D.P. v. C.S., (1993) 159 N.R. 241 (SCC)

• Judge: Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 21, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 159 N.R. 241 (SCC);1993 CanLII 35 (SCC);18 CRR (2d) 1;[1993] RDF 712;[1993] SCJ No 111 (QL);JE 93-1767;[1993] 4 SCR 141;AZ-93111125;108 DLR (4th) 287;58 QAC 1;49 RFL (3d) 317;159 NR 241

D.P. v. C.S. (1993), 159 N.R. 241 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

D.P. (appellant) v. C.S. (respondent) and Attorney General of Ontario, Procureur général du Québec, Attorney General of Manitoba, Attorney General of British Columbia and Seventh-Day Adventist Church of Canada (interveners)

(22296)

Indexed As: D.P. v. C.S.

Supreme Court of Canada

La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin

and Iacobucci, JJ.

October 21, 1993.

Summary:

D.P. (father) and C.S. (mother) were the unmarried parents of an infant daughter. Their relationship collapsed soon after the daughter's birth. They signed an agreement conferring custody of the daughter to the mother and access rights to the father. That agreement was ratified by a judgment ren­dered in Quebec. The situation subsequently deteriorated when the father, a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses, began teaching his faith to the daughter. The mother alleged that the father was being excessive by in­doctrinating his daughter and taking her to Jehovah's Witnesses' meetings and activities. The father sought custody or, alternately, increased access. The mother replied with a motion to limit the father's access by pre­venting him from indoctrinating the daughter and taking her to Jehovah's Witnesses' meet­ings and activities. The Quebec Superior Court (Frenette, J.), in a judgment reported [1988] R.D.F. 40 (sub nom. Droit de la famille - 1150) dismissed the father's motion and allowed the mother's. The father appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a judg­ment reported [1991] R.J.Q. 306, Proulx, J.A., dissenting in part, dismissed the appeal. The father appealed again.

The Supreme Court of Canada, McLachlin and Sopinka, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 382

Freedom of conscience and religion - Infringement of - What constitutes - Article 30 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada said: "In every decision concerning a child, the child's interest and the respect of his rights must be the determining factors ..." - A Quebec Superior Court judge applied this article and ordered that a Jehovah's Witnesses access father (the custodial mother was Catholic) could teach his daughter the Jehovah's Witnesses' faith but could not indoctrinate her and take her to Jehovah's Witnesses' activities and meetings - The father appealed, alleging that this order violated his freedom of religion - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the decision of the Quebec Superior Court - See paragraphs 105 to 107 and 153.

Droits et libertés - Cote 382

Liberté de conscience et de religion - Violation - En quoi consiste - [Voir Civil Rights - Topic 382 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials, due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Void for vagueness doctrine - Article 30 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada said: "In every decision concerning a child, the child's interest and the respect of his rights must be the determining factors. Consideration may be given in particular to the child's age, sex, religion, language, character and family surround­ings, and the other circumstances in which he lives." - The Supreme Court of Canada held that this article was not vague within the meaning of ss. 1 and 7 of the Charter, and therefore not void, because, by using the criterion of the child's best interests, it provided a sufficient guide and an adequate basis on which to found a judi­cial debate - See paragraphs 97 to 103.

Droits et libertés - Cote 3107

Procès, application régulière de la loi, justice fondamentale et audiences équita­bles - Principes généraux et définitions - Doctrine de nullité pour cause d'impréci­sion - [Voir Civil Rights - Topic 3107 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8626

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Regulation of guaranteed rights - Vagueness rule - Article 30 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada said: "In every decision concerning a child, the child's interest and the respect of his rights must be the determining factors. Consideration may be given in particular to the child's age, sex, religion, language, character and family surroundings, and the other circum­stances in which he lives." - The Supreme Court of Canada held that this article was not vague within the meaning of ss. 1 and 7 of the Charter, and therefore not void, because, by using the criterion of the child's best interests, it provided a suffi­cient guide and an adequate basis on which to found a judicial debate - See para­graphs 97 to 103.

Droits et libertés - Cote 8626

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Réglementation des droits garantis - Règle de l'imprécision - [Voir Civil Rights - Topic 8626 ].

