B'nai Brith Canada wins in landmark supreme court caseonreligious freedoms

[Paul Horwitz]

The Canadian Charter of Rights carries a state action requirement, although 
the contours of state action doctrine differ somewhat from those in the U.S. 
  The B'Nai Brith case was actually decided under a provincial statute, the 
Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I am less familiar with whether 
similar state action requirements apply to that law and how.  The Court did 
draw on freedom of religion jurisprudence under the Canadian Charter and 
clearly would apply its substantive conclusions about the nature of freedom 
of religion in the context of the Canadian Charter in future cases.

State action was an indirectly contentious issue in the Court's opinions; 
one Justice, at least, emphasized this point in dissenting.  To the extent 
state action was required here, it appears to have stemmed from the fact 
that the Civil Code of Quebec accords legal status to condominium ownership 
syndicates and grants co-owners "free use and enjoyment of [the] private 
portion and of the common portions" of the condo, "provided he observes the 
by-laws of the immovable and does not impair the rights of the other 
co-owners...."


Paul Horwitz
Visiting Assistant Professor
University of San Diego School of Law


>From: "Nathan Oman" <noman at mail.netoriginals.com>
>Reply-To: noman at mail.netoriginals.com,        Law & Religion issues for Law 
>Academics <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
>To: <Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>,        Law & Religion issues for Law 
>Academics  <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
>Subject: Re: B'nai Brith Canada wins in landmark supreme court 
>caseonreligious freedoms
>Date: Thu,  1 Jul 2004 15:52:02 -0400
>
>Doug,
>
>Was the condiminium corporation at issue here a public housing facility, or 
>does the Charter of Rights apply to private actors as well?
>
>Nate Oman
>
>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>From: Douglas Laycock <DLaycock at mail.law.utexas.edu>
>Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
><religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
>Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 14:45:26 -0500
>
> >         This is not my prose, but someone else's press release -- B'nai
> >Brith Canada's I think.  I doubt we could get the same result in many 
>U.S.
> >jurisdictions.
> >
> >>B'nai Brith Canada wins in landmark supreme court case
> >>on religious freedoms
> >>
> >>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> >>
> >>
> >>June 30, 2004.
> >>
> >>MONTREAL - In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld
> >>the rights of all Canadians to follow their religious practices without
> >>interference by the courts.
> >>
> >>In what is widely seen as an illustration of this point, the Supreme
> >>Court of Canada has ruled that Jewish condominium owners in a Montreal
> >>building have the right to set up their own personal Succahs, temporary
> >>religious huts that are constructed in celebration of the Jewish holiday
> >>of Succot. B'nai Brith Canada's League for Human Rights had intervened
> >>in the matter following the initial refusal of the condominium
> >>corporation to allow observant Jewish residents to construct individual
> >>huts on their own balconies.
> >>
> >>Allan Adel, National Chair of B'nai Brith's League for Human Rights,
> >>reacting to the news, stated: "We are satisfied with the decision of the
> >>Supreme Court, which has applied a broad interpretation to the Charter
> >>guarantee of freedom of religion and believe it to be in the best
> >>interests of all Canadians. The Succah ruling is an important,
> >>groundbreaking case that champions the cause of religious freedom in
> >>Canada and will have important ramifications well beyond the immediate
> >>facts of the case."
> >>
> >>Montreal lawyer Steven Slimovitch along with B'nai Brith's Senior Legal
> >>Counsel David Matas, represented the League before the Court.
> >>Slimovitch, acknowledging that he was pleased with the verdict stated:
> >>"This decision sets an important precedent for the exercise of sincerely
> >>held religious beliefs. The High Court has upheld B'nai Brith's argument
> >>that State should not be the final arbiter of religious dogma. Rather,
> >>this must be a private matter set by each individual."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Established in 1875, B'nai Brith is the Canadian Jewish community's
> >>leading human rights agency.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >Douglas Laycock
> >University of Texas Law School
> >727 E. Dean Keeton St.
> >Austin, TX  78705
> >         512-232-1341 (voice)
> >         512-471-6988 (fax)
> >         dlaycock at mail.law.utexas.edu
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> >
>
>--
>Nathan Oman
>
>http://www.tutissima.com
>http://www.timesandseasons.org
>--
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw