256, 2006 SCC 6 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in which the Court struck down an order of a Quebec school authority, that prohibited a Sikh child from wearing a kirpan to school, as a violation of freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The case involved a 13-year-old Sikh named Gurbaj Singh, who in November 2001 dropped a metal kirpan at his school, École Sainte Catherine Labouré.

This prompted the school board to request certain limits on the wearing of the kirpan, including that it be covered at all times.

First, the majority of the Court, whose opinion was authored by Justice Louise Charron, denied that the case should be decided under the rules of administrative law, which required simple reasonableness.

Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers (2001) was cited to suggest freedom of religion is limited by other values aside from under section 1, in this case the goals of order and security.

[5] The Supreme Court noted that since R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. (1985), there had been recognition that freedom of religion should not be used to harm others, but section 1 was the ideal place for this consideration.

[6] In contrast, in the Trinity Western University case, the Court merely had to address a situation in which freedom of religion and equality rights might contradict each other.

The decision followed precedent in Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem (2004) that for a claim to freedom of religion to succeed, an individual should show they believe a practise is connected to a religious belief.

The main concern, as noted by the Quebec Court of Appeal, was school safety, which helps to maintain an atmosphere in which students can learn.

[11] The Court contemplated the highest degree of safety would require the banning of scissors and other such objects.

[18] It was noted that in Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers, the Court had said schools should teach values and promote civic virtue.

While they agreed with Charron's decision to overturn the ban on the kirpan, they found that the proper way to do this was through the rules of administrative law.

Section 1 of the Charter indicates the Oakes test best applies to decisions "prescribed by law."

[21] At any rate, Descamps and Abella found that "it is difficult to imagine a decision that would be considered reasonable or correct even though it conflicted with constitutional values.

The Quebec Court of Appeal found that kirpans could only be harmful, but Abella and Deschamps criticized this opinion for neglecting other evidence.

In this case freedom of religion was invoked, as well as security of person under section 7 of the Charter when it came to other students' safety.

Turning to the Oakes test, he disregarded the requirement for a sufficient objective for rights violations since the governing statutes were not questioned.