Family Law - Topic 1991

Custody and access - Access - Consider­ations in awarding access, welfare of child - Article 30 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada said: "In every decision concerning a child, the child's interest and the respect of his rights must be the determining factors ..." - A Quebec Superior Court judge applied this article and placed limi­tations on the religious teaching given by a Jehovah's Witnesses access father to his daughter because it was excessive and harming the child and therefore not in her best interests (the custodial mother was Catholic) - The judge ordered that the father could teach the Jehovah's Witnesses' faith but could not indoctrinate his daugh­ter nor take her to Jehovah's Witnesses' activities and meetings - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the decision - See paragraphs 1 to 142.

Droit de la famille - Cote 1991

Garde et accès - Considérations dans l'attribution des droits d'accès - Intérêt supérieur de l'enfant - [Voir Family Law - Topic 1991 ].

Quebec Family - Topic 7039

Parental authority - Limits on exercise - Custody to one parent - Religious instruc­tion - Article 647 of the Civil Code of Québec said: "The father and mother have the rights and duties of custody, supervi­sion and education of their children." - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a parent given custody of a child has, subject to the child's best interests, the right to decide upon the child's religious education until the child is in a position to make his own choice - This, however, does not deprive the noncustodial parent of his parental authority - The noncustodial parent can and must continue to exercise his parental authority, by exercising his rights of supervision and education - See paragraphs 25 to 56.

Québec: Famille - Cote 7039

Autorité parentale - Limites à l'exercice - Garde confiée à un parent - Instruction religieuse - [Voir Quebec Family - Topic 7039 ].

Quebec Family - Topic 7321

Custody and access - Right to custody - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the history of the rights of cus­tody and access in Quebec law - See paragraphs 25 to 56.

Québec: Famille - Cote 7321

Garde et accès - Droit de garde - Géné­ralités - [Voir Quebec Family - Topic 7321 ].

Quebec Family - Topic 7323

Custody and access - Right to custody - Rights and obligations of custodial parent - Religious instruction - Article 647 of the Civil Code of Québec says: "The father and mother have the rights and duties of custody, supervision and education of their children." - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a parent given custody of a child has, subject to the child's best interests, the right to decide upon the child's religious education until the child is in a position to make his own choice - This, however, does not deprive the noncustodial parent of his parental authority - The noncustodial parent can and must continue to exercise his parental authority, by exercising his rights of supervision and education - See paragraphs 25 to 56.

Québec: Famille - Cote 7323

Garde et accès - Droit de garde - Droits et obligations du parent gardien - Instruc­tion religieuse - [Voir Quebec Family - Topic 7323 ].

Quebec Family - Topic 7343

Custody and access - Considerations - Interest of child paramount (art. 30, C.C.L.C.) - Article 30 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada said: "In every decision concerning a child, the child's interest and the respect of his rights must be the deter­mining factors ..." - A Quebec Superior Court judge applied this article and placed limitations on the religious teaching given by a Jehovah's Witnesses access father to his daughter because it was excessive and harming the child and therefore not in her best interests (the custodial mother was Catholic) - The judge ordered that the father could teach the Jehovah's Witnesses' faith but could not indoctrinate his daugh­ter nor take her to Jehovah's Witnesses' activities and meetings - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the decision - See paragraphs 1 to 142.

Québec: Famille - Cote 7343

Garde et accès - Considérations - Intérêt supérieur de l'enfant - [Voir Quebec Family - Topic 7343 ].

Quebec Family - Topic 7344

Custody and access - Considerations - Effect of agreements - An unmarried mother and father signed an agreement conferring custody of the parties' child to the mother and giving the father access rights - The agreement was ratified by a court order - The situation subsequently deteriorated when the father, a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses, began teaching his faith to the daughter - The mother (a Catholic) filed a motion to limit the fa­ther's access by preventing him from in­doctrinating the daughter and taking her to Jehovah's Witnesses' meetings and activi­ties - The motion was allowed - The Supreme Court of Canada held that an "order ratifying an agreement on custody and/or access is always subject to review insofar as the child's circumstances and interests so warrant." - See paragraphs 112 to 123.

Québec: Famille - Cote 7344

Garde et accès - Considérations - Effet d'une entente - [Voir Quebec Family - Topic 7344 ].

Quebec Family - Topic 7531

Custody - Access - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the history of the rights of custody and access in Quebec law - See paragraphs 25 to 56.

Québec: Famille - Cote 7531

Garde et accès - Accès - Généralités - [Voir Quebec Family - Topic 7531 ].

Quebec Family - Topic 7532

Custody and access - Access - Rights and obligations of access parent - Religious instruction - Article 647 of the Civil Code of Québec said: "The father and mother have the rights and duties of custody, supervision and education of their children." - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a parent given custody of a child has, subject to the child's best interests, the right to decide upon the child's religious education until the child is in a position to make his own choice - This, however, does not deprive the noncustodial parent of his parental authority - The noncustodial parent can and must continue to exercise his parental authority, by exercising his rights of supervision and education - See paragraphs 25 to 56.

Québec: Famille - Cote 7532

Garde et accès - Accès - Droits et obliga­tions du parent non-gardien - [Voir Que­bec Family - Topic 7532 ].

Cases Noticed:

Young v. Young (1993) 160 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 1].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 174; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 577, refd to. [para. 105].

Daigle v. Tremblay, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530; 102 N.R. 81; 27 Q.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 105].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 416, dist. [para. 105].

Adams v. McLeod, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 621; 20 N.R. 203; 9 A.R. 1; 1 R.F.L. 330; 5 Alta. L.R.(2d) 391; 84 D.L.R.(3d) 440, refd to. [para. 11].

Bockler v. Bockler, [1974] C.A. 41 (Que.), consd. [para. 30].

King v. Mr. & Mrs. B., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 87; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 1; 57 N.R. 17; 58 A.R. 275; 44 R.F.L.(2d) 113; 16 D.L.R.(4th) 576, consd. [para. 34].

K.K. v. G.L. and B.J.L. - see King v. Mr. & Mrs. B.

King v. Low - see King v. Mr. & Mrs. B.

Droit de la famille - 274, [1986] R.J.Q. 945 (C.A.), consd. [para. 37].

C. v. F. and F., [1987] 2 S.C.R. 244; 78 N.R. 241; 9 Q.A.C. 241; 9 R.F.L.(3d) 263, consd. [para. 46].

Commission scolaire Pierre-Neveu v. Poulin, J.E. 93-234 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 48].

Descôteaux v. Descôteaux, [1972] C.A. 279 (Que.), consd. [para. 52].

Bleau v. Petit (1902), 6 R.P. 353 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 61].

Moquin v. Turgeon (1912), 42 C.S. 232 (Que.), refd to. [para. 62].

Nault v. Nault (1911), 13 R.P. 221 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 62].

Woollven v. Aird (1912), 14 R.P. 165 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 62].

Smith v. Copping (1922), 34 B.R. 412 (Que.), consd. [para. 63].

Bigman v. Belzberg, [1952] B.R. 391 (Que.), refd to. [para. 64].

Taillon v. Donaldson, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 257, refd to. [para. 65].

Benisty v. Delouya, [1969] B.R. 720 (Que.), refd to. [para. 66].

Blanchette v. Collins, [1972] C.A. 352 (Que.), refd to. [para. 66].

Perreault v. Demers, [1974] C.S. 530 (Que.), refd to. [para. 68].

Legault v. Figueroa, [1978] C.A. 82 (Que.), leave to appeal refused, [1978] 1 S.C.R. ix; 20 N.R. 622, refd to. [para. 67].

Favreau v. Ethier, [1976] C.S. 48 (Que.), refd to. [para. 68].

Droit de la famille - 52, [1983] C.A. 388 (Que.), consd. [para. 71].

Droit de la famille - 110, [1984] C.S. 99 (Que.), refd to. [para. 72].

Droit de la famille - 411, [1987] R.J.Q. 2584 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 77].

Droit de la famille - 425, [1988] R.J.Q. 159 (S.C.), consd. [para. 77].

Droit de la famille - 1717, [1993] R.J.Q. 166 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 78].

Dugal v. Lefebvre, [1934] S.C.R. 501, refd to. [para. 83].

Keller v. Kredl, [1956] B.R. 810 (Que.), refd to. [para. 85].

Wilson v. Thompson, [1959] B.R. 522 (Que.), refd to. [para. 85].

M. v. D., [1966] C.S. 224 (Que.), refd to. [para. 86].

Boily v. Vallée, [1966] B.R. 1001 (Que.), refd to. [para. 86].

Young v. Young (1990), 50 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 91].

