Mouvement laïque québécois et al. v. Saguenay (City), (2015) 470 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner and Gascon, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 15, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 470 N.R. 1 (SCC);2015 SCC 16;382 DLR (4th) 385;AZ-51166826;251 ACWS (3d) 184;34 MPLR (5th) 1;[2015] 2 SCR 3;[2015] SCJ No 16 (QL);470 NR 1;JE 2015-600

Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (2015), 470 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.R. TBEd. AP.011

Mouvement laïque québécois and Alain Soneau (appellants) v. City of Saguenay and Jean Tremblay (respondents) and Human Rights Tribunal, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Catholic Civil Rights League, Faith and Freedom Alliance, Association des parents catholiques du Québec, Canadian Secular Alliance and Canadian Civil Liberties Association (interveners)

(35496; 2015 SCC 16; 2015 CSC 16)

Indexed As: Mouvement laïque québécois et al. v. Saguenay (City)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner and Gascon, JJ.

April 15, 2015.

Summary:

A municipal council's public meetings commenced with the recitation of a Catholic prayer. An atheist (Simoneau) requested that the council cease this practice, as it allegedly offended his right to freedom of conscience and religion and the state's duty of neutrality (Quebec Charter, ss. 3, 10). The Quebec Human Rights Tribunal agreed that recitation of the Catholic prayer breached the state's duty of neutrality and interfered in a discriminatory manner with Simoneau's freedom of conscience and religion, because the council was showing preference for one religion over others. The council appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the basis that the prayer was non-denominational and fundamentally inclusive (i.e., prayer expressed universal values not identified with any particular religion). Simoneau appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal. By reciting the prayer at public meetings, the council was consciously adhering to certain religious beliefs to the exclusion of all others. Doing so breached the state's duty of neutrality. The resulting discriminatory interference with Simoneau's freedom of conscience and religion was supported by the evidence that the Tribunal accepted.

Administrative Law - Topic 6201

Judicial review - Statutory appeal - Scope or standard of review - General - A municipal council's public meetings commenced with the recitation of a Catholic prayer - An atheist (Simoneau) claimed that doing so interfered in a discriminatory manner with his freedom of conscience and religion as protected by the Quebec Charter - By doing so, council allegedly violated the principle of state neutrality - The Quebec Human Rights Tribunal agreed - The council appealed under the Charter (ss. 132, 133) - At issue was the appropriate standard of review - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "Where a court reviews a decision of a specialized tribunal, the standard of review must be determined on the basis of administrative law principles. This is true regardless of whether the review is conducted in the context of an application for judicial review or a statutory appeal ... the existence of a right of appeal with leave does not mean that the Tribunal's specialized administrative nature can be disregarded. Nor is the fact that the Tribunal does not have exclusive jurisdiction in discrimination cases and that a complainant can also turn to the ordinary courts determinative. ... on judicial review of a decision of a specialized administrative tribunal interpreting and applying its enabling statute, it should be presumed that the standard of review is reasonableness ... deference should normally be shown, although this presumption can sometimes be rebutted" - An example was cases where there was a general question of law that was important to the legal system and fell outside the specialized tribunal's area of expertise - The scope of the state's duty of religious neutrality was subject to the correctness standard of review, because "I find that the importance of this question to the legal system, its broad and general scope and the need to decide it in a uniform and consistent manner are undeniable. Moreover, the jurisdiction the legislature conferred on the Tribunal in this regard in the Quebec Charter was intended to be non-exclusive; the Tribunal's jurisdiction is exercised concurrently with that of the ordinary courts." - However, whether the prayer was religious in nature, the extent to which it interfered with Simoneau's rights, and the determination of whether it was discriminatory, fell squarely within the Tribunal's area of expertise and those issues were subject to the reasonableness standard of review - See paragraphs 24 to 52.

Administrative Law - Topic 9052

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction of particular boards and tribunals - Provincial human rights commission - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7114 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 9102

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Standard of review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 6201 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 9122

Boards and tribunals - Administrative appeals - Scope of appeal or standard of review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 6201 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 303

Freedom of conscience and religion - General - Scope of right -The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "freedom of conscience and religion protects the right to entertain beliefs, to declare them openly and to manifest them, while at the same time guaranteeing that no person can be compelled to adhere directly or indirectly to a particular religion or to act in a manner contrary to his or her beliefs ... These protections are not limited to religious beliefs. The freedom not to believe, to manifest one's non-belief and to refuse to participate in religious observance is also protected". - See paragraphs 69, 70.

