k i n d , he s h a l l be l a i d down w i t h t h e s w o r d . " 101.  S e e L. Co.,  102.  Pfeffer,  1977,  See R.  at  R e l i g i o u s Freedom,  p p . 3 and  de V a u x ,  Skokie,  111.,  National  Textbook  4.  Ancient  Israel,  New Y o r k ,  McGraw-Hill  Book  Co.,  1961. 103.  See M. J .  Fischer,  Iran:  Mass.:  Harvard  Cambridge, 104.  See J . Co.,  Penton,  1976,  105.  Supra,  106.  Ibid.  107.  R^ v . always  pp.  note  Jack  from r e l i g i o u s d i s p u t e to  Jehovah's  University  Press,  Witnesses i n Canada,  revolution,  1980. Toronto,  MacMillan  129-155.  99.  and C h a r l i e ,  aimed a t  supra,  a religious  note 67,  (The  prohibition is  not  group).  108.  S e e T r e m e e a r ' s A n n o t a t e d C r i m i n a l C o d e , e d i t e d by A . B . H a r v e y , C a l g a r y B u r r o u g h s and C o . , 1 9 4 4 , p . 3 5 9 ( a b o u t p o l y g a m y and Mormons).  109.  Supra,  110.  Cantwell  111.  Saumur v .  City  Robertson  and R o s e t a n n i  note v.  Cartwright 112.  101. Connecticut, of  supra,  Quebec, v.  note  [1953[ R.,  78.  S.C.R.  [1965[  299 ( o p i n i o n  S.C.R.  651  of  Rand  (opinion  J.);  of  J.).  R. v . H a r r o l d [ 1 9 7 1 [ 19 D . L . R . ( 3 d ) 471 ( B . C . C . A . ) ; v . J a c k and C h a r l i e [ 1 9 8 2 ] 67 C . C . C . ( 2 d ) 289 ( B . C . C . A . ) ; Saumur v . C i t y o f Quebec, I b u h , ( o p i n i o n of R i n f r e t and T a s c h e r e a u J . J . ) .  -  113.  Pent!and  v.  Pentland,  114.  Donald  v.  115.  Supra,  note  116.  West V i r g i n i a S t a t e  Hamilton  [1978]  Board of  130  -  20 O . R .  (2d)  Education,  27.  (1945) O.R.  518.  101. Board of  Education  v.  Barnette,  319  U.S.  624  (1943). 117.  Ibid.,  p.  642.  118.  Saumur v .  City  119.  of  S u c h an e x a m p l e Pennsylvania,  120.  Heffron  121.  Ibid.  v.  v.  Quebec,  supra,  i n United States  319  U.S.  105  I s k c o n , 452 U . S .  Connecticut,  note  111.  i s found  in:  Murdock  v.  (1943). 6 4 0 , 6 9 , L.  Cantwell  123.  Supra,  124.  I n R o b e r t s o n and R o s e t a n n i v . The Q u e e n , s u p r a , n o t e 9 , C a r t w r i g h t J . d i s s e n t e d f r o m t h e o p i n i o n o f h t e m a j o r i t y as e x p r e s s e d by R i t c h i e J . who h e l d t h a t a mere e c o n o m i c a l d i s a d v a n t a g e d i d n o t amount t o an i n f r i n g e m e n t upon r e l i g i o u s freedom. Cartwright J . d i d n o t e x p r e s s l y i n d i c a t e h i s v i e w on that matter. R a t h e r he s a i d t h a t t h e L o r d ' s Day A c t was a l a w d e s t i n e d to secure the s a n c t i t y of Sunday. This i s a p o s i t i o n that i s quite debatable. I t i s a d i f f e r e n t m a t t e r though to d e c i d e w h e t h e r t h e L o r d ' d Day A c t i n v o l v e s a p e n a l t y f o r non-Sunday S a b b a t a r i a n s . As t o t h e i n f r i n g e m e n t i n v o l v e d i n an economic b u r d e n , the d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n of S t e w a r t J . i n B r a u n f e l d v . B r o w n , 366 U . S . 5 9 9 ( 1 9 6 1 ) i s more e x p l i c i t .  125.  The a p p e l l a n t , a member o f t h e S e v e n t h Day A d v e n t i s t s , was d e n i e d u n e m p l o y m e n t i n s u r a n c e b e n e f i t s f o r h e r r e f u s a l t o work on Saturdays. S u p r a , n o t e 23 a t p p . 9 7 0 - 9 7 1 :  p.  note  (1981).  122.  note 23,  supra,  e d . 2 d 298  78.  972.  "Here not only i s i t apparent t h a t the a p p e l l a n t ' s d e c l a r e d i n e l i g i b i l i t y f o r b e n e f i t s d e r i v e d s o l e l y from the p r a c t i c e of her r e l i g i o n , b u t t h e p r e s s u r e upon h e r t o f o r g o t h a t i s u n m i s t a k a b l e . The r u l i n g f o r c e s h e r t o c h o o s e b e t w e e n f o l l o w i n g t h e p r e c e p t s o f h e r r e l i g i o n and f o r f e i t i n g b e n e f i t s , on t h e one h a n d , a n d  -  131  -  a b a n d o n i n g one o f t h e p r e c e p t s o f h e r r e l i g i o n i n o r d e r t o a c c e p t work on t h e o t h e r h a n d . Governmental i m p o s i t i o n of such a c h o i c e p u t s t h e same k i n d o f b u r d e n upon t h e f r e e e x e r c i s e o f r e l i g i o n a s would a f i n e imposed a g a i n s t the a p p e l l a n t f o r h e r Saturday worship"...". 126.  67 L . E d . 2 d 624 ( 1 9 8 1 ) t h e a p p e l l a n t , a member o f J e h o v a h ' s W i t n e s s e s , q u i t h i s j o b v o l u n t a r i l y on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e f a b r i c a t i o n o f m i l i t a r y e q u i p m e n t c a r r i e d on t h e p l a n t w o u l d violate his spiritual beliefs. C o n s e q u e n t l y he was r e f u s e d unemployment c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s . The Supreme C o u r t h e l d : ( p . 634): "Where t h e S t a t e c o n d i t i o n s r e c e i p t o f an i m p o r t a n t b e n e f i t upon c o n d u c t p r o s c r i b e d by a r e l i g i o u s f a i t h o r w h e r e i t d e n i e s s u c h a b e n e f i t b e c a u s e o f c o n d u c t m a n d a t e d by r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s , t h e r e b y p u t t i n g s u b s t a n t i a l p r e s s u r e on an a d h e r e n t t o m o d i f y h i s b e h a v i o u r a n d t o v i o l a t e h i s b e l i e f s , a b u r d e n upon r e l i g i o n exists. W h i l e t h e c o m p u l s i o n may be i n d i r e c t , t h e i n f r i n g e m e n t upon f r e e e x e r c i s e i s n o n e t h e l e s s s u b s t a n t i a l . "  127.  In v . B i g M. Drug M a r t , s u p r a , n o t e 1 0 , t h e A l b e r t a C o u r t o f A p p e a l p a i d much a t t e n t i o n , h o w e v e r , t o t h e r e l i g i o u s a s p e c t o f t h e L o r d ' s Day A c t . T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e L o r d ' s Day A c t f o r c e s anyone t o s a n c t i f y S u n d a y . The p o s i t i o n o f t h e O n t a r i o C o u r t o f A p p e a l i n R. v . V i d e o F l i c k s , s u p r a , n o t e 1 3 , i s more d e c i s i v e as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o f an i n f r i n g e m e n t i n a l e g i s l a t i o n i m p o s i n g an e c o n o m i c b u r d e n upon an a d h e r e n t . At p. 423: " W h i l e t h e A c t does n o t r e q u i r e t h a t one w o r k s on o n e ' s S a b b a t h , i t n e v e r t h e l e s s c o n s t i t u t e s a m a j o r i n d u c e m e n t t o do s o . For t h o s e who o b s e r v e a S a b b a t h o t h e r t h e n S u n d a y , b e i n g f o r c e d t o c l o s e on b o t h d a y s o f a weekend o r , f o r t h a t m a t t e r , any two d a y s i n a w e e k , when o n e ' s c o m p e t i t o r s c a n r e m a i n open f o r s i x d a y s , makes o b s e r v a n c e o f o n e ' s S a b b a t h f i n a n c i a l l y o n e r o u s . "  128.  See J . A . K u s h n e r , "Toward t h e C e n t r a l Meaning o f R e l i g i o u s L i b e r t y : Non Sunday S a b b a t a r i a n s a n d t h e Sunday c l o s i n g c a s e s : r e v i s i t e d " ( 1 9 8 1 ) 35 S . W . L . J . 5 5 7 .  129.  Supra, Supra, Belzil  note 126, note 10, J.A.).  Supra,  notes 125, 126, 130.  130.  (dissenting opinion of Rehnquist J . ) ; v . B i g M. Drug Mart ( d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n  of  -  V.  BALANCE OF INTERESTS  Judges  i n Canada  t e s t when t h e y religious clearly  132  IN AMERICAN LAW  have  no r e a s o n anymore  consider there  the p a r t i e s . dealt with  to ignore a balancing  i s an i n f r i n g e m e n t  freedom of a d e f e n d a n t .  invites  -  S e c t i o n 1 of the  Since the adoption  of the Charter  guaranteed  p r e s c r i b e d by l a w as c a n be d e m o n s t r a b l y  and d e m o c r a t i c I n Re F e d e r a l o f Appeal  Extradition  i n the Charter  that  limits  had t o d e c i d e upon  between Canada  The C o u r t  p r o c e e d e d t o an e x a m i n a t i o n  the i n t e r n a t i o n a l  account.3  o f Canada  of  subjects the "reasonable  community  the Ontario  and Germany w h i c h  for extradition  i n matters  of e x t r a d i t i o n .  to the r e q u e s t i n g S t a t e  concluded that  to Germany.2  of the p r a c t i c e s t h a t  exist The  and t h e h i s t o r y  c o n c e r n i n g e x t r a d i t i o n s were a l s o t a k e n  The C o u r t  extradition  such measures p e r m i t t i n g t h e  o f a Canadian c i t i z e n were  not contrary  same a p p r o a c h b a s e d upon an e x a m i n a t i o n  jurisdictions  was a d o p t e d by t h e S u p e r i o r C o u r t  Quebec P r o t e s t a n t  School  Board v .  of  into  to s e c t i o n 1  the C h a r t e r . 4 The  have  the r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of t h e  to hold a Canadian c i t i z e n  legislations  to  cases  j u s t i f i e d in a  R e p u b l i c o f Germany a n d R a u c a ,  A c t and t h e t r e a t y  obligations  only  of  society".*  permitted  in  several  the p r o v i s i o n s contained i n s e c t i o n  and freedoms  Court  Charter  t o p r o c e e d t o an a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e i n t e r e s t s  rights  free  upon t h e  A.G.  Quebec.5  of  other  o f Quebec i n in this case,  -  Deschenes C . J . the C h a r t e r : law; The  (3)  put (1)  under  a free  s c r u t i n y four  the  in  different  respondent.  Yet  the three  after  j u r i s d i c t i o n s , the Court  were a r e a s o n a b l e l i m i t to  different  legislations that  will  judges  situations  in other  is  be o f m a j o r  reasonable I n Rj, v .  i n Canada w i l l  feel  their  c o u n t r i e s when t h e y  have  Video F l i c k s L t d .  in  study  c a n be i m p o s e d upon  the Court  recalled  in the United S t a t e s ,  the q u e s t i o n of  the  r e l i g i o u s freedom.8  that  at  the  of  reasonable T h e r e was  prosecutor.  section 1 of  the C h a r t e r  A u s t r a l i a and J a p a n w h e r e  did  freedom  Furthermore  the  Court  n e i t h e r t h e U n i t e d K i n g d o m n o r New Z e a l a n d  had  the  r e l i g i o u s freedom p r o t e c t e d i n t h e i r development  Charter w i l l  I n many  e t a l . , the O n t a r i o Court  religion is constitutionally protected.9  The  the  here.  no s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by t h e  to  The  t o p r o n o u n c e on w h a t  simply  right  Bill  p r a c t i c e s and  necessary to look  that  observed that  not  in i t s  freedoms.  limits  of  situation  assistance in assessing  d i d not e x t e n s i v e l y  not e x i s t  met  the C h a r t e r . 7  Appeal  Nevertheless  limits.6  linguistic  i n the meaning of  of  p r e s c r i p t e d by  reasonable  the measures adopted  c a n be i m p o s e d upon f u n d a m e n t a l  situations  (2)  h e l d t h a t Quebec had  j u r i s d i c t i o n s with  probably  secttion 1  f i r s t c o n d i t i o n s were  examining the  demonstrated c o n v i n c i n g l y that  limits  elements of  and d e m o c r a t i c s o c i e t y ;  C o u r t was s a t i s f i e d t h a t  recourse  -  d e m o n s t r a b l e j u s t i f i c a t i o n ; and (4)  by  101  133  of  the j u r i s p r u d e n c e i n Canada under  c e r t a i n l y s e t up t h e  a p p r a i s i n g the  limits  to other j u r i s d i c t i o n s .  Constitutions.10  standards that w i l l  the  guide  judges  acceptable without  necessarily referring  For  i s almost  t h e moment,  it  inevitable  -  that to  a s e r i o u s look  be g i v e n .  the is  the  In m a t t e r s  the American B i l l prevented  upon  of  of  Rights  American judges  134  -  situation freedom of  of  a rule  handicapped In Supreme  that Court  be n o t e d . door  to  Douglas  their  At  door J.  the  lack  v i s i o n of  r e s p e c t the of United  of  the  States  the  s i m i l a r to  absence  has in  s e c t i o n 1 has  some p r i n c i p l e s  not  around  c a n be e x e r c i s e d . 1 1  i s s u e s of  opinion  countries  There  such a s p e c i f i c c l a u s e has religious  freedom.  d e l i v e r e d by t h e m a j o r i t y  i n Murdock  s t a k e was a m u n i c i p a l preaching.  religion,  from d e v e l o p i n g  l i m i t s i n which r e l i g i o u s freedom no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t  in different  Speaking  v.  ordinance  for  Pennsylvania  of has  imposing a tax  the m a j o r i t y  of  the  the to on  Court,  said:  The hand d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e l i g i o u s t r a c t s i s an a g e - o l d f o r m o f m i s s i o n a r y e v a n g e l i s m as o l d as the h i s t o r y of p r i n t i n g p r e s s e s . I t has been a p o t e n t f o r c e i n v a r i o u s r e l i g i o u s movements down through the y e a r s . T h i s form of e v a n g e l i s m i s u t i l i z e d t o d a y on a l a r g e s c a l e by v a r i o u s r e l i g i o u s s e c t s whose c o l p o r t e u r s c a r r y t h e G o s p e l t o t h o u s a n d s upon t h o u s a n d s o f homes and seek t h r o u g h p e r s o n a l i n v i t a t i o n s t o w i n a d h e r e n t s to t h e i r f a i t h " . . . " . T h i s form of r e l i g i o u s a c t i v i t y o c c u p i e s t h e same h i g h e s t a t e u n d e r t h e F i r s t Amendment as do w o r s h i p i n t h e c h u r c h e s and p r e a c h i n g f r o m t h e p u l p i t s " . . . " . ! 2 As t o Verner the  the  balance of  are  quite  interests  explicit.  the  p r i n c i p l e s set  Brennan J .  said for  i n Sherbert  the m a j o r i t y  Court: We must n e x t c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r some c o m p e l l i n g s t a t e i n t e r e s t enforced i n the e l i g i b i l i t y p r o v i s i o n s of the South C a r o l i n a S t a t u t e j u s t i f i e s the s u b s t a n t i a l i n f r i n g e m e n t of a p p e l l a n t ' s F i r s t Amendment r i g h t . It i s the b a s i s t h a t not showing merely a r a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o some c o l o r a b l e s t a t e i n t e r e s t would s u f f i c e ; i n t h i s h i g h l y s e n s i t i v e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a r e a , only the g r a v e s t abuses  v. of  -  endangering permissible To United to  be s u r e , States  approaching noteworthy either  American latter  experience of  or a f t e r  if  v.  Video  for  however,  of  in  t h e i r mistakes  r e l i g i o u s freedom  be m o s t  i n Canada.  freedom  of  had  not  helpful It  in  is  religion,  the C h a r t e r ,  Flicks Ltd.  the  refer  et a l .  to  the  i s one o f  the  examples. section will  put  to o b t a i n a general When a j u d g e  prosecution  that  will there  religious  freedom,  issue w i l l  be o f  development  of  the  great  freedom  situation  i s l i k e l y to  "reasonable  the view  have  of  no p r o b l e m t o  help.  As i t  religion.  of  change.  upon  of  the  in  c a s e s on  was s a i d b e f o r e ,  use o f  i s above  other  all  elements  and d e m o c r a t i c  of  no  that  systematic  i n Canadian  law  the C h a r t e r  this  the  justified"  a criminal  defendant's  the American  with t h e It  The  and " f r e e  context  has been o b s e r v e d 1 4  cases  situation.  decided i n the  understanding  concepts  that w i l l  of  be  sect. 1 that  society"  should  is  give  jurists.  concepts of might  "reasonable  correspond to  and " c o m p e l l i n g s t a t e  by j u d g e s  on t h e  l i m i t s " and " d e m o n s t r a b l y  " p r e s c r i b e d by l a w "  justified"  on t h e A m e r i c a n  i s an i n f r i n g e m e n t  s c r u t i n i z e d by t h e C o u r t s .  The  focus  a balancing test  regarding  means"  can,  the a d o p t i o n  occasion  r e l i g i o u s freedom  many c a s e s d e a l i n g w i t h  decisions.  This order  problems  before  of  give  i t s d i s c r e p a n c i e s but  their  that  -  paramount i n t e r e s t s limitation"...".13  the j u r i s p r u d e n c e  has  be r e p e a t e d ,  135  i n the United  l i m i t s " and  the  notions  interest"  States.  that  "demonstrably  of  "least  have  been  restrictive articulated  -  To  be s u r e ,  investigation will  not  will  results  be p a r t i c u l a r  Nevertheless,  different In  the  mentioned  to  courts  on t h e the  term  was  religious activities  facie  of  that  other  the  people  protection  considered also protected In  at  they are  interest  fraudulent sight  the American  if  the  there  will of  to  cases,  are  from  and  follow  freedom.  "infringement",  it  could or  the C h a r t e r . the  of  so o f t e n  prima  protection subdued  was be  that  by t h e  do n o t e x p r e s s  the  or  religion.  is manifest  superseded  be It  life  should not  freedom  it  was  should  same o b s e r v a t i o n that  in  answers  religious  of  they  of  by t h e  the the  these  State view  that  First  state  constitutional  protection,  section,  alleged  it  is  one.  part  of  this  be i d e n t i f i e d  the C o u r t s  i s no r e a l  right  the Courts  t h e y have any  first  The  generally  f a c i e excluded  a theoretical  responses  that  to  threatening  activities  by t h e  are  society  be c o n s i d e r e d as h a v i n g  the C h a r t e r .  However t h e y  that  activities  that  at  of  i s true  prima  Amendment.  In  first  It  of  s e c t i o n 2(a)  should not  and b e h a v i o u r s  interest.  rather  for  looking  attitudes  scope of  this  t o know t h e  some a l l e g e d r e l i g i o u s a t t i t u d e s the  health  gain  defence  considered outside s a i d then  from  the American  i s much t o  section dealing with  that  be f o u n d  a s p e c t be e x a m p l e s  there  American  -  that w i l l  n e c e s s a r i l y i n every  Canada. of  the  136  are  and i t  these  will  predictable.  "balancing test"  religious  be d e m o n s t r a t e d So p r e d i c t a b l e  that  takes  place.  that they For  the are this  -  reason  it  i s suggested that  constitutional  A.  protection  Outside  137  -  those cases are not  of  religious  t h e Scope o f  r e a l l y under  freedom.  R e l i g i o u s Freedom  Protection  Some d i s c u s s i o n c o u l d be c a r r i e d on t h e k i n d o f is  protected  i n the F i r s t  starting  from the  declaring  rights  constitutional naturally,  Amendment o r  idea that or g i v i n g  document  only  would e x i s t w i t h or w i t h o u t from a p h i l o s o p h i c a l p o i n t standpoint.  do n o t  practical  point  though  without is  any  These  of  view  of  view  i s not  it  Put  in other words,  as the  j u d g e made l a w ,  from the  as f a r  legal  as t h e y  supreme l a w o f  offered  to a r i g h t .  different immunity  or  have forcibly freedoms  B u t w h a t c a n be  s p i t e of  there  penal  i s no  in law.  legal  an a b s o l u t e authors  the broad language  of  that  right behaviour  rule,  no a c t i v i t y w o u l d s e n s e , the The  rights  that  language,  o f w h i c h have the F i r s t  be  Constitution  land i s the best p r o t e c t i o n  But even w i t h  From a  idea  when a c e r t a i n  that  true  from a l e g a l  a c c e p t the  another  In  have a p r o t e c t i o n the  to  statutory,  restriction.  r e l i g i o u s a c t i v i t i e s the in  people  or fundamental  as t r u e  law,  p r o h i b i t e d by a l e g i s l a t i o n , w i t h o u t  exist  that  as  a  l e g i s l a t i o n with  is preferable  i s no c r i m e w i t h o u t  law e i t h e r .  exempted  that  b e h a v i o u r w o u l d be  rights  any  In  embrace t h e s e p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n s .  there  constitutional,  said  a Constitution.  The C r i m i n a l Code o r  sanctions  it  that  c a n be v i e w e d e i t h e r  declares rights  c o v e r e d by t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n .  even  If  i t w o u l d t h e n mean t h a t  freedom  i n the C h a r t e r .  a Constitution rights.  the  c a n be  there no  Amendment.  are  -  The  context  i n which these  considered (i)  the  do n o t  and  accept that  l i v e s and h e a l t h  of  religious  be  Health"  motives.  views  on t h a t  to  say t h a t  peoples  i n the  in jeopardy.  has been a l l e g e d t o  When j u d g e s  have  matter  leave  unacceptable character  judges  United  r e l i g i o u s p r a c t i c e s can l e g i t i m a t e l y  other  many c a s e s where m u r d e r  their  r e l i g i o u s p r a c t i c e s happen w i l l  has become commonplace  States  -  here.  "Threat to L i f e  It  138  they  There are  put not  be i n s p i r e d by  the o p p o r t u n i t y no d o u b t  of a r e l i g i o u s freedom  to  as t o  express  the  defence  i n such a  context. In A f r i c a  v.  Anderson,  the  defendant  and o t h e r  offenses  r e s t e d upon  her  authority  of judge  and j u r y  pronounce  deciding  on h e r  request  Court  concluded that  First  Amendment r i g h t s .  the  cases of  for  there  to  religious beliefs  a declaratory  the  homicide  to  deny  on h e r c a s e . 1 5 judgment  was no v i o l a t i o n More o f t e n  1 6  charged with  of  on  a District  the  Courts  the  defendant's  have for  to  consider  p e o p l e who r e f u s e m e d i c a l  treatment  their  t h o s e c a s e s have  consequences because of  children. Usually rapid  intervention  permission parents.17  to  the c o u r t s  administer  The  interventions  of  of  be an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t  of  r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m when  alleged  to  be a c r i m i n a l  courts  without  the c o u r t s  defence  When a c h i l d  in granting  a treatment  promptness  might  no p e n a l  the  petitioners  the  consent  in permitting they  refusal  of  those  would not of  the  accept a  treatment  is  negligence.  o r an u n c o n s c i o u s r e l a t i v e  i n the U n i t e d  to  States  do n o t  a c c e p t the  i s concerned, idea that  the  an  the  -  adherent  -  can r e f u s e a l i f e - s a v i n g t r e a t m e n t  when s o m e o n e ' s Davis  139  the  life  or health  c o n v i c t i o n of  argument  of  i s in danger.18  for  religious beliefs.19  f a i l u r e to  grounds  In M i t c h e l l  an a c c u s e d was u p h e l d i n s p i t e o f A mother  h e r s o n ' s a r t h r i t i c knee c o n d i t i o n . neglect  on s p i r i t u a l  provide  v. the  r e l i e d on p r a y e r  for  She was c o n v i c t e d o f c r i m i n a l  treatment  r e q u i r e d by t h e  child's  condition.20 Danger to not  have  to  defendant  to  children.21 on t h e  parent  In M . I .  pay $ 2 5 . 0 0 a week The  defendant  that  The  he had t o  Court  provide  superior  life  interest.  support  The  v.  A.I,  the  devote  support  Court  held that for  of  the the  h i s or her  fully  his wife  to  Society  does  ordered a  in a gainful  himself  that  o f New Y o r k ,  the Court  International  recognized  i n h i s c o n v i c t i o n s but to  for  a family Court  r e f u s e d t o work  p r a c t i c e s s e t by t h e  Consciousness. sincere  at l e a s t f o r  be i m m e d i a t e .  grounds  religious  life,  and  employment  the of  Krishna  defendant  was  o b l i g a t i o n of  a  f a m i l y was a  noted:  The d u t y o f p a r e n t s t o p r o v i d e s h e l t e r and s u s t e n a n c e to t h e i r dependents a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r c a p a b i l i t y i s an o b l i g a t i o n w h i c h i s p e r h a p s t h e m o s t f u n d a m e n t a l and n e c e s s i t o u s known t o s o c i e t y b o t h a n i m a l and h u m a n " . . . " . 2 2 This courts  in United  children the  decision i s in accord with States  as an i m p o r t a n t  forced treatment  of  several  other  c a s e s where  have c o n s i d e r e d t h e p r e s e n c e o f f a c t o r when t h e y  are asked to  the  minor authorize  a p e r s o n who r e f u s e d a l i f e - s a v i n g  treatment. That  has h a p p e n e d e s p e c i a l l y w i t h  patients  W i t n e s s e s who r e f u s e d b l o o d t r a n s f u s i o n s . 2 3  that  When t h e  are  Jehovah's  patient  -  refuses  blood transfusions  religious decision  motives  In B r o o k ' s minor  will  i s no m i n o r  Estate  blood t r a n s f u s i o n .  not  l i f e - s a v i n g treatment  generally  children  the Court  c h i l d r e n and t h e r e f o r e  receive  -  o r any o t h e r  the Courts  when t h e r e  140  The  that  the  was no r e a s o n  Court  with  his  involved.24  observed  there  interfere  for  patient  had  no  compel  her  to  to  said:  E v e n t h o u g h we may c o n s i d e r t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s b e l i e f unwise, f o o l i s h or r i d i c u l o u s , i n the a b s e n c e o f an o v e r r i d i n g d a n g e r t o s o c i e t y , we may n o t p e r m i t i n t e r f e r e n c e t h e r e w i t h i n t h e form of a c o n s e r v a t o r s h i p e s t a b l i s h e d i n the waning hours of her l i f e f o r the s o l e purpose of c o m p e l l i n g her to a c c e p t medical treatment f o r b i d d e n by h e r r e l i g i o u s p r i n c i p l e s and p r e v i o u s l y r e f u s e d by h e r w i t h f u l l k n o w l e d g e o f the probable consequences.25 The minor  Courts  child  parent.  definite  i s arguable  the  refusal  position  When t h e r e or a c t i v i t y tasks  to  not  of  whether  States  public health  convictions  of  this  The  had t o  some  should j u s t i f y when t h e r e  in a spiritual that  the  i s real  threat  i s part  Massachusetts, a state  interest prevail  people.28  of even  that  the at  and  of  the  attitude  court's  or not.  This  compulsory  t h e Supreme C o u r t  risk state the  in  2 6  law c o m p e l l i n g  the  a  a  is a clear  a certain religious it  even though  fact  the c o u r t s  belief.  and h e a l t h  v.  the  p r e s e n c e and c a r e o f  patient  decided that  one.27  the  for  in cases dealing with  In Jacobson  unconstitutional  a potential  the  life  has been f e l t  the United was  of  of  i s an a l l e g a t i o n  endangers  vaccination.  that  grounded  determine  necessity  show a p r e o c c u p a t i o n  c o u l d be d e p r i v e d  It  violating  seem t o  to  vaccination  prevent  i n the  expense  of  was  only  preservation of  religious  -  In  Brown  v.  d a n g e r was n o t imposition  when  legislation  there  courts  show t h e  i n a penal  "the  by  the  safety  a school their With Courts  the  preserve  to  health w i l l  i n any  400,000 before  fire  Church,  safety  even  the  the Court  standards  the  answers not  though  the  latter  burden  of  had t o  of  be  Appeals . be  argued  that  as a c h u r c h and  on t h e  of  preventing  the v a l i d i t y  of  v.  not  free  as  exercise  Lefkowitz that  j  n  prohibiting  objections  e  promoting  required  t h e New Y o r k C o u n t y Supreme h i s r e l i g i o u s freedom  for  the  of  measures  a  to  be a c c e p t e d .  a state  p u b l i c area i n c i t i e s  people,  legislation  a bylaw  generally  harm t o  law c a l l e d dogs'  with  "Pooper  owners  to  a population  p e r s o n s was c h a l l e n g e d by an O r t h o d o x J e w . 3 3  violated  is  the  Sometimes but  to a b u i l d i n g used both  a p p l i c a t i o n of  o f New Y o r k S t a t e  waste  .  indicates there  i n implementing  in r e l i g i o u s ceremonies.32  the  an  religion".31  recognized  In Schnapp Law"  the  same o b j e c t i v e  snake h a n d l i n g  to j u s t i f y  r e l i g i o u s freedom would  Baptist  respondents  their  the  on r e l i g i o u s  danger  any v i o l a t i o n  i m p o s e d an u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  have  defendant  the  Corning,  enough  some a t t i t u d e s . 3 0  of  North Star  regulations  of  of  context.  Michigan ruled that  observed  of  defense  City  vaccination  i s no h e s i t a t i o n prevent  of  and i m m e d i a t e  i s challenged before  I n Hough v . of  District  the a p p r e c i a t i o n of  necessary to  accepted  School  c o n s i d e r e d grave  a serious r i s k ,  the  of  -  even on t h o s e who r e f u s e d  grounds.29  measures  City  141  Court  that  this  Scooper  remove  canine  in excess He  of  pleaded  disposition  his r e l i g i o n prevented  him  from  -  removing  c a n i n e waste  Legislature of  In other in  to a c t  summary,  people,  when  t o meet  there  the evidence  that  the  It  to  danger  real  represents  for the  that  other  of  an a c c u s e d c h a r g e d w i t h  when  life the  and h e a l t h  danger  defence.  It  c o v e r e d by  the  subject (ii) In  the  religious  they  protection  for  of  the  and  safety  have  alcohol,  concern of  the  i n the for  to  protection  then  of this  is  be b r o u g h t  as  attitude  evidence  is  help  the  religious for  i s - not The  for  Courts  s e v e r e and  drug consumption  even  freedom religious  generally importance  of  attention. Freedom  many c a s e s have  link  framework  accept generally  in prohibiting  state  been b r o u g h t  c l a i m e d immunity  used i n the  The c o u r t s  c o n s i d e r i n g the  that  or  of  i s quite  common b e l i e f ,  d r u g s were  the  this  attitude  and R e l i g i o u s  an i n t e r e s t  really  i s not a great  reject  of  i s not  granted  where  The  in which defendants  legislatures  and h e a l t h  r e l i g i o u s freedom.  claims a special  prohibited  life  p r o o f must  general  tend  notwithstanding  activities.35  as o b v i o u s  health  be p r o d u c e d  c o u l d be t h r e a t e n e d  l a s t twenty y e a r s ,  that  The  an o f f e n s e .  i s remote  courts  to  r e l i g i o u s freedom  Drug Consumption  the American ground  need o f  be t a k e n  In  i s especialy true  purposes w h i c h ,  this  ruled that  a certain religious activity  people.  defense  has t o  must  a c c e p t e d by C o u r t s .  where  Court  has an i n t e r e s t  a postulate  satisfied  the  i s a danger that  state  and p u b l i c h e a l t h .  the  The  populations.34  showing  life  -  on a S a t u r d a y .  had power  diverse  142  for  the  between  drugs.  safety  before  on  the  of  that As  with  of  people  is  intoxicants  on t h e  one  seen  -  143  -  hand and c r i m i n a l i t y and o c c u r e n c e o f  a c c i d e n t s on t h e  other  hand.36 LeWellyn the Courts  v.  State,  had t o  deal  for example, with  i s one among many c a s e s  infringement  a l l e g e d by p e o p l e who a r e c h a r g e d w i t h of m a r i j u a n a . 3 7 Oklahoma Church  upheld  the  that  the  In  unlawful  was made t o  professed another  religion. State  delivery  v.  Brashear,  defendant  believed marijuana  he u s e d i t  in order,  he s a i d ,  in  The members  unusual of  the  "to  defence  f i n d i n g of  in their  impression  that  was  perform  to  any bona  of  a Court  arrested while  attending  u s e d as a s a c r a m e n t a l a County Court conviction.  but  constitutionally  apply  not  sale  of  a member  i n People  v.  held that statute  of  Even from  n  e  God" in  was  Woody when  recognized  They w e r e a t Court  the  freedom.  gave,  j  gift  defendant  for  the  right  a moment,  defendants  first  had  peyote  found  the  " C a l i f o r n i a State  could peyote  been was  guilty  C a l i f o r n i a quashed  p r o s c r i b i n g use o f  to  ingredient  a r e l i g i o u s ceremony where  symbol.  held  h i s r e l i g i o u s duty  religious  religion.42  t h e Supreme  The C o u r t  "a f r e e  o r m a r i j u a n a w o u l d be an fide  The  defendant  The  r e l i g i o u s ceremonies  peyote  American  seed to mankind.40  t h e A m e r i c a n N a t i v e C h u r c h were  use peyote  available  herbs b e a r i n g  the  t o more b r o t h e r s " . 4 1  s p i t e of  of  3 9  the  convicted  Appeals  the Holy  n a r c o t i c s agent  though  herb  freedom  distribution  of m a r i j u a n a . 3 8  that  the  all  of C r i m i n a l  a p r i e s t of  belief  spreading  gave  of  religious  p o s s e s s i o n and  the Court  an u n d e r c o v e r  case,  God  case,  conviction  charged with  marijuana of  In  upon  where  their  not as  by  to  -  prevent  Indian  similar  to  m u s t be remembered t h a t  Supreme C o u r t factors: faith (2)  (1)  the c o n c l u s i o n of  to  the c u l t of  involving  either  for  to  the  polygamy  The  following a religious  the American N a t i v e Church;  t h e use o f  t h e members o f  society in general.  p r a c t i c e of  it  not  p r a c t i c e among many I n d i a n  T h e r e was no e v i d e n c e t h a t  Church or f o r  is  was u s e d i n a bona f i d e p u r s u i t o f  P e y o t i s m was a m i l l e n i a l  c o n t e x t was h a r m f u l  the Court  r e l i g i o u s purposes.  