Baron et al. v. Minister of National Reve­nue, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 416; 146 N.R. 270, refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1, refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 31 C.R.R. 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 62 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 102].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur gé­néral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 102].

Reference Re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Man.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 481; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 102].

Renvoi relatif au Code criminel (Man.) - see Reference Re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 102].

Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada et al. v. Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139; 120 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 102].

Comité pour la République du Canada - see Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada.

R. v. Comité pour la République du Canada - see Committee for the Com­monwealth of Canada.

Osborne, Millar & Barnhart et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69; 125 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Butler and McCord, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 1; 78 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society et al. (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91, refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Morales (M.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711; 144 N.R. 176; 51 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 102].

Valade v. Corbeil (1889), 33 L.C.J. 207 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 117].

Bronfman v. Moore, [1965] B.R. 181 (Que.), affd. [1964] S.C.R. v, consd. [para. 118].

Harris v. Webster, [1975] C.A. 702 (Que.), refd to. [para. 119].

Droit de la famille - 157, [1984] C.A. 497 (Que.), refd to. [para. 120].

Droit de la famille - 368, C.A.P. 87C-147 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 121].

Droit de la famille - 1472, J.E. 91-1639 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 121].

Droit de la famille - 353, [1987] R.J.Q. 545 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

Banque de Montréal et autre v. Hydro-Québec et autres, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 554; 138 N.R. 185; 48 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 130].

Lapointe v. Chevrette, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 351; 133 N.R. 116; 45 Q.A.C. 262, refd to. [para. 130].

M.E.M. v. P.L., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 183; 132 N.R. 266; 44 Q.A.C. 178, refd to. [para. 130].

Laurentide Motels Ltd. et al. v. Beauport (Ville) et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 705; 94 N.R. 1; 23 Q.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 130].

Lensen v. Lensen, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 672; 79 N.R. 334, refd to. [para. 130].

Beaudoin-Daigneault v. Richard et al., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 2; 51 N.R. 288, refd to. [para. 130].

Schreiber Brothers Ltd. v. Currie Products Ltd. and Gulf Oil Canada Ltd., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 78; 31 N.R. 335, refd to. [para. 130].

Kolesar Estate v. Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 491; 15 N.R. 302, refd to. [para. 130].

Koziol - see Kolesar Estate v. Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital.

Métivier v. Cadorette and Gourde, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 371; 8 N.R. 129, refd to. [para. 130].

Dorval v. Bouvier, [1968] S.C.R. 288, refd to. [para. 130].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982/Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 15]; sect. 2(a) [para. 104]; sect. 2(b) [para. 16]; sect. 2(d) [para. 104]; sect. 7 [para. 15]; sect. 15(1) [para. 16]; sect. 32 [para. 105].

Civil Code of Lower Canada/Code civil du Bas-Canada, art. 30 [para. 14]; art. 165 (former), art. 200 (former) [para. 27]; art. 212 (former) [para. 30]; art. 214 (former) [para. 27]; art. 215 (former) [para. 51]; art. 243 (for­mer), art. 244 (former) [para. 27].

Civil Code of Québec, 1981/Code civil du Québec, 1981, art. 443, art. 568, art. 569, art. 570, art. 647 [para. 14]; art. 648 [para. 145]; art. 653 [para. 143]; art. 654 [para. 45].

Convention on the Rights of the Child/Convention sur les droits de l'en­fant, Can. T.S. 1992, No. 3, art. 3(1) [para. 101].

Divorce Act, 1985/Divorce, Loi de 1985 sur le, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3, generally [para. 22]; sect. 16 [para. 79]; sect. 16(8) [para. 57]; sect. 16(10), sect. 17(5) [para. 150].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Blondin, Marie-Josée, et autres, Evolution jurisprudentielle (1950-1983) du critère de la conduite des conjoints dans l'attri­bution de la garde des enfants (1986), 46 R. du B. 105 [para. 33].

Boisclair, Claude, Les droits et les besoins de l'enfant en matière de garde: réalité ou apparence?, Université de Sherbrooke, 1978, p. 4 [para. 70].

Cornu, Gérard, Droit civil: la famille, 3 e éd., 1993, p. 543, no. 414, p. 545, no. 416 [para. 80].

D.-Castelli, Mireille, Précis du droit de la famille, 2 e éd., 1990, p. 226 [para. 79].