Civil Rights - Topic 303

Freedom of conscience and religion - General - Scope of right -The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the reference to the supremacy of God in the preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms "does not limit the scope of freedom of conscience and religion and does not have the effect of granting a privileged status to theistic religious practices" - See paragraph 149.

Civil Rights - Topic 383

Freedom of conscience and religion - Infringement of - Conditions precedent - The Supreme Court of Canada stated the test for determining whether freedom of conscience and religion has been infringed: "To conclude that an infringement has occurred, the court or tribunal must (1) be satisfied that the complainant's belief is sincere, and (2) find that the complainant's ability to act in accordance with his or her beliefs has been interfered with in a manner that is more than trivial or insubstantial ... Such an infringement, where it arises from a distinction based on religion, impairs the right to full and equal exercise of freedom of conscience and religion" - See paragraph 86.

Civil Rights - Topic 396

Freedom of conscience and religion - Infringement of - Municipal councils - Religious exercises - A municipal council's public meetings commenced with the recitation of a Catholic prayer regulated by a bylaw - An atheist (Simoneau) alleged that this practice offended his right to freedom of conscience and religion and the state's duty of neutrality (Quebec Charter, ss. 3, 10) - The Quebec Human Rights Tribunal agreed that recitation of the Catholic prayer breached the state's duty of neutrality and interfered in a discriminatory manner with Simoneau's freedom of conscience and religion, because the council was showing preference for one religion over others - The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the council's appeal on the basis that the prayer was non-denominational and fundamentally inclusive (i.e., prayer expressed universal values not identified with any particular religion) - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed Simoneau's appeal - By reciting the prayer at public meetings, the council was consciously adhering to certain religious beliefs to the exclusion of all others - Doing so breached the state's duty of neutrality - The resulting discriminatory interference with Simoneau's freedom of conscience and religion, in more than a trivial or insubstantial manner, was supported by the evidence that the Tribunal accepted - Although the Canadian cultural landscape included many traditional and heritage practices that were religious in nature, and not all of these cultural expressions breached the state's duty of neutrality, "the state may not consciously make a profession of faith or act so as to adopt or favour one religious view at the expense of all others" - The evidence reasonably established that "the recitation of the prayer at council's meetings was above all else a use by the council of public powers to manifest and profess one religion to the exclusion of all others" - The Tribunal's rejection of the prayer as nondemoninational was reasonable and, in any event, it was conceded that it was religious in nature - See paragraphs 80 to 150.

Civil Rights - Topic 1041

Discrimination - Religion - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 396 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7114

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Investigation of complaint (incl. report) - A municipal council's public meetings commenced with the recitation of a Catholic prayer - An atheist (Simoneau) complained that this practice and the presence of religious symbols violated his right to freedom of conscience and religion and the state's duty of neutrality (Quebec Charter, ss. 3, 10) - The Human Rights Commission limited its investigation to whether the prayer was discriminatory - Notwithstanding the lack of investigation, the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal also dealt with whether the presence of religious symbols at the location of the public meetings also was discriminatory - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine the issue respecting the religious symbols - The Tribunal's jurisdiction was dependent upon the Commission first conducting an investigation - The Tribunal's jurisdiction was limited to considering whether the prayer was discriminatory, which allowed it to consider "any evidence useful and relevant" - The presence of religious symbols was admissible for that purpose - See paragraphs 53 to 62.

Civil Rights - Topic 7187

Federal or provincial legislation - Remedies - Declaration of statute invalidity - A municipal council's public meetings commenced with the recitation of a Catholic prayer - An atheist (Simoneau) requested that the council cease this practice, as it allegedly offended his right to freedom of conscience and religion and the state's duty of neutrality (Quebec Charter, ss. 3, 10) - The Quebec Human Rights Tribunal agreed that recitation of the Catholic prayer breached the state's duty of neutrality and interfered in a discriminatory manner with Simoneau's freedom of conscience and religion, because the council was showing preference for one religion over others - As a remedy, the Tribunal ordered that the council cease reciting the prayer and that the bylaw authorizing the prayer was invalid and inoperative - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Tribunal's jurisdiction was limited to declaring the bylaw inoperable as against Simoneau - The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make a general declaration of invalidity - Only a court had jurisdiction to do that - See paragraphs 153 to 154.

Civil Rights - Topic 7188

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Remedies - Declaration of inoperability - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7187 ].

Words and Phrases

Religious neutrality - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the evolution of the state's duty of religious neutrality, which resulted from the evolving interpretation of freedom of conscience and religion - The court stated that "a neutral public space free from coercion, pressure and judgment on the part of public authorities in matters of spirituality is intended to protect every person's freedom and dignity" - See paragraphs 71, 74.

Cases Noticed:

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse v. Laval (Ville de), [2006] R.J.Q. 2529, refd to. [para. 10].

Association des pompiers de Laval v. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, [2011] R.J.D.T. 1025; 2011 QCCA 2041, disagreed with [para. 25].

Gaz Métropolitain inc. v. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, [2011] R.J.Q. 1253; 2011 QCCA 1201, disagreed with [para. 32].

Commission scolaire des Phares v. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, [2006] R.J.Q. 378; 2006 QCCA 82, refd to. [para. 32].

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse v. 9185-2152 Québec inc. (Radio Lounge Brossard), 2015 QCCA 577, disagreed with [para. 32].

Bertrand v. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, 2014 QCCA 2199, disagreed with [para. 32].

Commission scolaire des Phares v. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, [2012] R.J.Q. 1022; 2012 QCCA 988, disagreed with [para. 32].

Bombardier inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center) v. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, [2013] R.J.Q. 1541; 2013 QCCA 1640, refd to. [para. 32].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 33].

Coutu v. Tribunal des droits de la personne, [1993] R.J.Q. 2793 (C.A.), disagreed with [para. 34].

Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys v. Gallardo, [2012] R.J.Q. 1001; 2012 QCCA 908, refd to. [para. 36].

Québec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Dhawan, 2000 CanLII 11031 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Compagnie minière Québec Cartier v. Québec (Commission des droits de la personne), 1998 CanLII 12609 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [paras. 36, 166].

Proprio Direct Inc. v. Association des courtiers et agents immobiliers du Quebec et al., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 195; 375 N.R. 1; 2008 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 38].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 2003 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 38].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207; 2003 SCC 20, refd to. [para. 38].

Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) v. Mattel Canada Inc., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 100; 270 N.R. 153; 2001 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 38].

Conférence des juges de paix magistrats du Québec v. Québec (Procureur général), 2014 QCCA 1654, refd to. [para. 39].

For-Net Montréal inc. v. Chergui, 2014 QCCA 1508, refd to. [para. 39].

Association des juges administratifs de la Commission des lésions professionnelles v. Québec (Procureur général), [2013] R.J.Q. 1593; 2013 QCCA 1690, refd to. [para. 39].

Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. v. Létourneau, 2013 QCCA 1139, refd to. [para. 39].

Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail v. Fontaine, [2005] R.J.Q. 2203; 2005 QCCA 775, refd to. [para. 39].

Québec (Procureure générale) v. Tribunal des droits de la personne, [2002] R.J.Q. 628 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Tervita Corp. et al. v. Commissioner of Competition et al. (2015), 467 N.R. 97; 2015 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 43].

McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 895; 452 N.R. 340; 347 B.C.A.C. 1; 593 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 43].

Rogers Communications Inc. et al. v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada et al., [2012] 2 S.C.R. 283; 432 N.R. 1; 2012 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 43].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471; 422 N.R. 248; 2011 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 43].

Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat.

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 45].

Whatcott v. Human Rights Tribunal (Sask.) et al., [2013] 1 S.C.R. 467; 441 N.R. 1; 409 Sask.R. 75; 568 W.A.C. 75; 2013 SCC 11, refd to. [paras. 46, 171].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 46].

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2014] 2 S.C.R. 135; 458 N.R. 150; 2014 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 46].

National Gallery of Canada v. Canadian Artists' Representation et al., [2014] 2 S.C.R. 197; 458 N.R. 233; 2014 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 46].

Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160; 412 N.R. 66; 2011 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 46].

Khela v. Mission Institution (Warden) et al., [2014] 1 S.C.R. 502; 455 N.R. 279; 351 B.C.A.C. 91; 599 W.A.C. 91; 2014 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 50].

Ménard v. Rivet, [1997] R.J.Q. 2108 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la juenesse) v. Montreal (Ville) et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 665; 253 N.R. 107; 2000 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 63].

Commission scolaire régionale de Chambly v. Syndicat de l'enseignement de Champlain et autres, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 525; 169 N.R. 281; 62 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 63].

Forget v. Québec (Procureur général) and Office de la langue française, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 90; 87 N.R. 37; 17 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 63].

S.L. et al. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes et al., [2012] 1 S.C.R. 235; 426 N.R. 352; 2012 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 64].

Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine (Village), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 650; 323 N.R. 1; 2004 SCC 48, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. N.S. et al., [2012] 3 S.C.R. 726; 437 N.R. 344; 297 O.A.C. 200; 2012 SCC 72, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. R.D.S., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484; 218 N.R. 1; 161 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 477 A.P.R. 241, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 75].

Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912; 306 N.R. 70; 176 O.A.C. 89; 2003 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 75].

Reference Re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158; 127 N.R. 1; 94 Sask.R. 161, refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 75].

Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem et al., [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551; 323 N.R. 59; 2004 SCC 47, refd to. [para. 86].

Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony et al. v. Alberta, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567; 390 N.R. 202; 460 A.R. 1; 462 W.A.C. 1; 2009 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 86].

Bruker v. Marcovitz, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 607; 270 N.R. 1; 2007 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 86].

Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256; 345 N.R. 201; 2006 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 86].

Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712; 90 N.R. 84; 19 Q.A.C. 69, refd to. [para. 86].

Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General) - see Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Québec (Procureur général).

Singer (Allan) Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général) et al., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 790; 90 N.R. 48; 19 Q.A.C. 33, refd to. [para. 86].

Devine v. Quebec (Attorney General) - see Singer (Allan) Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général) et al.

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 90].

Zylberberg et al. v. Board of Education of Sudbury et al. (1988), 29 O.A.C. 23; 65 O.R.(2d) 641 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 124].

Freitag v. Penetanguishene (Town) (1999), 125 O.A.C. 139; 47 O.R.(3d) 301 (C.A.), dist. [para. 125].

Allen v. Renfrew (Country), [2004] O.T.C. 268; 69 O.R.(3d) 742 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 127].

Canadian Federation of Students (B.C.) et al. v. Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority et al., [2009] 2 S.C.R. 295; 389 N.R. 98; 272 B.C.A.C. 29; 459 W.A.C. 29; 2009 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 128].

Speaker of the Legislative Assembly (Ont.) v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) (2001), 146 O.A.C. 125; 54 O.R.(3d) 595 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 142].

Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; 217 N.R. 1; 206 A.R. 1; 156 W.A.C. 1; 121 Man.R.(2d) 1; 158 W.A.C. 1; 156 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 483 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 147],

Doucet-Boudreau et al. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3; 312 N.R. 1; 218 N.S.R.(2d) 311; 687 A.P.R. 311; 2003 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 147].

St. Jacques v. Fédération des employés et employés de services public inc. (C.S.N.) et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 345; 198 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 152].

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Qué.) v. Montréal (Communauté urbaine), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 789; 319 N.R. 379; 2004 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 152].

CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2010] 2 S.C.R. 592; 407 N.R. 202; 2010 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 152].

Workers' Compensation Board (N.S.) v. Martin et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504; 310 N.R. 22; 217 N.S.R.(2d) 301; 683 A.P.R. 301; 2003 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 153].

Okwuobi v.Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 257; 331 N.R. 300; 2005 SCC 16, refd to. [para. 153].

Okwuobi v. Lester B. Pearson School Board - see Okwuobi v. Quebec (Attorney General).

Entreprises Sibeca Inc. v. Frelighsburg (Municipalité), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 304; 325 N.R. 345; 2004 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 158].

Richard v. Time Inc. et al., [2012] 1 S.C.R. 265; 427 N.R. 203; 342 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 2012 SCC 8, refd to. [para. 161].