o f C a l i f o r n i a was a t t e n t i v e Peyote  symbol  c a s e where n a r c o t i c s o r  s u b s t a n c e s are used f o r  and was c e n t r a l  and ( 3 )  as s a c r a m e n t a l  u s e d i n C h r i s t i a n c h u r c h e s " . . ."A3  a p p l i c a b l e i n every  hallucinogen  -  t r i b e s from u s i n g peyote  b r e a d and w i n e  necessarily  144  Drawing  by a M o r m o n ,  Peyote  tribes;  i n such a  the American  a parallel the Court  Native  with a case observed:  R e y n o l d s v . U n i t e d S t a t e s m u s t be d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m t h e i n s t a n t c a s e f o r two f u n d a m e n t a l reasons. The t e s t o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y c a l l s f o r an e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e d e g r e e o f a b r i d g m e n t o f r e l i g i o u s freedom i n v o l v e d i n each c a s e . Polygamy, although a b a s i c t e n e t i n the t h e o l o g y o f Mormonism i s n o t e s s e n t i a l t o t h e p r a c t i c e o f t h e r e l i g i o n ; p e y o t e on t h e t h e one h a n d , i s t h e s i n e qua non o f d e f e n d a n t s ' f a i t h . I t i s the s o l e means by w h i c h d e f e n d a n t s a r e a b l e t o e x p e r i e n c e t h e i r r e l i g i o n ; w i t h o u t peyote defendants cannot p r a c t i c e t h e i r f a i t h . Second, the degree of danger to s t a t e i n t e r e s t s i n Reynolds f a r exceeded t h a t i n the i n s t a n t s e r i o u s t h r e a t t o d e m o c r a t i c i n s t i t u t i o n s and i n j u r i o u s t o t h e m o r a l s and w e l l - b e i n g o f i t s practitioners. As we have t h e r e f o r e i n d i c a t e d , no s u c h c o m p e l l i n g s t a t e i n t e r e s t s u p p o r t s t h e p r o h i b i t i o n of the use of p e y o t e . 4 4 Some y e a r s l a t e r Woody w e r e b r o u g h t Oklahoma  facts  before  i n Whitehorne  v.  similar  the C o u r t State.45  to those found  i n People  of C r i m i n a l Appeals  of  v.  -  The C o u r t religious not  held that  as f a r  a cloak for  as t h e y  illegal  other  doubt  In S t a t e "to  v.  for  in their  the  essential could  the  element  i n the d e c i s i o n of to j u d g e s ,  case of  there  this  The  that  I n Town  the  State  for  he u s e d m a r i j u a n a  The C o u r t  Moreover,  the  maintained  the lies  of  the  fact  i n the  drugs  that,  society.50  in a desert,  as  Church, judges  are l i k e l y to  other  health.  ex r e l . R e n o ,  peoples'  supra,  the Court  by m a k i n g a d i s t i n c t i o n f r o m P e o p l e v .  in  the p r i n c i p a l  danger  represents for  exposing  the  use o f  that  was  defendant  p l a s t i c bag i n  r e l i g i o u s purposes  danger  v.  cast  use o f m a r i j u a n a  centrality  the c o u r t s  for  of  p r a c t i s e h i s r e l i g i o n by  overshadow  the American N a t i v e  is a potential  point  sympathy  access  alleged that  drug consumption  are used f o r  I n Town v .  as  sacrament".47  in a transparent  a night club.49  drugs  the  his religious a c t i v i t i e s .  r e l i g i o n should not  Unless  the easy  Samadhi".48  proved  a given  according  that  defendant  had n o t  and o f f e r i n g m a r i j u a n a  the  noted  n o t e x p l a i n why he had t o  r e s t r o o m of  showed l i t t l e  c h i l d r e n i n a c e r t a i n r e l i g i o u s ceremony  Roche!eau  to  have  " s a c r e d c h a r a c t e r of  defendant  were  Clause  r e l i g i o u s ceremonies.  f a c i l i t a t e the p e r c e p t i o n of  that  for  Church  use t h e F r e e E x e r c i s e  i n s t a n c e s the c o u r t s  even  on t h e  the American Native  do n o t  e x r e l . Reno t h e C o u r t  cannabis  peyote  activities.46  t h o s e who consume d r u g s State  -  p o s s e s s i o n and u s e o f  p u r p o s e s by members o f  illegal  In  then  145  in find  emphasized  Woody:  Woody i s a l s o d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e i n t h a t t h e C o u r t e x p r e s s l y f o u n d t h a t t h e p e y o t e u s e r s p o s e d no t h r e a t to the g e n e r a l p u b l i c w h i l e under t h a t drug's influence. P e y o t e was u s e d d u r i n g a  -  146  -  ceremony, conducted i n the d e s e r t , which c o n t i n u e d f r o m sundown S a t u r d a y t o s u n r i s e Sunday. A t s u n r i s e b r e a k f a s t was s e r v e d and t h e n t h e members d e p a r t e d . By m o r n i n g t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e p e y o t e had d i s a p p e a r e d w i t h no a f t e r e f f e c t s . In t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s t e s t i m o n y of n e i g h b o u r s s t a t i n g t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s under the i n f l u e n c e o f c a n n a b i s were c o n s t a n t l y coming and going.51 Many c a s e s do n o t  support the  idea that  an e s s e n t i a l o r c e n t r a l e l e m e n t o f religious  adepts.  This  C o p t i c C h u r c h had t o Appeal.52  The  essential  element of  the o p i n i o n of v.  U.S.,  to  importation  argued t h a t  that  the  statutes  and p o s s e s s i o n o f m a r i j u a n a  in  the U n i t e d S t a t e s  it  i s a q u e s t i o n of  s a t i s f i e d with  the  preserved through  judges that issue  Court  to  Zion  of  J.,  delivering  the o p i n i o n i n  prohibiting  Leary  the  serve a compelling  do n o t  important  in the United  For  t h e moment,  public interests  i n those cases w i l l  Courts  point.  r e c e p t i v e to a defense of activities.  they  Some c a s e s  to adopt  are  are  be t h e r u l e  Canadian c o u r t s are l i k e l y  States.  legalization  antidrug laws;55 so,  a s t h e A m e r i c a n j u d g e s on t h a t  fraudulent  the  p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e d e b a t e and c o n s i d e r  legislative policy.  defendants  about  and i n C a n a d a as w e l l . 5 4  the enforcement of  are not very  of  Hill  a certain discussion  idea that  than e x c e p t i o n . 5 6 attitude  immunity  interest.53  i s underway  of  as  t h e u s e o f m a r i j u a n a was an  quoted e x t e n s i v e l y  of marijuana i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s  conviction  States  his religous practice.  the C o u r t ,  give  drugs  the Ethiopian  l e a r n from the U n i t e d  p o i n t out  governmental There  religion will  i s w h a t a member o f  defendant  t h e use o f  the rather  the  same  A n o t h e r a r e a where r e l i g i o u s freedom  have d e a l t w i t h  that  is  -  (iii)  Fraudulent  As w i t h  147  -  Activities  homicide,  it  is quite  uncommon t o  r a i s e a d e f e n s e b a s e d on t h e f r e e e x e r c i s e o f facing  a charge of  the expense of they  fraud.  First  the  fraud.57  doctrine.58  defendant  knowingly  religious  b e l i e f s , there  his r e l i g i o n while  tend  to  to  fraud  deny  the  falsity  of  i s s u f f i c i e n t evidence that  people under  is a solid  the  disguise  ground f o r  in  that  a l s o argue t h a t  from examining the  when t h e r e  defrauded  defendants They w i l l  Amendment p r e c l u d e s j u d g e s  religious  defendant  When t h e a c c u s a t i o n r e f e r s  c h u r c h members,  have c o m m i t t e d any  see a  a the  of  a verdict  of  culpability. Judges duty  to  proved  freedom w i l l  and l i f e  not  returns"  funds  v. for  the  the United Court "Messaiah"  v.  be a c c e p t e d . 6 0  Moon t h e  the  for  have  no  when i t  is  lacked a  the defence The  test  not  let  fraudulent  of  that  is  As i n m a t t e r s anyone  of  use  a c t i v i t i e s even  when  victims.  d e f e n d a n t was a c c u s e d w i t h  he had n o t  they  Yet  Rasheed,  s e n s i t i v e one.  p r o t e c t i o n , judges w i l l  he h e l d p e r s o n a l l y . 6 1  defence that  in U.S.  i s a very  t h e c h u r c h members a r e n o t  tax  like  f r e e d o m as a c h a n n e l  In U . S .  of a r e l i g i o n . 5 9  i n t h e d o c t r i n e he a d v a n c e d ,  i n those cases  religious  i n many i n s t a n c e s , t h a t  the v a l i d i t y  the defendant,  belief  religious applied  repeated,  determine that  sincere  health  have  d e c l a r e d the After  "filing  i n t e r e s t s accumulated i n  r e j e c t i n g the argument  f u n d s were h e l d ( o r  false  used)  for  of A p p e a l s (Second C i r c u i t )  of  the  r e l i g i o u s purposes  dismissed the  d e f e n c e p r e s e n t e d a s an a l t e r n a t i v e  by M o o n . 6 2  Even  in  -  the  absence of  already  a criminal  intent  convicted defendants  statutes At  prohibiting this  who a r e  time,  i s not  fortune the  telling.  defence  recourse  to  With the  the  of  of  discussion  The  the  the  B.  about  In  the  the  have  violation  protection  dishonest  of  fortune  a legislation  fraud  be b e y o n d of  of  offer  people  tellers  prohibiting  i s a l l e g e d and  Trends  Sunday  the U n i t e d  life  i s no r e a l  any  proven  valuable  i n the  and p u b l i c h e a l t h balance of  the  These  fourth  the  of  of  the  s u c h an  section in  this  reach of  First approach  the  c o v e r e d by t h e C h a r t e r . the  defence  c a t e g o r i e s c o u l d be  protection  in favour  and  interests  c a t e g o r i e s where  help.  scope of  in which a real  Current  of  special  rights  second p a r t  (i)  there  been e x p l a i n e d  situations  of  the  does not  reasons m i l i t a t i n g  c a t e g o r i e s would brings  when  i s no g r e a t  c o n s i d e r e d as o u t s i d e  already  prey  protection  Tehy a r e  r e l i g i o u s freedom  have  charged with  to j u s t i f y  event  fraud,  place.  Amendment.  American c o u r t s  accused.64  objectives  takes  any  defraud,  c e r t a i n that  r e l i g i o u s freedom  prevention  that of  of  In  to  telling.63  g u l l i b l e and c a n be t h e  w o u l d be c o m p e l l i n g enough  -  who w e r e  fortune  it  148  These  a balancing test.  This  s e c t i o n and now w i l l  be c o n s i d e r e d  balance of  takes  i n the B a l a n c i n g  interests  place.  Process  C l o s i n g Laws  States  l i k e i n C a n a d a much c o n t r o v e r s y  arisen  c o n c e r n i n g the enforcement  of  easily  acknowledge  o r i g i n a l l y destined  that  they  were  Sunday  closing laws. to  has Courts ensure  -  the  s a n c t i f i c a t i o n of  Christians.  It  and R o s e t a n n i  v.  of  Court  now f o r  the State  majority  was s a i d  Chief Justice of  the Court  R^ v .  cases dealing with  their  had i n  B i g M.  Sunday  Drug  e x p r e s s e d the view  be t h e  v.  the  that The  Sunday  purpose  observance of a n a t i o n a l  Warren e x p r e s s e d t h i s  i n McGowan  Mart  closing,  religious objectives.66 to  Robertson  o p i n i o n has been assumed i n a  of A p p e a l ,  the United States  l a w s had l o s t  rest.  Cartwright J .  The Queen a n d t h i s  closing  of  a day c o n s i d e r e d as s a c r e d by many  i n a s e r i e s of  Supreme C o u r t  -  is this vision that  case from the A l b e r t a Ltd.65  149  opinion for  day  the  Maryland:  In l i g h t of the e v o l u t i o n o f our Sunday c l o s i n g l a w s , t h r o u g h t h e c e n t u r i e s and o f t h e i r more o r l e s s r e c e n t e m p h a s i s upon s e c u l a r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , i t i s not d i f f i c u l t to d i s c e r n t h a t as p r e s e n t l y w r i t t e n and a d m i n i s t e r e d , m o s t of them, at l e a s t , are of a p e c u l i a r r a t h e r than o f a r e l i g i o u s c h a r a c t e r , and t h a t p r e s e n t l y t h e y b e a r no r e l a t i o n s h i p t o e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f r e l i g i o n as t h o s e words are used i n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n of the United S t a t e s . II  . . .  H  .  The p r e d e c e s s o r s o f t h e e x i s t i n g M a r y l a n d Sunday laws are undeniably r e l i g i o u s i n o r i g i n . The f i r s t M a r y l a n d s t a t u t e d e a l i n g w i t h Sunday a c t i v i t i e s , was e n t i t l e d "An A c t c o n c e r n i n g Religion." II  . . .  II  .  [I]t i s common k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e f i r s t day o f t h e week has come t o have s p e c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e as t h e r e s t day i n t h i s c o u n t r y . People of a l l r e l i g i o n s and p e o p l e w i t h no r e l i g i o n r e g a r d Sunday as a t i m e f o r p a s s i v e .and a c t i v e e n t e r t a i n m e n t s , f o r d i n i n g o u t , and t h e l i k e " . . . " . I t w o u l d seem u n r e a l i s t i c f o r e n f o r c e m e n t p u r p o s e s and p e r h a p s d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e g e n e r a l w e l f a r e t o r e q u i r e a s t a t e t o c h o o s e a common day of r e s t o t h e r than t h a t which most persons would s e l e c t o f t h e i r own a c c o r d . For these r e a s o n s , we h o l d t h a t t h e M a r y l a n d s t a t u t e s a r e n o t l a w s r e s p e c t i n g an e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f r e l i g i o n . 6 7 The likely  to  d e c i s i o n s of  the United States  help Canadian judges  i n the  Supreme  Court  a p p l i c a t i o n of  are the  not Charter  s i n c e even  i n the U n i t e d  -  150  -  States  the  p o s i t i o n of  has no p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t . States,  when  enforced  they  against  Sunday  exist,  closing  are d e a d l e t t e r  non-Sabbatarians.  t h e Supreme  statutes  i n the  laws t h a t  Leo  Pfeffer  United  are not  said  Court  in  even  that  respect: I t seems t h a t A m e r i c a ' s d y n a m i c economy c a n n o t t o l e r a t e one day i n e v e r y s e v e n i n w h i c h c o n s u m p t i o n i s a t an a b n o r m a l l y l o w l e v e l . Until s u c h t i m e as t h e A m e r i c a n p e o p l e l e a r n t o p r a y , m e d i t a t e , and r e s t one day a w e e k , t h e y w i l l c o n t i n u e t o p a s s t h e i r t i m e , e i t h e r m a k i n g money o r s p e n d i n g i t , on Sunday as on a l l t h e o t h e r days of the week.68 Moreover, Court  after  in United  Pennsylvania,  States,  for  days,  the State  day o f  rest.  Courts  the  considered  they  indication  In  changing v.  statutes  they  States  u p h e l d a Sunday  interest This  It  i s not  i s also true  is  important  static.  It  in matters  these  in a  have  within  Court.  Brown t h a t now.  in  national  not the meaning  in l i n e with  Even i n U n i t e d  w o u l d be d i s a v o w e d  provided  delivered  laws,  limits  are not  Supreme  or  interest  opinions  Supreme  York,  i s no e v i d e n c e ,  closing  reasonable  States  l i k e New  time.  1961  state  i n the  Sunday  t h i s way,  Braunfeld  circumstances.  of  constitute  the U n i t e d  of  convenience.  states  There  in Canada,  that  c o n c e p t of  the United  has a c o m p e l l i n g s t a t e  validity  the C h a r t e r . 7 ° of  different  Sabbatarians.69  concerning  decisions  d e c i s i o n s of  Massachusets repealed t h e i r  exemptions that  the  It  the  c a n be an  States closing to  of  it  is  probable  statute  in  realize  that  the  varies with  time  and  of  public  -  (ii)  Public  The for  the  are g e n e r a l l y a large  by  involved  upon  are  the  to  the  the  case of  prohibiting without  Council.71 person  States  Supreme v.  jhe  solicit  statute of  charity  or  same and i s s u e t o  certificate observed  Court  might  that  j  n  and,  e  for  the  is  cannot quiet  if  at  of  provisions  the  that  had t o  of  decide  Jehovah's  violated  "upon  or  a  Connecticut  religious  the P u b l i c  Welfare  a p p l i c a t i o n of shall  i s a bona reasonable  he s h a l l  any  Court  secretary  so f i n d ,  any  determine fide  object  standards shall  further  time.  amounted  to  The  stated Court  censorship  that at  of  of  approve  in charge a c e r t i f i c a t e  statute  s a m e  line  v.  cases  charitable  to  the  Witnesses.  Secretary  the  follow  two  having  that  authority  be r e v o k e d  these  there  t h a t the  i n Cantwel1  members  and c o n f o r m s  the  often  objectives  However,  States  a r e l i g i o u s one o r  and i n t e g r i t y  that e f f e c t " . . . " . 7 2  from  provided  philantrophy  These  s o l e ground  money f o r  such c a u s e ,  such cause i s  has  a municipality  t h e Supreme  appellants,  whether  the  that  Pennsylvania,  Connecticut  a permit  in behalf  efficiency  say  on t h e  W i t n e s s e s who had been c o n v i c t e d  purposes  by C o u r t s .  