Freedom of religion in Canada

[6][7] The constitutional recognition of God has been criticized as conflicting in principle with the fundamental freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed in section 2, as it would disadvantage those who hold nontheistic or polytheistic beliefs, including atheism and Buddhism.

While religious freedoms are protected from state interference by the Charter, the actions of private individuals are largely governed by the provincial human rights codes.

In Mouvement laïque québécois v Saguenay (City), the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that municipal councils cannot open their meetings with a prayer, since it infringed on freedom of conscience and religion.

The ruling ended a legal case that started with a complaint filed by atheist Alain Simoneau and the Mouvement laïque québécois against Saguenay, QC Mayor Jean Tremblay.

The so-called Assembly of the Church of the Universe did not succeed in claiming that the Canadian authorities had violated their freedom of religion because they had been arrested for selling marijuana, which for them was their holy sacrament.

The committee concluded that “a belief consisting primarily or exclusively in the worship and distribution of a narcotic drug cannot conceivably be brought within the scope of article 18 of the Covenant,” and as such did not qualify as a religion.

These provincial legislations oblige actors under their jurisdiction (employers, service providers and landlords) to respect the duty to accommodate, to preserve a multicultural society.

The particularity of the duty to accommodate on religious grounds is that cases fall both under the jurisdiction of the Charter and other federal and provincial human rights acts and that they challenge the notions of social values, secularism and gender equality.

[21] It implies that "federal/provincial/territorial anti-discrimination measures place a positive duty on employers, service providers and landlords [...] to accommodate people's needs for reasons associated with recognized discriminatory grounds.

Indeed, in 2006, "the Multani decision [...] moved reasonable accommodation from the realm of employment law into a broader legal discourse on religious freedom more generally.

"[24] In claims concerning discrimination on religious grounds, the burden of proof shifts to the employer, landlord or service provider who has to prove the two elements: (1) that the rule is necessary and (2) he accommodates the individual to the point of undue hardship.

"[28] Professor Christian Brunelle divides the evaluation criteria in three categories:[29] the limits of financial and material resources of the company/institution, the breach of the victim's rights, and the proper functioning of the company/institution.

[25] In Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed whether the obligation to have a photograph on the driver's license violated the Hutterites' right to freedom of religion.

The Court found that there was a prima facie discrimination but considered that the need to both protect the integrity of the licensing system and combat identity fraud was a justified limitation on the community's religious freedom.

"[31] The duty of reasonable accommodation has a major impact on the promotion of multiculturalism protected under Section Twenty-seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is the case of some municipalities that decided that the public swimming pool should be separated between men and women 3 hours a week (1h30 each) to accommodate observant Muslims.

Canada has laws prohibiting the promotion of hatred against sections of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation.

"[39] In 1997, Hugh Owens, a Saskatchewan prison guard, published an advertisement in the Star-Phoenix that referenced Bible verses related to homosexuality (without quoting them) and drew a line through an image representing a gay couple.

The court also ruled that statements which are designed to provoke "extreme emotions and strong feelings of detestation, calumny and vilification" may be deemed as hate speech.

[42] In R. v. Big M Drug Mart, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the stated purpose of the federal Lord's Day Act, compelling observance of the Christian Sabbath, was incompatible with the protections of freedom of religion in the Charter.

In 1986, in R v Edwards Books and Art Ltd, the Supreme Court found that legislation prohibiting Sunday shopping with the secular purpose of creating a day of rest was also a violation of freedom of religion because of the unequal effect of the law on retailers who observed a different sabbath.

In 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys that Sikh children can wear a kirpan to school based on freedom of religion.

A similar process occurred in Lower Canada, with the main difference being that it was the Roman Catholic Church which initially held the sole authority.

In 2000, a Board of Inquiry appointed under the Ontario Human Rights Code found that Scott Brockie, a Toronto printer, had discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation by refusing to print letterhead, envelopes, and business cards for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives.

The court said the Board of Inquiry's order "ought not to require Mr. Brockie to print material of a nature that could reasonably be considered to be in direct conflict with the core elements of his religious beliefs.

The complaint was settled, with both parties issuing a joint statement that the conflict had resulted from uncertainty regarding that nature of the camp's rental operations, and the acknowledgement that they were "part of its broader religious mission and outreach and not primarily a commercial activity.

[57] A set of Jehovah's Witness parents refused blood transfusions for their one-year-old daughter after doctors decided the baby urgently needed them.

[66] In the 2004 case Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of Jews seeking to build a sukkah despite a condominium agreement that prohibited the action.

[69] In 2007, an Ontario poll conducted by the Strategic Council showed that 71% of people were opposed to expanding faith based funding to non-Catholic religions.

The ethics and religious culture course, ERC as it is called, is a provincially mandated course that requires schools to teach the basic traditions and symbolisms of a variety of religions.