Genex Communications inc. v. Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, [2009] R.J.Q. 2743; 2009 QCCA 2201, refd to. [para. 161].

Québec (Curateur public) v. Syndicat national des employés de l'Hôpital St-Ferdinand et autres, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 211; 202 N.R. 321, refd to. [para.161].

de Montigny v. Brossard (Succession), [2010] 3 S.C.R. 64; 408 N.R. 80; 2010 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 161].

Viel v. Entreprises Immobilières du Terroir ltée, [2002] R.J.Q. 1262 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 163].

VIA Rail Canada Inc. v. Canadian Transportation Agency et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 650; 360 N.R. 1; 2007 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 165].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 165].

Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General) (2015), 468 N.R. 323; 2015 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 165].

British Columbia (Minister of Education) v. Moore et al., [2012] 3 S.C.R. 360; 436 N.R. 152; 328 B.C.A.C. 1; 558 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 170].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, preamble [para. 145]; sect. 2(a) [para. 67].

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, C.Q.L.R., c. C-12, sect. 3 [para. 65]; sect. 9.1 [para. 89]; sect. 10 [para. 66]; sect. 132, sect. 133 [para. 24].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Beaudoin, Gérald-A. and Mendes, Errol, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (4th Ed. 2005), p. 1265 [para. 74].

Béchard, Donald and Béchard, Jessica, L'expert (2011), c. 9 [para. 106].

Ducharme, Léo and Panaccio, Charles-Maxime, L'administration de la preuve (4th Ed. 2010), Nos. 590, 591, 605 [para. 106].

Magnet, Joseph Eliot, Multiculturalism and Collective Rights, in Beaudoin, Gérald-A. and Mendes, Errol, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (4th Ed. 2005), p. 1265 [para. 74].

Moon, Richard, Freedom of Religion Under the Charter of Rights: The Limits of State Neutrality (2012), 45 U.B.C. L. Rev. 497, p. 507 [para. 73].

Paciocco, David M., Unplugging Jukebox Testimony in an Adversarial System: Strategies for Changing the Tune on Partial Experts (2009), 34 Queen's L.J. 565, pp. 598, 599 [para. 106].

Quebec, Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences, Building the Future: A Time for Reconciliation (2008), p. 152 [para. 87].

Royer, Jean-Claude and Lavallée, Sophie, La preuve civile (4th Ed. 2008), No. 468 [para. 106].

Sossin, Lorne, The Supremacy of God, Human Dignity and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (2003), 52 U.N.B.L.J. 227, p. 229 [para. 148].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (6th Ed. 2014), pp. 274 to 287 [para. 81].

Woehrling, José, L'obligation d'accommodement raisonnable et l'adaptation de la sociétè à la diversité religieuse (1988), 43 McGill L.J. 325, p. 371 [para. 69].

Counsel:

Luc Alarie, for the appellants;

Richard Bergeron, Arnaud Gosselin-Brisson and Laurence Dubois, for the respondents;

Louise Cadieux, for the intervener, the Human Rights Tribunal;

Albertos Polizogopoulos and Stefan Cyr, for the intervener, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada;

Ranjan K. Agarwal, Robert W. Staley, Jack R. Maslen and Philip H. Horgan, for the interveners, the Catholic Civil Rights League, the Faith and Freedom Alliance and Association des parents catholiques du Québec;

Tim Dickson and Alexander Boland, for the intervener, the Canadian Secular Alliance;

Kristian Brabander and Elisa Clavier, for the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Solicitors of Record:

Alarie Legault, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellants;

Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells, Saguenay and Montreal, Quebec, for the respondents;

Lafortune Cadieux, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervener, the Human Rights Tribunal;

Vincent Dagenais Gibson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada;

Bennett Jones, Toronto, Ontario; Philip H. Horgan, Toronto, Ontario, for the interveners, the Catholic Civil Rights League, the Faith and Freedom Alliance and Association des parents catholiques du Québec;

Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Canadian Secular Alliance;

McCarthy Tétrault, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

This appeal was heard on  October 14, 2014, before McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner and Gascon, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On April 15, 2015, the judgment of the Court was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Gascon, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 164;

Abella, J. - see paragraphs 165 to 173.