p r e a c h i n g work o f J e h o v a h ' s v.  streets  States  perturbed.  and i n M u r d o c k  In Cantwel 1  statute  their  cases decided i n the United  the U n i t e d  Connecticut  activity  i n the U n i t e d  and r e g u l a t i o n s .  among j u d g e s  citizens  Several drawn  statutes  considered legitimate  a religious  and p e a c e o f  and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s  and c l e a n l i n e s s o f  through  consensus  prohibit  states  quiet  been e x p r e s s e d  -  Convenience  concern of peace,  151  to  such  first  and t o  a  -  denial  of  the F i r s t  involved  i n the  152  -  Amendment r i g h t s . 7 3  issue,  the Court  As t o  the  interests  ruled:  We f i n d i n t h e i n s t a n t ' c a s e no a s s a u l t o r t h r e a t e n i n g o f b o d i l y h a r m , no t r u c u l e n t b e a r i n g , no i n t e n t i o n a l d i s c o u r t e s y , no p e r s o n a l abuse. On t h e c o n t r a r y , we f i n d o n l y an e f f o r t t o p e r s u a d e a w i l l i n g l i s t e n e r t o buy a book o r t o c o n t r i b u t e money i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f w h a t C a n t r e l l , h o w e v e r m i s g u i d e d o t h e r s may t h i n k h i m , c o n c e i v e d t o be t r u e r e l i g i o n . I n t h e r e a l m o f r e l i g i o u s f a i t h , and i n t h a t o f p o l i t i c a l b e l i e f , sharp d i f f e r e n c e s a r i s e . In b o t h f i e l d s t h e t e n e t s o f one man may seem t h e rankest e r r o r to h i s neighbor. II  . . .  H  .  Although the c o n t e n t s of the r e c o r d not u n n a t u r a l l y aroused a n i m o s i t y " . . . " . t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s communication considered i n the l i g h t of the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g u a r a n t e e s , r a i s e d no s u c h c l e a r and p r e s e n t menace o f p u b l i c p e a c e and o r d e r as t o r e n d e r him l i a b l e t o c o n v i c t i o n o f t h e common l a w o f f e n s e i n q u e s t i o n . " 7 4 In Murdock religious  v.  Pennsylvania a municipal  c o l p o r t e u r s to  Douglas J .  i n the  pay  a license  opinion expressed for  tax  ordinance was  requiring  challenged.75  the m a j o r i t y  of  religious literature  is  the  Court  noted: The mere f a c t  that  the  " s o l d " by i t i n e r a n t p r e a c h e r s r a t h e r t h a n " d o n a t e d " does n o t t r a n s f o r m e v a n g e l i s m i n t o a commercial e n t e r p r i s e " . . . " . The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s o f t h o s e s p r e a d i n g t h e i r r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s t h r o u g h t h e s p o k e n and p r i n t e d w o r d a r e n o t t o be g a u g e d by s t a n d a r d s g o v e r n i n g r e t a i l e r s or w h o l e s a l e r s of b o o k s " . . . " . I t i s p l a i n t h a t a r e l i g i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n needs funds to remain a going concern •I  . . .  II  .  A s t a t e may n o t i m p o s e a c h a r g e f o r t h e e n j o y m e n t o f a r i g h t g r a n t e d by t h e F e d e r a l Constitution"...". P l a i n l y a c o m m u n i t y may n o t s u p p r e s s , o r t h e s t a t e t a x , the d i s s e m i n a t i o n of views because they are unpopular, annoying or distasteful."76 In  brief  it  i s admitted  that  neither  p r e a c h i n g from door  to  door  -  or  i n a p u b l i c a r e a nor  c a n be p r o h i b i t e d j u s t citizens.77 religious  Courts  to  imposing the  r e l i g i o n of  the  prevent  funds  i n the U n i t e d  religious activities  any p o s s i b l e a n n o y a n c e  requirement  of  a permit  literature  States  Society  and s o l i c i t come i n t o  donations  for  into  c l e a r i n Cantwel!  done  absolute,  the  Limmer.80  The of  of  at  attitude  the  he deems t h a t  airport.  legislation guarantee  that  Regional  t h e r e was an  state  interest will  v.  charitable The  allowed l i c e n s o r emergency  Such a s i t u a t i o n c o u l d r e s u l t severe weather,  this  the  Airport.  s i n c e they  from  schedule  The mere s t a t e m e n t  in a  be a c h i e v e d i s n o t  prevail  be  judges.  i n Fernandes  s o l i c i t a t i o n of  p u b l i c c o n v e n i e n c e has t o  the  Court  t h i s cannot  ISKCON c h a l l e n g e d  or s e c u r i t y o b j e c t i v e s . 8 1  that  t i m e and manner  by A m e r i c a n  c a n be f o u n d  a member o f  c o n g e s t e d c o n d i t i o n s c a u s e d by interruptions  the y e a r s  held unconstitutional if  Courts  d i s c r e t i o n a r y p r o v i s i o n s and  the D a l l a s Fortworth  permits  offer  organization  The Supreme that  of  practice  regulations.  Connecticut  ordinances regulating  at  o r d i n a n c e s were  situation  this  plaintiff,  city  contributions  cancel  or  v.  The  religious  regulating place,  has been f o l l o w e d o v e r  An e x a m p l e  to  vague  the  p u b l i c p l a c e s to  c o n f l i c t with municipal  had made i t though  the  before  for Krishna Consciousness.79  i n which r e l i g i o u s a c t i v i t i e s are conducted.  validity  exercise  c o n c e r n e d t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f members  do n o t c l o s e any p o s s i b i l i t y o f  principle  to  of  a defendant.78  S a n k i r t a n which c o n s i s t s in going  has o f t e n  for  p a s t f i f t e e n y e a r s many c a s e s b r o u g h t  International of  soliciting  -  a c t i v i t i e s i s a l s o s e e n as an undue b u r d e n on  freedom of In  153  over  the  free  a  -  exercise  of  religion.82  justifying  a regulation,  s u c h a way  that  expression.83 practice  it  for  The  of  do n o t  defence  contests.85  to  be a d o p t e d  in  religious  that a municipality  i n an a t t e m p t t o  cannot  filter  religious v.  freedom  r a i s e d by  of  ordinance.86 i n having  order  promote  some  congestion, solitude.87  noted  a zoning  bylaw  for  encouraging Yet  services  Court  safety  the  Court  t h a t the  area,  the  of  invoked  the  city  by  bylaws  in  the Reformed  violation  had  an  dwelling  in  minimizing  and s e c u r i n g r e p o s e  zoning  soliciting  rejected  single family  when a r e l i g i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n  a non-residential  and  are  i n h i s home i n  and w e l f a r e  stability  that  has been  a minister  The  public  preaching  freedom  Cameron,  C h u r c h who h e l d c h u r c h  interest  p u b l i c oonvenience  concern only  of  in State  religious  of  Episcopal  to  security  p r e s c r i b e d must  an a l t e r n a t i v e  purposes  by c o u r t s  activities.  zoning  a problem of  groups.84  scrutinized  in  is  i s also understood  Restrictions  defence  -  the measure  leaves  it  there  a selective prohibition  undesired  other  if  154  and  has t o  cannot  be  located  be  di s c r i m i natory.88 Public principal to  intolerance,  element  animosity  any  event,  the Courts  how much d i s c o m f o r t are  some z o n e s  For  instance  where  even  should not  in refusing a r e l i g i o u s congregation  have a c h u r c h o r an a s s e m b l y In  or unrest  will  i s c a u s e d by the  though  hall  appraise  the  threshold  in a certain  of  an a d h e r e n t  the  be the  right  area.89  facts  and  religious activity.90 toleration  the  i s rather  has g e n e r a l l y  a  large  consider There low.  -  latitude  to express  peace of  people  in H i l l  v.  The  final  general  his r e l i g i o u s views,  gathering  for  he c a n n o t  r e l i g i o u s worship  conclusion that  such a d i v e r s i t y  has t o  discomfort  prevent  c a n be drawn of  facts  and d o o r  or  people  s e c u r e to  restrictions activities  to  a normal  on t i m e ,  for  the  peoples'  door  preaching)  or  p l a c e and manner  of  performing  free  These  e x p r e s s i o n of  the  s e r i o u s l y harmful  o b s e r v e d when of  the  religion.  administration  Administrative  administration adoption  in citizens  administrative  of  When  the  in safety  religious leave  the  an  same t o l e r a t i o n suffer  it  balance  do n o t e n g a g e  has t o  that  from  is  in is  also  the  Efficiency  o f modern  states  of measures  that  right  structure  of  p a s s e d and c o n c e r n a l l  or j u d i c i a r y . their  The  is  Nevertheless  public convenience,  people.  it  religious activities.  necessitating  are  state  to  cases  properties,  r e s t r i c t i o n s must  as l o n g as t h e y  intrusion  decided  public  their  defendants  of  promote  of  in  The  the  in spite  ( t h a t can o c c u r  of  (iii)  those  p e a c e and q u i e t .  in matters  practice  from  and s i t u a t i o n s ,  c a n be s a i d t h a t  activity  as i t was  enjoyment  c a n be a d o p t e d .  alternative  to  misrepresentation  solicitation  favour  disturb  r e l i g i o u s a c t i v i t i e s c a n be c a r r i e d o u t  some r e a s o n a b l e state  -  State.91  dealing with in  155  own r u l e s  Furthermore stand  to  privacy.  the  i s a heavy are often  c o n s i d e r e d as an  To m a i n t a i n  s t a t e many l a w s and  l e v e l s of  power,  a body  administrative  i n t h e way  of to  task  the regulations  executive,  constitute  the  legislative  organisms link  with  between  -  citizens the of  and g o v e r n m e n t .  It  156  is  inevitable  a c t i v i t i e s and r e g u l a t i o n s authority  secondary  secondary  efficiency  function.  requirement  of  function  its  to  other  a l l o w the  have The  group  Supreme  interest  acknowledged  interest  that  States enforce  religious  to j u s t i f y  of  to  the  "Live  are  a  as  a direct  primarily to  fulfill  this  a violation  Wooley  v.  point  drivers  However,  sufficient  had t o  the  to 9 2  undergo  was  appellee's  Supreme  Court New  a c o u p l e who,  state  to  the  religious b e l i e f s .  of  a  had an  licensing.  vehicles'  The  Prayer,  purposes.90  question whether  sanctions against  or d i e . " 9 3  of  the State  i s not  Maynard t h e  o b s c u r e d on t h e i r free  House  requiring  drivers  state  d e c i d e upon t h e  criminal  purposes,  s t a t e motto:  In  had t o  obtain  facilitate  administration  freedom.  serves  the  in order  that  the  enough  or  identification  inconvenience that  religious  could  statute  appellees'  heavy  religion.  that  understand  the  not  United  itself  upon  the  not  Pentecostal  licence for  laws r e l a t e d  an i n f r i n g e m e n t  So,  levels  c o u l d be c l a s s i f i e d  be e a s i e r t o  V e h i c l e s v.  Indiana  the  the  taxes  Such m e a s u r e s  i n e s t a b l i s h i n g measures  the C o u r t ,  of  time  cases.  of  of  different  e x e r c i s e of  does  to m a i n t a i n  will  on t h e i r  Court  administration  allow  them.  time to  any m e a s u r e  payment  population  from  the  free to  c h a l l e n g e d an I n d i a n a  photographs  said  It  real  refers  that  by  i n s u r a n c e number  state  functions.  the  instance,  from  Bureau of Motor  religious  here  s i n c e the  benefit  in working with In  For  a social  and i m m e d i a t e destined  generated  come i n c o n f l i c t w i t h  Administrative  -  of  Jersey  for  licence plates  argued  the  that  the  the  -  display of  of  the motto served  the  -  interests  the  pride.  beliefs. the  of  It  is for  n a t i o n a l i s m repugnant  The  Supreme  state  to j u s t i f y  Jehovah's  Witnesses,  The  ruled:  Court  Court  to  (1)  the  appreciation  a p p e l l e e s had o b s c u r e d t h e m o t t o .  exaltation  of  two  p a s s e n g e r v e h i c l e s and ( 2 )  i n d i v i d u a l i s m and s t a t e  157  identification  of  the  history,  second motive  that  They c o n s i d e r e d s u c h  to  t h e i r moral  c o u l d not  and  religious  f i n d any c o m p e l l i n g  forcing  the  a p p e l l e e s , members  display  t h e m o t t o on t h e i r  interest  of  licence  plates.  Where t h e s t a t e ' s i n t e r e s t i s t o d i s s e m i n a t e on i d e o l o g y , no m a t t e r how a c c e p t a b l e t o s o m e , s u c h i n t e r e s t c a n n o t o u t w e i g h an i n d i v i d u a l ' s F i r s t Amendment r i g h t t o a v o i d b e c o m i n g t h e c o u r i e r f o r such m e s s a g e " . . . " . 9 4 Hence, appellees It  the judgment  was  of  the D i s t r i c t  that  Rehnquist J .  c o n c u r r e d was d i s s e n t i n g i n t h i s logic  was  subject  asked he,  of  t h e Supreme to  ground  Moreover,  the mottos: States  that  an a f f i r m a t i o n Although address  of  the  they  "In  Rehnquist J . that  results.  God We T r u s t "  J.  questioned  such a d e c i s i o n  Is  it  and "I  conceivable, P l u r i b u s Unum"  c u r r e n c y c o u l d be d e f a c e d by an a t h e i s t impinge  States  his F i r s t  currency  i n the motto:  question  of  the  the  Amendment fact  that  on  rights.95 an a t h e i s t  does n o t mean t h a t  "In  these observations  the  w i t h whom B l a c k m u n  and o b s e r v e d  explained Rehnquist J . ,  and u s e s U n i t e d  not  Court  case.  l e a d to u n a c c e p t a b l e  that  on t h e U n i t e d the  in favour  affirmed.  i s noteworthy  the  Court  he i s  carries  conveying  God We T r u s t . " 9 6 are  interesting,  balance of  Rehnquist J .  interests.  Had he  did done  -  so,  158  -  he w o u l d have p e r h a p s o b s e r v e d t h a t  p r o b l e m i n Wooley v . state  had t o c a l l  the  Maynard were q u i t e  back a l l  dimensions of  different.  i t w o u l d be a f a r more o n e r o u s t a s k  plates  some p e o p l e w i t h o u t  their  to  religious beliefs.  Supreme C o u r t the  In Wooley v .  concluded that  case well  c o n f l i c t that  Maynard,  t h e r e was n o t  the  be u s e d by  issuing  licence  consider offensive  too  indicates that  potential  different  a r e a s of  the United heavy  United States When t h e r e  the s t a t e  to  States  a b u r d e n on  of  have t o  rules.  For  the C o u r t ,  instance, there  The  c a n happen  their  i s no c l e a r  in  rise  in  be e s s e n t i a l f o r  in  courtroom.98 the  r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m c a n be a v a l i d The  own  position  gross i n t e r f e r e n c e with  contempt.99  r e q u i r e d has t o  sources  and c i t i z e n s .  f a c e the c h a l l e n g i n g of  c o n c e r n i n g the o b l i g a t i o n to  an a c c u s a t i o n o f  act  some u n u s u a l  apparatus.  i s no m i s c o n d u c t o r  functioning  are  d i s p u t e s i s c o u n t l e s s and t h e y  Even the C o u r t s administrative  there  can a r i s e bewteen government  number o f  to  a motto they  than  if  state.97 This  of  Indeed  i t s c u r r e n c i e s s u b j e c t to  atheists,  the  idea behind t h i s  defence  i s that  the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n  the  of  justice. In U n i t e d joint  trial  situation took  the  Braunstein the  with a co-accused.100  stand for  to  sufficient of  v.  he c o u l d have t o  principles motion  States  testify  h i s own d e f e n s e )  embodied i n the I s r a e l i have a s e p a r a t e t r i a l evidence that  r e l i g i o u s l a w s he  the  cited.  He a r g u e d t h a t  was o p p o s e d t o i n such a  a g a i n s t the c o - a c c u s e d ( i f contrary  he  to h i s r e l i g i o u s  l a w ( T a l m u d and T o r a h ) .  The  was d e n i e d b e c a u s e t h e r e was  no  defendant 1 0 1  defendant  d i d adhere to  all  the  body  a  -  Another area of payment. taxes  interest  the c o u r t s w i l l  the State  beneficial  to  all  summary,  institutions expression  it  seems t h a t  can s u f f e r  of  judges  c a n be e x p e c t e d  useful  this  follow  i n Canadian  protect  that  guideline.  involved Court  death  the  latitude  laws are p a r t and n a t u r a l  of  transported  by  the  facts  in  v.  of  In Frank v . the  accomodate  i n the of  state  the the  decisions  these  situations  Nevertheless,  c a s e s examined  of  the  s h o u l d be  given  to  the  i s found  expression  i n the  of  enforcement  laws.  a c a s e d e c i d e d i n 1979  Supreme  services  Game P r o t e c t i o n  environment  recalled  pay  the  d e p e n d s on how heavy  i n the United States  Game p r o t e c t i o n  those  It  s i n c e the a p p r a i s a l  of  game p r e s e r v a t i o n (iv)  to  law.  A n o t h e r example  of  to ensure  r e g a r d , many v a r i a t i o n s  any o b j e c t i v e  freedom  supersede  some i n c o n v e n i e n c e t o  p r i n c i p l e s o u t l i n e d from the  religious  refusal  e f f i c i e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of  religious beliefs.  In  tax  citizens.102  is.  general  q u e s t i o n of  c o n s i d e r the  i n c o l l e c t i n g funds  burden  does n o t  i n the  b a s e d on r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s c a n n o t  of  In  -  conflict exists  Generally  even  159  of  the  efforts  resources.  t h e Supreme C o u r t  presented Jack  in i t  have  of  the  state  In  t a k i n g a look  of  Alaska,  to  at  i t m u s t be  some s i m i l a r i t y w i t h  and C h a r l i e now p e n d i n g b e f o r e  the  Canada. State,  the  statement  a young Athabascan to M i n t o ,  Alaska,  to  of  Indian,  facts  reveals that  a moose was k i l l e d  be u s e d i n a f u n e r a l  after and  potlatch  -  (eaten  after  burial  of  the  appellant  was c h a r g e d w i t h  illegally  taken  prohibiting first  that  the  i n Athabascan in  their  the  first  civil  funeral life  religious  evaluation  of  hunting  the  argument  moose o u t  Said  the  of  of  out  and t h a t  of  of  Subsequently  transportation  a State  of  season.  The  i t was a r i t u a l jhe  competing  the S t a t e result  s e a s o n when  if  the game  statute  Court  observed  important  at  institution  established since  Court  interest.  that  of  Alaska  was t h e m o s t  activities.104  d i s o b e d i e n c e would  take  unlawful  potlatch  state  -  deceased).103  in violation  moose  160  then The  proceeded Court  to  rejected  suggested  that  widespread  Athabascans  were  allowed  necessary  for  a funeral  long  to  potlatch.  Court: We g i v e no c r e d e n c e t o t h i s argument"...".its p r e d i c t i o n o f g e n e r a l l a w l e s s n e s s i s an e x t r e m e and u n w a r r a n t e d comment on t h e g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r of the S t a t e ' s c i t i z e n s . I n t e r e s t s which j u s t i f y l i m i t a t i o n s on r e l i g i o u s p r a c t i c e s m u s t be f a r more d e f i n i t e t h a n t h e s e . Justification f o u n d e d o n l y on f e a r a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t t o overcome r i g h t s a s s e r t e d under the F i r s t Amendment.105  Furthermore  the Court  noted  that  the  state  p o s s i b i l i t y that  the  religious practice  evidence  on t h e  question  c o u l d endanger  had n o t  t h e moose p o p u l a t i o n .  brought  According  Court: The t r i a l r e c o r d i s s i l e n t on t h a t q u e s t i o n . We a r e n o t a d v i s e d as t o how many f u n e r a l s p o t l a c h e s a r e h e l d e a c h y e a r , n o r how many mooses a r e l e g a l l y t a k e n , n o r t h e l e v e l o f h a r v e s t which would cause a p o p u l a t i o n d e c l i n e . A l l t h e r e c o r d r e v e a l s i s t h a t t h e r e was b u t one f u n e r a l p o t l a c h i n M i n t o i n 1 9 7 5 , and t h a t one moose was needed f o r i t . The b u r d e n o f demonstrating a c o m p e l l i n g State i n t e r e s t which j u s t i f i e s c u r t a i l i n g a r e l i g i o u s l y based p r a c t i c e l i e s w i t h the s t a t e . 1 0 6  any  in to  the  an  -  161  -  Upon t h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s t h e C o u r t appellant.  Similarly,  in State of  quashed the c o n v i c t i o n of Wisconsin v.  the  Funmaker a  defenceof  r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m was s u c c e s s f u l l y r a i s e d i n t h e c a s e  an I n d i a n  charged with  the o f f e n s e  of  deer h u n t i n g out  of  of  season.107 It  i s hoped t h a t  when t h e y w i l l Finally question  of  the l a s t category  issue  is  Compulsory  courts  d e c i d e on s i m i l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s . that w i l l  likely  to  keep  and i n Canada f o r a l o n g  (v) It  to  i n s p i r e Canadian  be c o n s i d e r e d i s  compulsory school attendance  around t h i s States  have  those cases w i l l  School  i s i m p o s s i b l e to  and t h e d e b a t e  t h e c o u r t s busy  the  engaged  i n the  time.  Attendance  study  the q u e s t i o n of  i n the U n i t e d  States  Yoder.108  in this case,  Amish p a r e n t s were p r o s e c u t e d f o r  before  child  state  of  A Wisconsin statute  argued t h a t  it  c h i l d r e n not  had a c o m p e l l i n g s t a t e  of  draw f r o m  t h e i r being educated but  a child  having  as a f u t u r e  only  for  the b e n e f i t also for  c i t i z e n would  find  and  compelled the  p u b l i c s c h o o l by c h i l d r e n up t o t h e  education  that  r e f e r r i n g to W i s c o n s i n v .  from p u b l i c school a f t e r Grade E i g h t  his sixteenth year.  attendance The  their  without  compulsory school  attendance  withdrawn  United  age o f  sixteen.  interest in that  society  the very  the will  advantages  in i t s intellectual  training. The U n i t e d S t a t e s arguments but  Supreme C o u r t  d i d not  i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r case the  was n o t t h r e a t e n e d  by t h e w i t h d r a w a l  a f t e r Grade E i g h t . 1 0 9  The C o u r t  of  deny t h e s t a t e  i n t e r e s t of  the  its  state  Amish c h i l d r e n from s c h o o l  observed that  this  withdrawal  -  f r o m s c h o o l was n e c e s s a r y f o r and was d i c t a t e d by t h e  162  -  the very  n e c e s s i t y of  survival  of  the Amish  p r e p a r i n g the c h i l d r e n  assume a r e s p o n s i b l e r o l e i n t h e A m i s h c o m m u n i t y . 1 1 0  The  i m p r e s s e d by t h e q u a l i t i e s c u l t i v a t e d by  Amish p e o p l e .  brief  applicable  to  the  t h e r e was no r e a s o n t o make t h e  defendants  Amish c h i l d r e n nor the  since  neither  the  i n t e r e s t of  society  in general  to  Supreme  C o u r t was g r e a t l y In  faith  the  law  i n t e r e s t s of  the  were  jeopardized. This  c a s e has to  confirms,  at  least,  compulsory but required  for  alternative freedom.  be u n d e r s t o o d i n i t s own c o n t e x t .  that  a minimal  children. offered  It  i s the  Wisconsin v.  Yoder.  In S t a t e  v.  i s not  they  the  do n o t  are not  t r e n d o b s e r v e d i n many c a s e s  the  claims  of  defendants attend  that  Appeals  charged with  and p h i l o s o p h i c a l b e l i e f s w e r e b e h i n d  children  v.  State the  d i s m i s s e d by t h e C o u r t though  the  the Court  appeal  of  had n o t  school.HI withdrawn  their  was t h a t  the  them.113 was  Alabama.114  Even  i n s t r u c t e d a t home by t h e i r m o t h e r ,  r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m was no h e l p .  parents  to  proven,  to  that  the defendants  of C r i m i n a l Appeals of  the c h i l d r e n were  defence of that  r e c o r d showed  had no a l t e r n a t i v e e d u c a t i o n o f f e r e d  In J e r n i g a n  failing  p u b l i c or p r i v a t e  ideological  the main c o n c e r n f o r  after  of W i s c o n s i n  for  But  the  religious  decided  from school  actions.112  is  t h e i r c h i l d r e n had been  r e l i g i o u s reasons the  is  s a t i s f i e d with  a c c e p t the defense of  Kasuboski the Court  parents'  that  and s a t i s f a c t o r y e d u c a t i o n t h a t  t h e i r e i g h t c h i l d r e n to  Despite  school attendance  When t h e C o u r t s  u p h e l d the c o n v i c t i o n of cause  it  It  The C o u r t  as t h e A m i s h p a r e n t s  the  mentioned did  in  -  Wisconsisn v. of  Yoder,  that  they  163  c o u l d r e p l a c e the p o s i t i v e aspects  compulsory school attendance  giving  to  same C o u r t  their children.H5 on s i m i l a r  In S t a t e  v.  -  through  Hill  v.  Rivinius,  parents  charged with  upon t h e i r  r e l i g i o u s freedom because of  the c e r t i f i c a t i o n of  n o t meet t h e c r i t e r i a  certification before  to  t h e Supreme C o u r t  l a w a r g u e d t h e r e was an  parochial  that  w o u l d a l l o w them t o  have  of North Dakota  to use t h e i r  s e t by W i s c o n s i n v .  Yoder.  their  c h i l d r e n from s c h o o l  i s not  t h e y must d e m o n s t r a t e  not  in  and t h a t  the  Their  attendance  that  i n t e r e s t of  At  parents a  state  appeal  was d i s m i s s e d . 1 1 8  r e l i g i o u s freedom  so,  in their  law must s t a y  least if  the  effort  in  the  the withdrawal  e s s e n t i a l t o t h e i r way  of  of  their action is religiously the c h i l d  i n the l o n g run  is  danger.  Finally,  a review of  the c a t e g o r i e s i n which s t a t e  and r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m c o m p e t e w o u l d n o t w o r d s on t h e  theory  of  the  be c o m p l e t e w i t h o u t  R e s t r i c t i v e Means  There  i s no c o m p r e h e n s i v e a p p r o a c h on t h a t It  seems t h a t  it  a  few  is a  Courts.  Least  been d e v e l o p e d so f a r .  interest  " l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e means" t h a t  s u b j e c t more and more c o n s i d e r e d by t h e  C.  s e t by The  limits  motivated  the c r i t e r i a  a  infringement  school s . H ?  challenge a compulsory school  living,  a v i o l a t i o n of  t o e d u c a t e t h e i r c h i l d r e n a t home.  d e f e n d a n t s who want  the  grounds.116  school attendance  did  were  S t a t e was d e c i d e d by  compulsory  law f o r  the e d u c a t i o n they  question that  has i t s o r i g i n s  in  has  -  She!ton  v.  Tucker  I960.119  In  to  its  reveal  c a s e an A r k a n s a s  a f f i l i a t i o n to  belonged or to which they In  -  d e c i d e d by t h e U n i t e d  this  five years.  164  statute  be done  achieving  the  This with  the  that  even  substance,  the Court  said  it  legitimate  less  of  r e l i g i o u s freedom.  requiring  i s compelling for method  photographs its  opinion  the  in  teacher  they  preceding  e v e n when  the  state  of a r i g h t ,  available  it  for  purpose.120  defense  another  that  d r a s t i c means  " l e a s t d r a s t i c means"  it  to which  an a b r i d g e m e n t  of  can f i n d  expresed  by u s i n g t h e  Court  r e q u i r e d every  had c o n t r i b u t e d w i t h i n  notion  if  Supreme  any o r g a n i z a t i o n  had a c o m p e l l i n g i n t e r e s t j u s t i f y i n g had t o  States  to  on t h e on t h e  the  It  h a s been i n v o k e d means,  states  achieve  to  i t s goal  licences. question  instance,  identify rather  In M . I .  as  for  v.  along  drivers,  than  A.I.,  the  court  follows:  " H o w e v e r so v e n e r a t e d and r e v e r e d i s t h e F i r s t Amendment p r o t e c t i o n , t h a t s i m p l y f i n d i n g a c o m p e l l i n g s t a t e i n t e r e s t alone w i l l not s u f f i c e to j u s t i f y i t s a b r o g a t i o n . The s t a t e m u s t s e e k , i f p o s i b l e , to a c h i e v e the c o m p e l l i n g s e c u l a r i n t e r e s t t h r o u g h a l t e r n a t i v e means w h i c h do n o t i n f r i n g e upon t h e F r e e E x e r i c e C l a u s e . It i s o n l y i n t h e a b s e n c e o f s u c h an a l t e r n a t i v e t h a t t h e s t a t e w i l l be p e r m i t t e d t o i n t r u d e upon t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s r i g h t to p r a c t i s e h i s r e l i g i o u s beliefs."121 In H e f f r o n v . to  the  s t a t e were  opinion.122  ISKCON,  some l e s s  r e s t r i c t i v e means  s u g g e s t e d by B r e n n a n J .  Instead  of  in his  prohibiting Sarkitan  c o u l d be l i m i t a t i o n s on how many p e o p l e w o u l d at  the  same  noted  interested  dissenting  on a f a i r g r o u n d solicit  on t h e  there floor  time.123  I n Weissman v . Court  available  that to  City  of Alamogordo  i n s t e a d of  t h e New M e x i c o  imposing onerous  c a n v a s s and p r o s e l y t i z e  District  c o n d i t i o n s on  those  the m u n i c i p a l i t y could  have  -  s e t up p e n a l t i e s previously  by  observed of  identification  Judges state.  In  do n o t  that  governing  the  that  of  the  State to  On t h e  the  control  agree  state  for  the  Besides  moose  Department of adopt  instance,  for  consider  the  t h a t the  Athabascans  imposed  privilege  available  advised  for  Natural  to  open  to  to of  adopt  the the  jhe  permitted  had  on t h e  state.  and  received matter.127  in a dissenting opinion  c o u l d have f o u n d  the  r e l i g i o u s ceremonies  Resources  the  Court  regulations  potlatches.126  regulations  Connors J .  alternatives  Said  the  this  the  the m a j o r i t y  funeral  Indians  appropriate  hand,  of  c o u l d have  abuse of  on t h e means  may be w e l l  by Winnebago  other  moose m e a t .  occupant.124  the m u n i c i p a l i t y  to  State,  of  a home i n d e f i a n c e  r e c a l l e d that a Wisconsin statute  deer  directives  the  at  canvassers.125  always  taking  further  taking  as  Frank v.  suggested  Court  of  the C o u r t ,  c r i m i n a l s posing  -  t h o s e who c a l l  expressed w i l l  approach, measures  for  165  He r a t h e r  an a l t e r n a t i v e  to  did  not  considered the  fresh  he:  " W h i l e i t i s t r a d i t i o n a l t h a t as many n a t i v e f o o d s as p o s s i b l e s h o u l d be s e r v e d , i t has been e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h i s c a s e t h a t f r e s h moose meat i s i n d i s p e n s a b l e f o r s u c h a ceremony. I t i s m e r e l y d e s i r a b l e t h a t s u c h meant be s e r v e d a t t h o s e f u n c t i o n s .  ... .  U n l e s s t h e u s e o f f r e s h moose meat r i s e s t o t h e l e v e l of a c a r d i n a l r e l i g i o u s p r i n c i p l e , " . . . " i t c a n n o t q u a l i f y as a p r a c t i c e p r o t e c t e d by t h e " f r e e e x e r c i s e c l a u s e s " of e i t h e r the s t a t e or federal constitutions.128 With have t o  the  look  approach for  suggested  alternatives  by C o n n o r s J .  in order  to  the  express  defendant his  would  religious  -  beliefs.  It  the  least  r e s t r i c t i v e means  the  adherent  beliefs.  to  religious adherent  find  from  the  the  law to  one i s i n a b e t t e r for  should not  express  spare the  state  to  l e a s t expansive  possible the  impose  comes t o  they  are j u s t  interest"  state  likely this  these  in this  that  option  questions  it  of  i s s u e s go b e y o n d  i n harmony  the  fide  for  with  i n s t e a d upon way  to  Thus,  for  his  the  expression  Moreover  when  religious  even  t o know w h a t i s The least  the adherent  the  an  belief  Finally  to use the  of  no the  Courts  burden  practise his r e l i g i o n . 1 ^ the  least restrictive imagination  besides  fundamental  means  of j u d g e s  the c o n c e p t of  r e s t r i c t i o n that  freedom  take  a duty  h i m t o do so  adherent  obligation  to  practise  been c o n s i d e r e d .  the  courts w i l l  rights.  to  f a c i l i t a t e the  l i m i t e d by t h e  of  state  goals toward  restrictions.  s e n s i t i v e area of  in matters  the  his religious beliefs.129  i s another  Canadian  human  than  determining  resources a v a i l a b l e .  state the  it  undue  the  means  the  to  to  c o u l d have  restrictive  When  i s not  of  way  p r a c t i s e a bona  position  him t o  its  i t was i m p o r t a n t  some a l t e r n a t i v e s  find  achieve  l e a s t expansive  a c t i v i t i e s without breaks  b e s t way  to  -  obligation  p u r s u e d by m o s t c o u r t s  must be assumed t h a t  though  the  Such a p r o p o s i t i o n  1 2 8  objectives  it  is a shift  166  and  "compelling  c a n be i m p o s e d on freedoms.  It  pay more and more a t t e n t i o n of  r e l i g i o n and i n  But u l t i m a t e l y frontiers  of  to  other  the p e r s p e c t i v e s of  law.  is  all  -  167  -  Footnotes S e c t . 1 of the Canadian Charter reads:  of Rights  and Freedoms  "The C a n a d i a n C h a r t e r o r R i g h t s a n d Freedoms g u a r a n t e e s t h e r i g h t s and f r e e d o m s s e t o u t i n i t s u b j e c t o n l y t o s u c h r e a s o n b l e l i m i t s p r e s c r i b e d by l a w a s c a n be d e m o n s t r a b l y j u s t i f i e d i n a f r e e and d e m o c r a t i c s o c i e t y . " 2.  [ 1 9 8 3 ] 41 O . R .  ( 2 d ) 225 ( O n t .  C.A.).  3.  Ibid.,  p.  4.  Ibid.,  p. 245.  5.  (1982)  140 D . L . R .  6.  Ibid.  7.  Ibid.,  8.  ( 1 9 8 5 ) 48 O . R .  9.  Ibid.,  10.  Ibid.  11.  See a r e c e n t d e c i s i o n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t : Heffron v. International Society f o r Krishna Consciousness I n c . 452 U . S . 6 4 0 , 69 D. e d . 2 d 198 ( 1 9 8 1 ) .  242-144.  pp. 71,  ( 3 d ) 33 ( Q u e .  S.C.).  76, 91. ( 2 d ) 395 ( O n t .  C.A.).  at p. 429.  It i s d i f f i c u l t to accept the p o s i t i o n of the Ontario Court o f Appeal i n v . Video F l i c k s L t d . e t a l . , s u p r a , note 8 , when i t s a i d a t p . 4 2 4 : [T]he l a c k of a s p e c i f i c l i m i t a t i o n s c l a u s e i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n d i r e c t l y i n f l u e n c e d the approach of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t . I t p r o c e e d e d upon a s t r i c t presumption i n favour of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y which the a p p e l l a n t s had t o o v e r c o m e . 12.  319 U . S . 105 ( 1 9 4 3 ) .  13.  374 U . S . 498 ( 1 9 6 3 ) .  14.  S e e R^ v . J a c k a n d C h a r l i e ( 1 9 8 2 ) 67 C . C . C . ( 2 d ) 289 a n d R__ ; v . H a r r o l d ( 1 9 7 1 ) 19 D . L . R . ( 3 d ) 4 7 1 . F o r an i m p l i c i t a c c e p t a t i o n o f t h e b a l a n c i n g t e s t , s e e : R. v . W i e b e , [ 1 9 7 8 ] 3 W . W . R . 3 6 ; Saumur v . C i t y o f Q u e b e c , ["1935] S . C . R . 2 9 9 .  -  168 -  15.  510 F . s u p p . 28 ( 1 9 8 0 ) . 2d 765 ( 1 9 8 2 ) .  16.  Africa  17.  See P e o p l e e x ^ r e l . W a l l a c e v . (1952) q u o t i n g from P r i n c e v . (1944):  v.  Anderson,  See a l s o U . S .  v.  D i c k e n s 695 F .  Ibid. L a b r e n z 104 N . E . 2 d 7 6 9 , 774 M a s s a c h u s s e t s 321 U . S . 150  " P a r e n t s may be f r e e t o become m a r t y r s t h e m s e l v e s . But i t does n o t f o l l o w they a r e f r e e i n i d e n t i c a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o make m a r t y r s o f t h e i r c h i l d r e n b e f o r e t h e y have r e a c h e d t h e age o f f u l l and l e g a l d i s c r e t i o n when t h e y c a n make t h a t choice for themselves." 18.  The C o u r t a u t h o r i z e d a t r e a t m e n t i n J o h n F . K e n n e d y M e m o r i a l H o s p i t a l v . H e s t o n 279 A . 2 d 6 7 0 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ( t h e m o t h e r o f an unconscious patient refused a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of a blood t r a n s f u s i o n on t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r r e l i g i o u s c o n v i c t i o n s ) ; a c o u r t a d o p t e d t h e same p o s i t i o n w i t h I n A p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e P r e s i d e n t a n d D i r e c t o r o f G e o r g e t o w n C o l l e g e I n c . , 3 3 1 F. 2 d 1000 ( 1 9 6 4 ) (The r e f u s a l o f a b l o o d t r a n s f u s i o n was e x p r e s s e d by t h e p a t i e n t ' s h u s b a n d ) .  19.  205 S . W . 2d 812  20.  (1948).  Ibid.  21.  435 N . Y . S .  22.  Ibid.,  23.  P o w e l l v . C o l u m b i a n P r e s b y t e r i a n M e d i c a l C e n t e r 267 N . Y . S . 2d 4 5 0 ( 1 9 6 6 ) ; U . S . v . G e o r g e 239 F . S u p p . 7 5 2 ( 1 9 6 5 ) .  24.  In the Matter  25.  205 N . E .  26.  See comments r e j e c t i n g t h e a p p r o a c h o f t h e C o u r t s on t h a t i s s u e : N . C a n t o r , "A p a t i e n t ' s D e c i s i o n t o D e c l i n e L i f e - s a v i n g Treatment: Bodily I n t e g r i t y v. the Preservation o f L i f e " ( 1 9 7 3 ) 26 R u t g e r s L . R e v . 2 2 8 .  27.  197  28.  Ibid.  29.  2 d 928 ( 1 9 8 1 ) .  at p. 931.  U.S.  of Melideo,  390 N . Y . S .  2 d 523 ( 1 9 7 6 ) .  2 d 435 ( 1 9 6 3 ) .  I l l  (1905).  429 N . Y . S . 2 d 355 ( 1 9 8 0 ) . I t m u s t be n o t e d t h a t a s t a t u t e c a n n o t g i v e e x e m p t i o n t o r e l i g i o u s g r o u p s and r e f u s e i t t o others: D a v i s v . S t a t e o f M a r y l a n d 451 A . 2 d 107 ( 1 9 8 2 ) .  -  30.  169  -  In t h i s d e l i c a t e a r e a of p u b l i c h e a l t h p r o t e c t i o n the t e s t a p p l i e d by t h e C o u r t s i s u l t r a - s e n s i t i v e . The d e f e n s e of r e l i g i o u s freedom i n cases of c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s would be a c c e p t e d o n l y w h e r e t h e r e f u s a l o f v a c c i n a t i o n d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e a r e a l t h r e a t t o p u b l i c h e a l t h as t h e C o u r t o b s e r v e d i n Brown v . C i t y S c h o o l D i s t . o f C i t y o f C o r n i n g , I b i d . , at p. 357: " I n t h e c a s e a t b a r , no g r a v e and i m m e d i a t e d a n g e r was shown. Mr. P e t e r C r i p p e n , the Immunization Program C o o r d i n a t o r . . . t e s t i f i e d he was u n a w a r e o f any c a s e s o f d i p t h e r i a , m e a s l e s , p o l i o m y e l i t i s e t c . , i n the Corning C i t y School D i s t r i c t . In a d d i t i o n , he t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e geographic r e g i o n i n which the C i t y of Corning i s l o c a t e d has h i s t o r i c a l l y had t h e f e w e s t number o f c a s e s i n d i c a t i n g a d a n g e r o f e p i d e m i c i n t h e S t a t e o f New Y o r k . "  31.  312 N.W. 2d 158 ( 1 9 8 2 ) ; See a l s o S t a t e 300 N.W. 2 d 748 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ; C i t y o f Sumner C h u r c h , e t c . 639 P . 2 d 1358 ( 1 9 8 Z ) .  Fire Marshall v. v. F i r s t Baptist  32.  Lawson v .  (1942).  33.  422  34.  I b i d . , a t p . 8 0 2 , the C o u r t o b s e r v e d : "Not o n l y i s < < l a i s s e z f a i r e > > i n t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s u n s i g h t l y and r e p u l s i v e , b u t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f b a c t e r i a l and l a r v a l i n f e c t i o n s b e i n g s p r e a d i s e v e r p r e s e n t , n o t o n l y t o humans b u t e v e n more t o other dogs"...".  35.  See J . P h i l l i p s , " F r e e e x e r c i s e : R e l i g i o n Goes t o P o t " ( 1 9 6 8 ) 56 C a l . L . R e v . 1 0 0 ; J . W e i s s , S . W i z n e r , "Pot, P r a y e r , P o l i t i c s and P r i v a c y : The R i g h t t o C u t y o u r T h r o a t i n Y o u r Own Way" ( 1 9 6 9 ) 54 Iowa L . R e v . 709.  36.  T h i s p o s i t i o n was a d o p t e d 2 d 597 ( 1 9 6 8 ) .  37.  592 P .  2 d 538  38.  Ibid.,  at p.  539.  39.  Ibid.  40.  593 P .  2 d 63  (1979).  41.  I b i d . , a t p. 70, the Court took i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h i s f a c t : " m a r i j u a n a i s known t o d i s t o r t p e r c e p t i o n o f t i m e and s p a c e , m o d i f y mood and i m p a i r j u d g m e n t , w h i c h may r e s u l t i n unpredictable behaviour".  N.Y.S.  Commonwealth 2 d 798  164  S.W.  2 d 972  Lee  (1980).  i n People  v.  Aguiar  257  Cal.  App.  (1979).  -  42.  394 P . supra,  2 d 813 ( 1 9 6 4 ) . note 3 5 .  43.  Ibid.,  at p.  44.  Ibid.  45. 46. 47.  561  P.  820  2 d 539  170  See J .  (People  v.  -  Phillips  and S .  wizner,  Woodey).  (1977).  Ibid. 377  So.  2d 6 4 8 ,  651  (1980).  The  Court  said:  "The t e s t i m o n y o f an e l e v e n - y e a r o l d boy e x e m p l i f i e s o u r concern. T h i s boy t e s t i f i e s t h a t he w e n t t o t h e p e t i t o n e r ' s r e s i d e n c e t h r e e t i m e s w i t h i n two months a f t e r h e a r i n g t h a t c a n n a b i s was smoked t h e r e . The boy who had p r e v i o u s l y smoked c a n n a b i s , was a d m i t t e d w i t h a f r i e n d a f t e r t e l l i n g a g u a r d t h e y had come t o p r a y . E a c h t i m e he v i s i t e d he was g i v e n a < < s p l i f f » ( a c o m b i n a t i o n o f c a n n a b i s and t o b a c c o ) . He d i d n o t have t o p r a y d u r i n g h i s v i s i t s t h o u g h members s o m e t i m e s t a l k e d t o him a b o u t G o d . T h i s easy access to c a n n a b i s f o r a c h i l d who had a b s o l u t e l y no i n t e r e s t i n l e a r n i n g the r e l i g i o n , c o u p l e d w i t h the i n d i s c r i m i n a t e use o f t h e d r u g by members o f t h e c h u r c h , c l e a r l y w a r r a n t i n t e r v e n t i o n by t h e s t a t e . " 48. 49.  451  A.  2 d 1144  (1982).  Ibid.  50.  See L e a r y v . U n i t e d S t a t e s 383 F. 2d 8 5 1 ; r e - h e a r i n g d e n i e d 392 F. 2 d 220 ( 1 9 6 8 ) ; r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s ; 395 U . S . 6 , 2 3 L. e d . 2 d 57 ( 1 9 6 9 ) .  51.  Supra,  n o t e 47  52.  United  States  53.  Ibid.,  at p.  at p. v.  651  (1980).  M i d d l e t o n 690 F .  2 d 820  (1982).  825:  " C o n g r e s s has d e m o n s t r a t e d b e y o n d d o u b t t h a t i t b e l i e v e s t h a t m a r i j u a n a i s an e v i l i n A m e r i c a n s o c i e t y and a s e r i o u s t h r e a t to i t s p e o p l e . I t w o u l d be d i f f i c u l t t o i m a g i n e t h e harm w h i c h w o u l d r e s u l t i f t h e c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e s a g a i n s t m a r i j u a n a w e r e n u l l i f i e d as t o t h o s e who c l a i m t h e r i g h t t o p o s s e s s and t r a f f i c i n t h i s d r u g f o r r e l i g i o u s p u r p o s e s . . . The d a n g e r i s t o o g r e a t , e s p e c i a l l y t o t h e y o u t h o f t h e n a t i o n . . . We w i l l n o t , t h e r e f o r e , s u b s c r i b e t o t h e d a n g e r o u s d o c t r i n e t h a t t h e f r e e e x e r c i s e o f r e l i g i o n a c c o r d s an u n l i m i t e d freedom to v i o l a t e the laws of the l a n d r e l a t i v e to m a r i j u a n a . "  -  171  -  54.  See N . B o y d , " T h e Q u e s t i o n o f M a r i j u a n a C o n t r o l : i s de minimis a p p r o p r i a t e , your honour?" ( 1 9 8 2 ) 24 C r i m L . Q. 2 1 2 - 2 3 2 ( C a n a d i a n v i e w ) ; D. Mai o f f , "A R e v i e w o r t h e t r r e c t s o f t h e D e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n o f M a r i j u a n a " ( 1 9 8 1 ) 24 C o n t e m p . Drug P r o b . 3 2 3 .  55.  I t h a s been s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e c o u r t s t o w a r d some m a r g i n a l b u t bona f i d e r e l i g i o n s h o u l d be more f l e x i b l e ; See s u p r a , note 3 5 .  56.  F o r o t h e r c a s e s r e l a t e d t o drug c o n s u m p t i o n and r e l i g i o n s e e : S t a t e v . 01 s e n 315 N.W. 2 d 1 ( 1 9 8 2 ) ; P e o p l e v . T o r r e s 184 C a l . R p t r . 39 ( 1 9 8 2 ) ; S t a t e v . S o t o 537 p . 2 d 142 (1975). I t w o u l d be i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e an o b s e r v a t i o n o f t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a i n S p i l l e r s v . S t a t e 245 S . E . 2d (1978) a t p . 5 5 : " C o n s t i t u t i o n a l freedom of r e l i g i o u s p r a c t i c e i s not a v a l i d defence to a penal charge f o r v i o l a i t o n of a law p r o h i b i t i n g or r e s t r i c t i n g possession o f " . . . " d e s i g n a t e d p s y c h o d e l i c d r u g , even i f t h e d e f e n d a n t p o s s e s s e d o r u t i l i z e d t h e drug s o l e l y i n t h e p r a c t i c e o f h i s bona f i d e r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s . "  57. 58.  U.S.  v.  Rasheed 663 F.  2 d 843 ( 1 9 8 3 ) .  Ibid.  59.  S i n c e U n i t e d S t a t e s v . B a l l a r d 322 U . S . 78 ( 1 9 4 4 ) , t h e c o u r t s i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s have o f t e n r e c a l l e d t h a t p r i n c i p l e that the t r u t h or f a l s i t y of a r e l i g i o u s d o c t r i n e s h o u l d n o t be e x a m i n e d by j u d g e s ; See K. G r e e n a w a l t , " R e l i g i o n as a C o n c e p t i n C o n s t i t u t i o n a l L a w " , ( 1 9 8 4 ) 72 C a l . L. Rev. 7 5 3 .  60.  Supra, note 57; T1982).  61.  U.S.  62.  Ibid.  63.  State  64.  S e e s u p r a , n o t e 61 a t p . 1 2 2 7 : " . . . C o u n s e l a s s e r t s t h a t M o o n ' s W o r l d w i d e f o l l o w e r s b e l i e v e h i m t o be " p o t e n t i a l l y t h e new M e s s i a h " . From t h i s t h e o l o g i c a l p r e m i s e t h e a r g u m e n t i s made t h a t Moon p e r s o n i f i e s t h e C h u r c h movement and i s i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m i t . Since the U n i f i c a t i o n C h u r c h movement c a n owe no t a x e s on i n c o m e d e r i v e d f r o m c h u r c h - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s , the defense argues t h a t n e i t h e r can Reverend Moon.  See a l s o U . S .  v . Moon 718 F .  v.  Neitzel  2 d 1210  v.  D i c k e n s 695 F.  2 d 765  (1983).  125 P a c . 939 ( 1 9 1 2 ) .  We do n o t a c c e p t t h i s d e f e n c e . The f a c t t h a t Moon i s t h e h e a d o f t h e C h u r c h d o e s n o t mean t h a t t h e C h u r c h i s n o t  -  172  -  a d i s t i n c t and s e p a r a t e b o d y . Moon's s p i r i t u a l i d e n t i t y l e a d e r o f t h e U n i f i c a t i o n C h u r c h movement and h i s l e g a l i d e n t i t y as a t a x p a y e r a r e n o t t h e s a m e . " . . . " 65.  [1963] 625.  66.  S e e McGowan v . M a r y l a n d 81 S . C t . 1 1 4 4 , 366 U . S . 420 ( 1 9 6 1 ) ; G a l l a g h e r v . Crown K o s h e r S u p e r - M a r k e t 366 U . S . 617 (1961); Two Guys f r o m H a r r i s o n - A l l e n t o w n I n c . v . M c G i n l e y 366 U . S . 582 ( 1 9 6 1 ) ; B r a u n f e l d v . Brown 366 U7S. 5 W :  67.  81  68.  L. P f e f f e r , R e l i g i o u s F r e e d o m , S k o k i e , Textbook C o . , 1977, at p. 164.  69.  Ibid.  S.  S.C.R.  Ct.  651;  1144  R^_ v .  (1961)  B i g M.  at p.  Drug M a r t [1984]  as  1115,  1118,  1 W.W.R.  1119. 111.,  National  70.  R. v . W . H . S m i t h L t d . e t a l . , [ 1 9 8 3 ] 5 W . W . R . 2 3 5 ; R, v . B i g WT D r u g M a r t , s u p r a , n o t e 6 4 ; v. Video F l i c k s LtaC et a l . , s u p r a , note 8 .  71.  310  72.  Ibid.,  at p.  302.  73.  Ibid.,  at p.  305.  74.  Ibid.,  at  310,  75.  319 U . S . 624 ( 1 9 4 3 ) : The o r d i n a n c e p r o v i d e d t h a t a l l p e r s o n s c a n v a s s i n g f o r or s o l i c i t i n g w i t h i n s a i d Borough ( i n the C i t y o f J e a n n e t t e , P e n n s y l v a n i a ) had t o o b t a i n a l i c e n c e a n d p a y : " F o r one day $ 1 . 5 0 , f o r one week s e v e n d o l l a r s ( $ 7 . 0 0 ) , f o r two w e e k s , t w e l v e d o l l a r s ( $ 1 2 . 0 0 ) , f o r t h r e e w e e k s , twenty d o l l a r s ( $ 2 0 . 0 0 ) , p r o v i d e d t h a t the p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s o r d i n a n c e s h a l l n o t a p p l y t o p e r s o n s s e l l i n g by s a m p l e to manufacturers or l i c e n s e d merchants or d e a l e r s doing b u s i n e s s i n s a i d Bourough o f J e a n n e t t e . "  76.  Ibid.,  77.  Kuntz v.  78.  See L e v e r s v . C i t y o f T u l l a h o m a 4 4 6 F. S u p p . 8 8 4 ( 1 9 7 8 ) h e l d t h a t " a m u n i c i p a l i t y c a n n o t r e q u i r e t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l who w a n t s t o c a n v a s s c i t i z e n s and u n d e r t a k e t o p r o s e l y t i z e them m u s t p r o v i d e a s r e f e r e n c e two o w n e r s o f c i t y b u s i n e s s p r o p e r t y t h a t w o u l d a t t e s t t h a t s h e has good m o r a l c h a r a c t e r , and r e p u t a t i o n f o r h o n e s t y and i n t e g r i t y . Such o r d i n a n c e c o n s t i t u t e s a d e p r i v a t i o n of her guarantee t o f r e e d o m o f s p e e c h and f r e e e x e r c i s e o f h e r r e l i g i o n . "  U.S.  at  296  p.  pp.  (1939).  311.  I l l , 113,  New Y o r k  116.  340 U . S .  290  (1951).  -  173  -  79.  See I n t e r n a t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r K r i s h n a c o n s c i o u s n e s s (ISKCON) v . C o l l i n s 4 5 2 F. S u p p . 1007 ( 1 9 7 8 ) ; ISKCON v . Hays 438 F . S u p . 107/ ( 1 9 7 7 ) a t p . 1 0 8 1 : " S t a t e l i c e n s i n g l a w , as c o n s t r u e d and a p p l i e d t o c o n d u c t o f r e l i g i o u s s o c i e t y a n d i t s members i n d i s t r i b u t i n g r e l i g i o u s l i t e r a t u r e and s o l i c i t i n g d o n a t i o n s a t r e s t s t o p s on s t a t e h i g h w a y s was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l on i t s f a c e , when i t gave l i c e n s o r an u n b r i d l e d d i s c r e t i o n t o g r a n t o r deny p e r m i t w h i c h was s o u g h t by s o c i e t y and w h e r e i t p r o v i d e d no s t a n d a r d s o f any k i n d t o g u i d e l i c e n s o r , much l e s s t h e n a r r o w , o b j e c t i v e a n d d e f i n i t e s t a n d a r d s r e f i n e d f o r s u c h a l a w " . . . " ; See a l s o ISKCON v . K e a r n e s 4 5 4 F . S u p p . 