Canadian Constitutional Law - Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Freedom of Religion

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Its Impact on Freedom Of Religion
Name:
Institution:
Date:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its impact on freedom of religion
Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms brought into force in 1982, there is protection of religious and conscientious freedom, which falls under the fundamental rights. The Charter highlights on religious freedoms, and the role of multiculturalism and diversity. At the same time, there sis prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion as well as preserving the multicultural rights for all people. However, the lack of a clear definition of religion means that there the court system must determine what constitutes religious freedom on a case-to-case basis. There is no state religion in Canada, though Christianity has the biggest number of adherents. Thus, various court rulings point out that the state does not support specific religious practices over others. This essay looks into the impact of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on religious freedom in Canada, it also highlights on religious freedom before the enactment of the Charter.
In the case of Attorney General of Ontario vs. Hamilton Street Railway Co. [1903], AC 524 there was more clarity on the authority of provincial jurisprudence on Sunday observance (Brown et al., 2003). The cases under provincial jurisprudence typically related to those affecting property, civil rights in provinces, or those that were private in nature. In the Case of Hamilton Street Railway, Aylesworth said that the Lord’s Day Act meant to uphold morality, safety and public order was thus not applicable for regulating civil rights. In his ruling, the Lord Chancellor stated that the Act was not applicable for Ontario legislature.
In Robertson and Rosetanni v. R., [1963] S.C.R. 651 (1963) the appellants were accused of engaging in the business of a bowling alley on a Sunday in contravention of the Lord’s Day Act. In their defense, the two plaintiffs argued that the statute violated the Bill of Rights and ought to be dismissed. On one hand, according to Ritchie the enactment of the Bill of Rights came into force to protect religious freedom that was present even before the bill was enacted, the interpretation of the law would then focus on the effect, and not the purpose. Moreover, the statute called for religious observance on a Sunday by not engages in business, which merely caused financial inconvenience, rather than as an infringement on religious freedom (Hiebert, 2002). Cartwright, J had a different opinion that the statute compelled Sunday observance and was a violation of religious freedom and the main purpose of the Act was religious.
The Big M Drug Mart case was a defining moment in determining what constituted religious freedom in Canada. This was the first case that dealt with religious freedom after the enactment of the Charter. In essence, the case called into the question the long held belief that retailers were supposed to close their shops on Sundays according to the Lord Day’s Act. At the centre of the argument in the case was whether the Lord’s Day Act infringed on the freedom of conscience and religion under the Carter (Brown et al., 2003). The judge ruled that the Act violated the Charter and was unconstitutional. It was held that the Lord’s Day Act compelled all Canadians to Sunday observance amounting to discrimination for non-Christians in Canada.
The court ruling that the Lord Day’s Act was unconstitutional and in violation of the Charter on the basis that the statute led to the country’s support of religious practices contrary to the constitution. In essence, the drug store could continue selling goods on Sundays as the law was unconstitutional and hence invalid. The Canadian constitution is the superior source of law in the country, and in a situation where statutes were in conflict with the constitution then the constitution would prevail (The Charter of Rights, 2013). In any case, a drug store does not constitute a natural person who has religious freedom. Furthermore, the ruling stated that religious freedom also outlawed obligation of religious requirements.
The ruling on R. v. Oakes (1986) 1 S.C.R. 103 provide the first rules on which to challenge government legislations as well as the rules that governed future court decisions under the ‘Oakes test’. The police charged Mr. Oakes to be in possession of drugs, meant for trafficking in contravention of the Narcotic Control Act. Subsequently, the judge said determined that Mr. Oakes was in violation of the law through illegal possession of hashish oil. Mr. Oakes defended himself that the dr...