Deleury, Edith, Michèle Rivet, et Jean-Marc Neault, De la puissance pa­ternelle à l'autorité parentale: Une insti­tution en voie de trouver sa vraie finalité (1974), 15 C. de D. 779, p. 848 [para. 85].

Groffier-Atala, Ethel, De la puissance paternelle à l'autorité parentale (1977), 8 R.G.D. 223, p. 229 [para. 54].

Langelier, F., Cours de droit civil de la province de Québec, t. 1, 1905, pp. 358 [para. 60]; 359 [para. 53].

Lesage, Robert, Garde ou autorité paren­tale; l'emprise de la sémantique (1988), 91 R. du N. 46 [para. 47].

L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire, La garde con­jointe, concept acceptable ou non? (1979), 39 R. du B. 835, p. 851 [para. 54].

Marty, Gabriel, et Pierre Raynaud, Droit civil: les personnes, 3 e éd., 1976, p. 288 [para. 36].

Mayrand, Albert, Conventions de sépara­tion entre époux (1970), 73 R. du N. 411, p. 428 [para. 116].

Mayrand, Albert, Conventions entre époux en prévision de leur divorce et conven­tions entre divorcés (1960), 20 R. du B. 1, p. 27 [para. 115].

Mayrand, Albert, La garde conjointe (au­torité parentale conjointe) envisagée dans le contexte social et juridique actuel, dans Droit et enfant, 1990, p. 19 [para. 33].

Mayrand, Albert, La garde conjointe, ré­équilibrage de l'autorité parentale (1988), 67 R. du B. can. 193, pp. 197 [para. 40]; 204, 205 [para. 48]; 206, 207 [para. 41]; 208 [para. 56]; 228 [para. 99].

Mayrand, Albert, L'évolution de la notion de puissance paternelle en droit civil québécois, dans Mélanges offerts à René Savatier, 1965, p. 621 [para. 33].

Mayrand, Albert, L'incidence de la con­duite des époux sur le droit de garde de l'enfant (1982), 85 R. du N. 28, pp. 29 [para. 28]; 48 [para. 70].

Mignault, Pierre-Basile, Droit civil cana­dien, t. 2., 1896, pp. 36 [para. 60]; 36-37 [para. 117].

Ouellette, Monique, Droit de la famille, 2 e éd., 1991, pp. 186 [para. 79]; 187 [para. 43].

Pineau, Jean, La famille, 1982, pp. 122 [para. 114]; 283 [para. 39].

Pineau, Jean, et Monique Ouellette, La protection de l'enfant dans le droit de la famille (1978), 9 R.D.U.S. 76, pp. 90 [para. 69]; 91 [para. 88].

Trudel, Gérard, Traité de droit civil du Québec, t. 1, 1942, pp. 621-622 [para. 87].

Trudel, Gérard, Traité de droit civil du Québec, t. 2, 1942, pp. 49 [para. 60]; 52 [para. 53].

Counsel:

W. Glen How, Q.C., and Daniel G. Pole, for the appellant;

Isabelle Michaud, for the respondent;

Michel Y. Hélie, for the intervener, Attor­ney General of Ontario;

Monique Rousseau and Isabelle Harnois, for the intervener, Attorney General of Quebec;

Shawn Greenberg, for the intervener, At­torney General of Manitoba;

Written submissions only for the intervener, Attorney General of British Columbia;

Gerald D. Chipeur and Karnik Doukmetzian, for the intervener, Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Canada.

Solicitors of Record:

W. Glen How & Assoc., Halton Hills, Ontario, for the appellant;

Noël, Aubry & Assoc., Hull, Quebec, for the respondent;

George Thomson, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Attorney General of Ontario;

Ministère de la Justice, Québec, Quebec, for the intervener, Attorney General of Quebec;

Department of Justice, Winnipeg, Manito­ba, for the intervener, Attorney General of Manitoba;

Department of the Attorney General, Vic­toria, British Columbia, for the intervener, Attorney General of British Columbia;

Milner, Fenerty & Assoc., Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervener, Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Canada.

This appeal was heard on January 25 and 26, 1993, by La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on Oc­tober 21, 1993 and the following opinions were filed:

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. (La Forest and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 137;

Cory and Iacobucci, JJ., concurring - see paragraphs 138 to 142;

McLachlin, J., dissenting - see para­graphs 143 to 155;

Sopinka, J., dissenting - see paragraph 156.