116 ( 1 9 7 8 ) ; ISKCON v . E a v e s 601 F. 2 d 8 0 9 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ; ISKCON v . C i t y o f H o u s t o n 482 F . Supp. 852 ( 1 9 7 9 ) : " P r o v i s i o n s o f c i t y o r d i n a n c e r e l a t i n g t o the s o l i c i t a t i o n of funds f o r c h a r i t a b l e purposes which r e q u i r e d an a p p l i c a n t f o r p e r m i s s i o n t o e n g a g e i n s u c h s o l i c i t a t i o n t o l i s t t h e names and a d d r e s e s o f a l l p a r t n e r s , o f f i c e r s o r a s s o c i a t i o n members, which r e q u i r e d a l l s o l i c i t o r s t o v i s i b l y d i s p l a y an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n c a r d had a c h i l l i n g e f f e c t on f r e e d o m o f a s s o c i a t i o n a n d v i o l a t e d t h e F i r s t Amendment."  80.  4 6 5 F.  81.  Ibid.  Supp.  493 ( 1 9 7 9 ) .  82.  L i b e r m a n v . S c h e s n e n t e r 447 F. S u p p . 1355 ( 1 9 7 8 ) : t h e l i m i t a t i o n of r e l i g i o u s a c t i v i t i e s to only a c e r t a i n p o r t i o n o f a n a t i o n a l p a r k was j u s t i f i e d i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h i s c a s e ; f o r a n o t h e r e x a m p l e o f r e s t r i c t i o n s t h a t m i g h t be a c c e p t e d by t h e c o u r t s , s e e Poe v . C i t y o f H u m b l e , T e x a s 5 5 4 F . S u p p . 2 3 3 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ( H o w e v e r , t h e a c t i o n was d i s m i s s e d f o r l a c k o f s t a n d i n g and m o o t n e s s ) . See a l s o H e f f r o n v . ISKCON 452 U . S . 6 4 0 , 6 9 L . E d . 2 d . 2 9 8 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ; ISKCON v . C i t y o f New Y o r k 50 F. S u p p . 6 8 4 ( 1 9 8 0 ) : r e s t r i c t i o n o f c a n v a s s i n g i n a c e r t a i n area around the U n i t e d N a t i o n s b u i l d i n g i s not u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ; S m i t h v . C i t y o f M a n c h e s t e r 4 6 0 F. S u p p . 30 ( 1 9 7 8 ) : i n v a l i d i t y o f a m u n i c i p a l o r d i n a n c e t h a t p r o v i d e d t h a t o n l y members o f e s t a b l i s h e d c h u r c h e s i n t h e C i t y o f M a n c h e s t e r were e n t i t l e d t o p e r m i t s f o r p r e a c h i n g and s o l i c i t i n g from door to d o o r .  83.  I t m u s t be i m p o r t a n t t o s a y t h a t t h e d e f e n s e o f r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m c a n be i n v o k e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h a d e f e n s e o f freedom of s p e e c h . See C a n t w e l l v . C o n n e c t i c u t , s u p r a , note 70.  84.  See B r y a n t  v.  M c G i n n i s 436 S u p p .  373  (1978).  -  174  -  85.  Supra,  note 8 1 .  86.  4 4 5 A . 2 d 75  87.  Ibid.  88.  See Holy S p i r i t A s s o c i a t i o n f o r U n i f i c a t i o n v . RosenfelId 458 N . Y . S . 2 d 9 2 0 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ; L u b a v i t c h C h a b a d House v . C i t y o f " E v a n s t o n 445 N . E . 2 d 3 4 3 ( 1 9 8 2 ) .  89.  F o r a d i s c u s s i o n on t h a t m a t t e r , s e e R . S . W a l k e r , "What c o n s t i t u t e s a r e l i g i o u s u s e f o r z o n i n g p u r p o s e s " ( 1 9 8 2 ) 27 C a t h o l i c Lawyer 129.  90.  See Lakewood, Ohio C o n g r e g a t i o n o f J e h o v a h ' s W i t n e s s e s I n c . v . C i t y o f L a k e w o o d , O h i o 699 F . 2 d 3 0 3 ( 1 9 8 3 ) .  91.  S o . 2 d 206 ( 1 9 8 ) ; S e e a l s o S t a t e v . T a u v a r 461 A . 3 d 1065 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ( d e c i d e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t had n o t i n f a c t p e r t u r b e d t h e r e l i g i o u s a s s e m b l y ) ; same f i n d i n g i n ISKCON v . E v a n s 440 F . S u p p . 4 1 4 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ; Compare w i t h _R^ v . Reed L 1 9 7 8 l ~ 8 ~ C . C C . 3 d 1 5 3 , ( 1 9 8 4 ) 10 C . C . C ( 3 d ) 5 7 3 a n d S k o k e - G r a h a m e t a l . v . R^, ( 1 9 8 5 ) u n r e p o r t e d d e c i s i o n S . C . C . 8419 s . 3 7 .  92.  380 N . E .  93.  51 L .  94.  Ibid.,  at p. 764.  95.  Ibid.,  at p. 767.  96.  Ibid.  (1982).  2 d 1225 ( 1 9 7 9 ) .  E d . 2 d 752  (1977).  97.  I b i d . , a t p . 7 5 9 , t h e c o u r t o b s e r v e d a t note 7 t h a t : "The D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e f u s e d t o o r d e r t h e S t a t e of New-Hampshire to i s s u e the Maynards l i c e n s e p l a t e s w i t h o u t t h e S t a t e Motto t h o u g h i t n o t e d t h a t t h e r e was e v i d e n c e on t h e r e c o r d t h a t N e w - H a m p s h i r e c o u l d e a s i l y do s o . "  98.  S e e K a p l a n v . H e s s 6 9 4 F . 2 d 847 ( 1 9 8 2 ) no q u e s t i o n on t h e F i r s t Amendment was p r e s e n t i n t h i s c a s e b u t t h e m a j o r i t y o f the C o u r t took t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e c a l l t h a t the F i r s t Amendment does n o t e x c u s e a r e f u s a l o f r i s i n g i n c o u r t r o o m ; a c c o r d i n g t o U . S . v . S n i d e r 502 F . 2 d 645 (1974) t h i s d e p e n d s on t h e f a c t o f t h e c a s e .  99.  S e e U . S . e x r e l . R o b s o n v . Mai one 412 F . 850:  2 d 848 ( 1 9 6 9 )  at p.  -  175  -  "We t h i n k a c o u r t may r e q u i r e s u c h r i s i n g , i n t h e i n t e r e s t of f a c i l i t a t i n g i t s f u n c t i o n s * although the f u n c t i o n a l v i r t u e of r i s i n g a t the c l o s e of a s e s s i o n i s l e s s r e a d i l y apparent than a t the b e g i n n i n g . " 100.  474 F.  101.  Ibid.  Supp.  1  (1979).  102.  See A u t h e n r i e t h  103.  604 P . 14.  2 d 1068 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ;  104.  604 P .  2 d 1068 ( 1 9 7 8 )  105.  Ibid,  106.  I b i d . , a t p . 1074. Compare w i t h o p i n i o n e x p r e s s e d i n R. v . V i d e o F l i c k s L t d . e t a l . , s u p r a , n o t e 1 1 , by t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l o f O n t a r i o on t h e p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f American l e g i s l a t i o n s . I n Canada and i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s as w e l l , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e O n t a r i o C o u r t o f A p p e a l , t h e p l a i n t i f f has t o d e m o n s t r a t e h i s r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m has been i n f r i n g e d and i f he d o e s so t h e S t a t e h a s t h e b u r d e n t o p r o v e s u c h i n f r i n g e m e n t was j u s t i f i e d .  107.  S t a t e o f W i s c o n s i n v . Kenneth Funmaker (1979) u n r e p o r t e d decison of Schoengarth J . , C i r c u i t C o u r t , Juneau County. T h i s c a s e i n v o l v e d Winnebago I n d i a n engaged i n a c e r e m o n i a l d e e r h u n t i n g i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r t h e War B u n d l e F e a s t t h a t had t o be c e l e b r a t e d by t h e " B e a r C l a n " o f w h i c h he was member.  108.  406 U . S .  109.  Ibid. The p o i n t was b r o u g h t by t h e S t a t e t h a t t h e A m i s h c h i l d r e n w o u l d be d i s a d v a n t a g e d i f t h e y d e c i d e d some day t o l e a v e the community. The C o u r t r e p l i e d t o t h a t a r g u m e n t :  at p.  v.  C u l l en 418 F. see Jack  at p.  2 d 586 ( 1 9 6 9 ) . and C h a r l i e ,  supra,  note  1071.  1074.  205 ( 1 9 7 9 2 ) .  " W h a t e v e r t h e i r i d i o s y n c r a s i e s as s e e n by t h e m a j o r i t y , t h i s r e c o r d s t r o n g l y shows t h a t t h e A m i s h community h a s been a h i g h l y s u c c e s s f u l s o c i a l u n i t w i t h i n o u r s o c i e t y even i f a p a r t from t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l m a i n s t r e a m . " I t s members a r e p r o d u c t i v e and v e r y l a w a b i d i n g members o f s o c i e t y . . . 110. 111.  Ibid. 275  N.W.  2d 101  (1979).  -  176  -  112.  I b i d . , at p. 105. The C o u r t f o u n d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t s were opposed to r a c i a l e q u a l i t y , t o ' t h e c o m m u n i s t i c p r i n c i p l e ' t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l e x i s t s f o r t h e sake of t h e s t a t e ; a l l c o n v i c t i o n s , that are not protected i n the F i r s t Amendment, o b s e r v e d t h e C o u r t . In Canada where freedom o f c o n s c i e n c e i s p r o t e c t e d p e r h a p s s u c h d i s t i n c t i o n h a s no significance.  113.  Ibid.,  114.  412 S o . 2 d 1242 ( 1 9 8 2 ) .  115. 116.  at p. 106.  Ibid. 381 S o . 2 d . 91 ( 1 9 7 9 ) a t p p . 9 2 - 9 3 ; The C o u r t f o u n d t h a t " t h e d e f e n d a n t s . . . removed t h e i r s e v e n y e a r o l d c h i l d f r o m the second grade i n the p u b i c school s y s t e m . . . because " t h e L o r d t o l d them t o do so i n a p e r s o n a l r e v e l a t i o n . " The d e f e n d a n t s t e a c h t h e i r s o n " t o u s e h i s common s e n s e " a n d " e v e r y t h i n g t h e L o r d wants him t o k n o w " . . . " . The r e c o r d s t r o n g l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t a c c o m o d a t i n g t h e r e l i g i o u s o b j e c t i o n s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s by a l l o w i n g them t o c o n t i n u e the " e d u c a t i o n " of t h e i r c h i l d would r e s u l t i n t h e c h i l d ' s i n a b i l i t y t o be s e l f - s u p p o r t i n g o r t o d i s c h a r g e t h e d u t i e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f c i t i z e n s h i p " . . . " . Mr. H i l l a d m i t t e d t h a t he was n o t t e a c h i n g h i s s o n r e a d i n g , s p e l l i n g or mathematics. He was t e a c h i n g h i m t h a t w o r l d h i s t o r y was "evil". T h e r e was no p r o g r a m o f v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n . See a l s o S t a t e v . M o o r h e a d 308 N . W . 2 d 60 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ; S t a t e v . E d g i n g t o n 663 P . 2 d 374 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ; H i l l v . S t a t e 410 S b T T d 4 3 1 (1981).  117. 118.  328 N . E .  2d  (1975).  Ibid.  119.  364 U . S . 479  (1960).  120.  Ibid.  121.  Supra,  n o t e 21 a t p . 9 3 2 .  122.  Supra,  note 8 2 , a t p p .  123.  Ibid.,  at p. 315.  124.  472 F.  Supp.  125.  Ibid.,  at p. 431.  425  311-316.  (1979).  -  note  at  p.  -  126.  Supra,  127.  Ibid.  128.  Ibid.,  129.  "Expansive" here the l e a s t burden  130.  A c o u r t should not i g n o r e t h a t the q u a l i t y of a r e l i g i o u s a c t i s an i m o r t a n t f a c t o r i n t h e r i t u a l . I t c a n be a p a r t of the r e l i g i o u s c o n v i c t i o n s to e x p r e s s the r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s i n an o p t i m a l w a y .  at p.  102,  177  1075.  107. i s used i n the sense of what w i l l on t h e s t a t e i n t e r e s t .  impose  -  VI.  The N o t i o n Freedom  of  The w h o l e logical It  to  had t h e  freedom  occasions  this  to engage  case.  mens r e a ,  order  to  crimes  is  duress,  guilty.  and l o y a l t y  of  duress w i l l atrocities  not have  some a f f i n i t y defences apply  argue  very  the  every  notions  had t o  of  actus  be d e f i n e d  that from  are at  times  in  a s u p e r i o r even It  if  to  the the  defence of  r e s p e c t of  the  means  the  the  by  order  i s understood  that  notion  of  worst  the  it  superior orders  r e l i g i o u s freedom.  same p r i n c i p l e s o f  individual's will.  commission of  such  in  committed.3  speaking t h i s defence of  with  It  he had no c h o i c e b u t obey  be a c c e p t e d as an e x c u s e a f t e r been  invoked  superior orders.  the c r i m i n a l l a w . 2  what i s r a i s e d i n f a c t ,  the  a l s o he  s i n c e i n many  d e f e n c e w h i c h has some s i m i l a r i t y w i t h  Relatively  the  that  defence of  t o an o r d e r  was i n c o n f l i c t w i t h type  defences  i s the  duty  of  only  However  a p p l i c a b l e to that  is a  punishment.  conduct.1  d e f e n c e on i n s a n i t y  Among t h e  o f war t r i a l s  the  there  s e t up t h e e x a c t c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n w h i c h an a c c u s e d c o u l d  a subordinate w i l l  above  Religous  h i s a c t i o n s but  be made  in this context  that  this  idea that  c r i m e s and  in a disruptive  d i s t i n c t i o n s had t o  It  of  one who c o m m i t s a c r i m e was n o t  b a s i c p o s t u l a t e was n o t  reus,  be f o u n d  the  commission of  a p p r a i s e the consequences of  soon i n h i s t o r y ,  criminal  i n the Defence  s y s t e m i s b a s e d on t h e  c o n n e c t i o n between  capable  -  "Superior Orders"  penal  i s assumed t h a t  178  a higher  In a d e f e n c e o f i s the  offense  idea that but  presents  Both  duty  religious  placed freedom  t h e a c c u s e d was  t h e r e was a c o n f l i c t  l a w and a commandment  from a h i g h e r  aware  between  source  of  -  authority.  The  defendant's  incompatible with lest The  he l o s t t h e  the  r e l i g i o u s adherent  a duty  to  or approbation  being.  present  definition  of  How o f t e n  i n a defense  present.  always mentioned  i n the  of  to break  a c t by f e a r  is this  of a  for  before  punishment  "superior  r e l i g i o u s freedom?  arguments  being.  the  s i t u a t i o n of  s i t u a t i o n of  law  by w h a t he c o n s i d e r s as  With  has been p r o p o s e d i n t h i s  The  the  a supra-natural  o r even h i s a f f e c t i o n  r e l i g i o n that  s h o u l d be e v e r  always  of  He c a n be m o t i v a t e d  show h i s l o y a l t y  supra-natural orders"  He had no c h o i c e b u t  does not  f r o m a supreme b e i n g .  -  r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s compelled a conduct  law.  favour  179  the  study  it  "superior orders"  is  the c o u r t s but  it  is  not then  implicit. Yet, orders"  c a s e s where  the  s i t u a t i o n of  has been c l e a r l y e x p o s e d b e f o r e  the  courts.  In argument.  there  v.  are v a r i o u s  Jack  and C h a r l i e ,  the Court  was p r e s e n t e d  Said the B r i t i s h Columbia Court  of  "superior  s u c h an  Appeal:  "The d e f e n s e p r e s e n t e d a g r e a t d e a l o f e v i d e n c e from which the t r i a l judge i n f e r r e d t h a t E l i z a b e t h J a c k , the w i f e of the a p p e l l a n t A n d e r s o n J a c k , had been v i s i t e d by t h e s p i r i t o f her g r e a t g r e a t g r a n d f a t h e r a s k i n g t h a t she o b t a i n raw d e e r meat w h i c h was t o be b u r n e d i n a r e l i g i o u s burning ceremony".. ."A In Frank v . a c c o u n t on t h e  State  of  f u n c t i o n of  Alaska, the  the Court  funeral  gave  potlatch  the for  following the  Athabascans: " P r a y e r s a r e s a i d f o r t h e dead and t h e l i v i n g . A l l who have come and c o n t r i b u t e d a r e t h a n k e d . I t i s hoped t h a t t h e f u n e r a l p o t l a t c h and one t h a t i s t o f o l l o w , o f t e n more t h a n a y e a r l a t e r , the memorial p o t l a t c h , w i l l assuage the s p i r i t s and p r e v e n t f u t u r e d e a t h s .  -  180  -  F r a n k and a l l o f t h e A t h a b a s c a n W i t n e s s e s , i n c l u d i n g P e t e r J o h n , t e s t i f i e d t h a t they c o u l d n o t r i s k s h o w i n g d i s r e s p e c t t o t h e dead by f a i l i n g t o p r o v i d e moose f o r t h e p o s t b u r i a l ritual."5 In Wooley v . Court  of  motto:  Maynard,  the a p p e l l a n t e x p l a i n e d to  the U n i t e d S t a t e s  why he had t o o b s c u r e t h e  " L i v e Free or Die"  on h i s l i c e n c e  plate.  He  the  Supreme  state's said:  By r e l i g i o u s t r a i n i n g and b e l i e f , I b e l i e v e my 'government' - J e h o v a h ' s Kingdom - o f f e r s everlasting l i f e . I t w o u l d be c o n t r a r y t o t h a t b e l i e f t o g i v e up my l i f e f o r t h e s t a t e , e v e n i f i t meant l i v i n g i n b o n d a g e . A l t h o u g h I obey a l l l a w s o f t h e S t a t e n o t i n c o n f l i c t w i t h my c o n s c i e n c e , t h i s s l o g a n i s d i r e c t l y a t odds w i t h my d e e p l y h e l d r e l i g i o u s c o n v i c t i o n s . 6 To  be s u r e ,  offer"  s h o u l d not  criminal explain limits It  fact  But  r a t i o n a l e of  imposed to  that  an a d h e r e n t  s u f f i c e to g r a n t  prosecution. the  the  i s admitted that  applied to  the o n l y  if  the  of  r e l i g i o u s freedom  how s t r o n g t h e amount o f  there  to the  d u r e s s w o u l d be a p p l i c a b l e h e r e . pressure  a r e some s t e p s he i s n o t  supposed  make. The  defense of  d u r e s s i s not  offenses  of murder,  rape or r o b b e r y . 7  fall  into  the c a t e g o r i e s of  private property" not  i n case  s u c h an a n a l y s i s i s a c c e p t e d  defense of  upon an i n d i v i d u a l  him immunity  defense of  no m a t t e r  receives a "superior  open t o an a c c u s e d c h a r g e d w i t h Those  " P r e s e r v a t i o n of  f o r which a defence of  i n f r a c t i o n s would life,  health  and  r e l i g i o u s freedom would  be a v a i l a l b e , as i t was s u g g e s t e d i n t h e s e c t i o n s on  "Infringement"  and on " B a l a n c e o f  When t h e j u d g e w i l l activity  does n o t  yet  "After  say:  find  threaten  that  Interest  i n American  the e x e r c i s e of  some m a j o r  state's  a l l why w o u l d an a d h e r e n t  a religious  interest,  receive a  Law".  he c o u l d  special  -  treatment?" the  What H .  defense of  Gross  181  -  observed c o n c e r n i n g the  parameter  of  d u r e s s c o u l d be a p p l i c a b l e i n s u c h a c i r c u m s t a n c e :  " S o m e t i m e s p e o p l e a r e f o r c e d t o do w h a t t h e y d o . When w h a t t h e y a r e f o r c e d t o do i s w r o n g i t seems t h a t the c o m p u l s i o n ought to c o u n t i n t h e i r favor. A f t e r a l l , we s a y s u c h a p e r s o n w a s n ' t f r e e t o do o t h e r w i s e - he c o u l d n ' t h e l p h i m s e l f , not r e a l l y . " . . . " . 8 It freedom  i s hoped t h a t j u d g e s w i l l in i t s  sincerely power  than  true  invovled the  context.  That  p l a c e the  i s an i n d i v i d u a l  i n a s i t u a t i o n where  state  and y e t  defense of  deserve  the  religious  c a n be  he has t o obey a indulgence of  higher  the  court.  -  182  -  Footnotes  1.  See C . M . V . C a r k s o n a n d H . M . K e a t i n g , C r i m i n a l L a w : T e x t and M a t e r i a l s , L o n d o n , Sweet and M a x w e l l , 1 9 b 4 , a t p . 1 2 0 : "We d o , i t seems draw d i s t i n c t i o n s i n e v e r y d a y l i f e b e t w e e n d e l i b e r a t e d e s t r u c t i o n o f p r o p e r t y o r harm t o a n o t h e r , and t h a t which i s a c c i d e n t a l . We deem t h e a c t o r i n t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e t o be r e s p o n s i b l e b e c a u s e he had c o n t r o l o v e r and c h o i c e i n what s u b s e q u e n t l y took p l a c e . "  2.  See M c C a l l v . (1873).  3.  S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v . C a l l e y 22 U . S . M . C . A . 534 ( 1 9 7 3 ) (U.S. C o u r t of M i l i t a r y A p p e a l s ) . In t h i s c a s e , L i e u t e n a n t C a l l e y was c h a r g e d w i t h t h e p r e m e d i t a t e d m u r d e r o f 22 i n f a n t s , c h i l d r e n , women and o l d m e n , d u r i n g a m i l i t a r y o p e r a t i o n i n Vietnam. H i s d e f e n s e was t h a t he had a c t e d u n d e r t h e d i r e c t o r d e r s o f h i s commanding o f f i c e r . The C o u r t o b s e r v e d :  M c D o w e l l , 1 Abb.  212  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8673  [ S ] u c h a c t s o f a s u b o r d i n a t e a r e e x c u s e d and i m p o s e no c r i m i n a l l i a b i l i t y upon him u n l e s s t h e s u p e r i o r ' s o r d e r i s one w h i c h a man o f o r d i n a r y s e n s e and u n d e r s t a n d i n g w o u l d , u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , know t o be u n l a w f u l , o r i f t h e o r d e r i n q u e s t i o n i s a c t u a l l y known t o t h e a c c u s e d t o be unlawful." C o n s e q u e n t l y , the Court upheld the c o n v i c t i o n of the defendant. See a l s o U n i t e d S t a t e s v . G o e r i n g ; T r i a l o f M a j o r War c r i m i n a l s b e f o r e t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l M i l i t a r y Tribunal, v o l . XXII. 4.  v.  Jack  5.  Frank v .  6.  Wooley v .  Maynard,  7.  S e e R.  Paquette,  8.  H. G r o s s , A T h e o r y o f C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e , U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1979, a t p. 2 7 6 .  v.  and C h a r l i e [ 1 9 8 2 ]  67 C . C . C .  S t a t e o f A l a s k a , 604 P . 51  L.  Ed.  [1976]  (3d)  2 d 1068  2 d 752  30 C . C . C .  289,  (1979)  (1977), (2d)  n.  at  at  p.  p.  2 at  the  301. 1072.  p.  417.  New Y o r k ,  Oxford  1077.  -  183  -  Conclusion Freedom freedoms under  that  of  r e l i g i o n is a sensitive part  is likely  the C h a r t e r  now on t h e  of  to  b r i n g many c a s e s  Rights  and F r e e d o m s .  f r e e e x e r c i s e of  religion will  of  any l a w t h a t  of  d e f i n i n g r e l i g i o n and i n f r i n g e m e n t  that  that  Rand s a i d At  that  c o u l d be l e f t i n Saumur v .  time,  reality  i s d e s t i n e d to  fill  City  In  i s hoped t h a t  the d i f f i c u l t  t h i s vacuum.  o f Quebec a b o u t the  freedom of  future  to  the  future  of  this  The  The final  religion.  With the Canadian  religion  r e l a t e d to  task  than a concrete  a new d i m e n s i o n c o n v e y i n g a r e s p e c t o f intimately  face  once a g a i n what J u s t i c e  t h e s e words take is  from  to h e l p the C o u r t s .  of  repeat  entrenched i n the C o n s t i t u t i o n .  that  Courts  t h e r e a r e n o t many s t u d i e s  a part  i t was more a v i s i o n o f  the  be p o s s i b l e i n t h e  i n Canada  here i s to  fundamental  before It  i n f r i n g e s upon i t .  have been c o n d u c t e d so f a r  p r e s e n t work idea  unduly  of  the h i s t o r y  Charter  freedom  and a b o v e  county:  From 1760, t h e r e f o r e , t o t h e p r e s e n t moment r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m h a s , i n o u r l e g a l s y s t e m , been r e c o g n i z e d as a p r i n c i p l e o f f u n d a m e n t a l c h a r a c t e r ; and a l t h o u g h we have n o t h i n g i n t h e n a t u r e o f an e s t a b l i s h e d c h u r c h , t h a t t h e u n t r a m e l l e d a f f i r m a t i o n s o f r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f and i t s propagation, personal or i n s t i t u t i o n a l , r e m a i n as o f t h e g r e a t e s t c o n s i t u t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e throughout the Dominion i s unquestionable.  all  of  -  184  -  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Books G. A.  Beaudoin,  Le p a r t a g e  l'Universite T.R. R.  Berger,  d'Ottawa,  Fragile  Caillois,  des p o u v o i r s ,  le  Toronto,  sacre, Paris,  C a n a d a and t h e New C o n s t i t u t i o n , Montreal,  The  Institute  Editions  Clarke,  Irwin  de  1982.  Freedoms,  L'Homme e t  Ottawa,  Gallimard,  e d i t e d by S .  & Co., 1970.  Beck a n d I .  f o r R e s e a r c h on P u b l i c P o l i c y ,  Bernier,  1983.  C a n a d i a n C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Documents 1 7 5 9 - 9 1 , v o l . , and D o u g h t y , O t t a w a , K i n g ' s P r i n t e r , 1979.  e d i t e d by  L.  Cambridge,  Chafee J r . , Harvard  C.M.V.  F r e e Speech i n the U n i t e d University  C l a r k s o n and H . M .  Materials, Corpus J u r i s Scott), R.  de V a u x ,  M.J.  J.  Sweet  Civilis.  Press,  Keating,  XII  Criminal  Israel,  Law:  Text  and  1964.  (Translated  C i n c i n a t t i , Central Ancient  Shortt  1946.  and M a x w e l l , vol.  States,  1981.  Trust  New Y o r k ,  from L a t i n  Co.,  by  S.P.  1973.  McGraw-Hill  Book  Co.,  1961.  F i s c h e r , I r a n : from R e l i g i o u s D i s p u t e to R e v o l u t i o n , Cambridge, Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1980.  Foster,  W o r k i n g f o r W i l d l i f e : The B e g i n n i n g o f  Canada,  Toronto,  University  of Toronto P r e s s ,  R.  F u m o l e a u , As l o n g a s t h i s l a n d s h a l l and S t e w a r d L t d . , 1973.  last,  H.  G r o s s , A theory of C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e , U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1979.  New Y o r k ,  P.W.  Hogg, 1982.  Canada A c t  1982  Annotated,  J.H.  K e n n e d y , J e s u i t and Savage U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1980.  Toronto,  i n New F r a n c e ,  Preservation  Toronto,  The  in  1978. McClelland  Oxford  Carswell  New Haven  Co.,  Yale  -  185  -  W . P . M . K e n n e d y , The C o n s t i t u t i o n o f C a n a d a 1 5 3 4 - 1 9 3 7 , O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1938. F.W.  Kirkham, Educating a l l the C h i l d r e n of a l l W a s h i n g t o n , U . S . Gov. p r i n t , off., 1931.  Laskin's Constitutional Toronto,  Law,  the  London,  People,  e d i t e d and r e v i s e d by A . S .  The C a r s w e l l C o . ,  Abel,  1973.  M. M c D o u g a l , H. L a s s w e l l , L . C . C h e n , Human R i g h t s a n d W o r l d P u b l i c O r d e r , New H a v e n , Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 8 0 . J.E.  Nowak, Law,  F.E.  R.D.  St.  Oppenheim, Press,  J.  Penton,  Rotunda,  J.N.  Paul, Minn.,  Young,  Dimensions of  Jehovah's  Freedom,  1978.  New Y o r k ,  Witnesses i n Canada,  P f e f f e r , R e l i g i o u s freedom, 1977. J.B.  P r a t t , The C o . , 1920.  D. H.  Schmeiser, C i v i l University Pres,  Sharpe,  on C o n s t i t u t i o n a l  St.  Martin's  1961.  S p e e c h and R e l i g i o n , T o r o n t o ,  E.  Handbook  West P u b l i s h i n g C o . ,  Skokie,  Champions o f Freedom  the M a c M i l l a n C o . , 111.,  National  R e l i g i o u s C o n s c i o u s n e s s , New Y o r k ,  Liberties 1964.  Understanding  i n Canada,  R e l i g i o n , London,  London,  of  1976.  Textbook  Co.,  The M a c M i l l a n  Oxford  Duckworth  and  Co.,  1983. H.  S h o r t t a n d A . G . D o u g h t y , C a n a d a and i t s P r o v i n c e s , Toronto, Edingurgh E d i t i o n , 1974.  A.I.  Silver, Toronto,  W.S.  The F r e n c h  Canadian  University  Idea o f  W. T o r p e y , York,  J u d i c i a l Doctrines of Da Capo P r e s s ,  Confederation,  of Toronto P r e s s ,  T a r n o p o l s k y , The C a n a d i a n B i l l Carswell C o . , 1966.  19790.  of  vol.  1,  1864-1900,  ;1982.  Rights,  Toronto,  Religious Rights  The  in America,  New  -  186  -  Tremear's Annotated Criminal Code, e d i t e d C a l g a r y , Burroughs & C o . , 1944. L.  T r i b e , American C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law, Foundation Press I n c . , 1978.  D.W.  Walker,  The O x f o r d C o m p a n i o n  by A . B .  Harvey,  M i n c o l a , New Y o r k ,  t o Law,  Oxford,  The  Clarendon  Press,  1980. A.F.C. Wallace, Religion, Random H o u s e , 1 9 6 6 . A.N.  Whitehead, Co.,  J.C.  Religion  an A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l  i n the M a k i n g ,  View,  New Y o r k ,  New  The  York,  MacMillan  1926.  W i s e , The Red Man and t h e New W o r l d D r a m a , MacMillan Publishing C o . , 1971.  New  York,  Articles  G . A.  Beaudoin,  "La  fondamentau" S.I.  Benn & W . L . Man"  P.  supreme e t  Weinstein,  ( 1 9 8 0 ) 80 ( 3 1 8 )  Blache, la  Cour  (1975) C a n .  "Les  Tribunaux  Personne  B.  la protection  Rev.  "Being  Mind,  droits  free  to Act  and B e i n g a F r e e  194.  Canadiens  au C a n a d a "  des  674.  (1981)  et 12  le protection Revue g e n e r a l e  des D r o i t s de  Droit  311. N.  B o y d , "The Q u e s t i o n a p p r o p r i a t e , your  P.  Brest,  "Palmer  v.  Unconstitutional Review H.  Brun,  An A p p r o a c h  Legislative  Motive"  to  the Problem  ( 1 9 7 1 ) Supreme  notes  sur l e s a r t i c l e s  1,  2,  c a n a d i e n n e des d r o i t s e t l i b e r t e s "  de d r o i t D.H.  Thompson:  I s de m i n i m i s L. Q. 2 1 2 - 2 3 2 . of Court  95.  "Quelques  Charte  of M a r i j u a n a C o n t r o l : honour?" (1982) C r i m .  7 et  15  ( 1 9 8 2 ) 23  de  la  Cahiers  781.  B y r n e , "The Direction?  Tenuous T o u c h s t o n e " - A Step H e f f r o n v . ISKCON" ( 1 9 8 2 ) 19  i n t h e Wrong Hous. L. Rev.  325.  de  -  N.  Cantor,  J.M.  "A  D e c i s i o n to D e c l i n e  Clark,  (1969)  "Guidelines for L.  Rev.  Doyle,  of Assembly,  i n The  e d i t e d by W . S . Carswell  the Free E x e r c i s e  83  Co.,  A s s o c i a t i o n , C o n s c i e n c e and  Canadian Charter  Tarnopolsky  and G.  of  Rights  Beaudoin,  and  Freedoms  Toronto,  The  1982.  "Constitutional  Law:  Laws and R e l i g i o u s F r e e d o m "  Dubious (1980)  Intrusions 8 Am.  Ind.  Peyote,  L.  Rev.  Drug  79.  D u r k h e i m , "The S o c i a l F o u n d a t i o n s o f R e l i g i o n " , i n S o c i o l o g y R e l i g i o n e d i t e d by R. R o b e r t s o n , M i d d l e s e x , E n g . , P e n g u i n Books, 1969.  P.H.  Freund, 14  G.  Clause"  Life"  327.  "Freedom  Religion",  E.  Life-saving of  Cotler,  J.T.  -  Treatment: B o d i l y I n t e g r i t y v . The P r e s e r v a t i o n ( 1 9 7 3 ) 26 R u t g e r s L. Rev. 228.  Harv. J.  Patient's  187  "Mr.  U.C.L.A.  Gardiner,  "The  W.L.R.  J u s t i c e B l a c k and t h e J u d i c i a l F u n c t i o n " L.  Rev.  of  (1967)  467.  Purposes  of  Criminal  Punishment"  (1958)  21  117.  W.H.  G o o d e n o u g h , " T o w a r d an A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l l y U s e f u l D e f i n i t i o n o f R e l i g i o n " i n Changing P e r s p e c t i v e s i n the S c i e n t i f i c Study of R e l i g i o n , e d i t e d by A . W . E i s l e r , New Y o r k , J o h n W i l e y & S o n s , 1974.  J.A.  Kushner,  "Toward the C e n t r a l  Non S a b b a t a r i a n s (1981) B.  Laskin, 37  35 S . W . L . J . "An  Can.  B.  Inquiry Rev.  Meaning of R e l i g i o u s  and t h e Sunday  Closing Cases:  Liberty:  Revisited"  557. into  the Diefenbaker  Bill  of  Rights"  (1959)  77.  W.R.  L e d e r m a n , "The N a t u r e and P r o b l e m s ( 1 9 5 9 ) 37 C a n . B . R e v . 4 .  D.M.  Low, Role Rev.  of a B i l l  of  Rights"  "The C a n a d i a n C h a r t e r o f R i g h t s a n d F r e e d o m s and t h e o f t h e C o u r t s : An I n i t i a l S u r v e y " ( 1 9 8 4 ) 18 U . B . C . L . 69-94.  -  D.  Maloff,  J.H.  "A R e i v e w  188 -  of the E f f e c t s  Marijuana"  (1981)  Mansfield,  "The R e l i g i o n c l a u s e s o f t h e F i r s t  the Philosophy  24 C o n t e m p .  of the D e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n  of  Drug P r o b . 3 2 3 .  of the C o n s t i t u t i o n "  Amendment a n d  ( 1 9 8 4 ) 72 C a l i f .  L.  Rev.  847. J.P.  Moore, (1980)  J.  " P i e r c i n g the R e l i g i o u s V e i l 7 Pepperdine L. Rev. 6 5 5 .  P h i l l i p s , "Free Exercise: (1968)  L.P.  E . M.  Pigeon,  "The B i l l  Can.  Rev. 6 6 .  M.  B.  Pollock, Can.  P.H.  56 C a l i f .  Religion  goes t o P o t "  of Rights  "Mr. J u s t i c e  and t h e B . N . A .  Rand,  A Triumph  A c t " (1959)  of Principle"  R u s s e l l , "The P o l i t i c a l Role  o f t h e Supreme  in  53 C a n . B . R e v . 5 7 5 .  its First  First  Century"  "Objective  Amendment"  Steiner, Society  W.S.  Religious:  Rev. 100. 37  ( 1 9 7 5 ) 53  B. Rev. 519.  Sanderson,  H.  L.  of the s o - c a l l e d C u l t s "  Criteria  for Defining  (1980) U. T o ! . L.  "Individual  liberty"  of  Religion  Canada  for the  Rev. 988.  ( 1 9 7 4 - 5 ) LXXV  (75)  Aristotelian  Proceedings, 33.  Tarnopolsky Rights"  (1975)  Court  " T h e Supreme  (1975)  Court  and t h e C a n a d i a n  Bill  of  53 C a n . B . R e v . 6 4 9 .  D.B.  T h o m a s , "The F i r s t Amendment: T h e V a l i d i t y o f N e u t r a l State R e g u l a t i o n s w h i c h I n h i b i t R e l i g i o u s E x p r e s s i o n " ( 1 9 8 1 ) 83 VL V a . L. R e v . 6 7 3 .  R.S.  W a l k e r , "What C o n s t i t u t e s a R e l i g i o u s Use f o r Z o n i n g P u r p o s e s " ( 1 9 8 2 ) 27 C a t h o l i c L a w y e r 1 2 9 .  J.  Weiss,  S. Wizner,  "Pot, Prayer,  to Cut Your Throat 709.  i n your  P o l i t i c s and P r i v a c y :  own Way" ( 1 9 6 9 )  The  54 Iowa L .  Right  Rev.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0077676/manifest

Comment

Related Items