Montreal Archdiocese Sues for Exemption from End-of-Life Care Requirements

 In Canada, the Archdiocese of Montreal has filed suit in a Quebec trial court seeking an exemption from amendments to the province's Act Respecting End-of-Life Care which require all palliative care homes to provide "medical aid in dying." The Archdiocese operates a 12-bed palliative care home in Montreal. The full text of the complaint in Les Oeuvres de Charite de L'Archeveque Catholique Romain de Montreal v. Procureur General du Quebec, (Couer Superieure, filed Feb. 2, 2024) is available only in French. An English Language Press Release from the Archdiocese describes the lawsuit in part::

To our profound dismay, the amendment to the Act respecting end-of-life care and other legislative provisions, SQ 2023, c. 15 (the new Act), effective since December 7, 2023, has regretfully prohibited palliative care homes from excluding "medical aid in dying" from their services.  

A consequence of this new law is that actions we find morally unacceptable may now occur on our property.....  

In essence, the Appeal is simply seeking permission for palliative care homes, similar to health professionals, to "refuse to administer medical aid in dying based on their personal convictions and [to] refuse to participate in its administration for the same reason."  

We strongly believe that by mandating all palliative care homes to provide "medical aid in dying" without considering their mission, values, and the support of their community, the new law significantly undermines the exercise of the right to freedom of religion and conscience, as well as the right to the peaceful enjoyment and free disposal of one's property, guaranteed by the Canadian Charter and the Quebec Charter.   

Palliative care homes, given that they operate as community organizations and not public institutions, should retain the ability to define their own mission and the services they are willing to offer, as was the practice until recently....

Canadian Press reports on the lawsuit.

Suit By Christian Ministry Says Quebec Wrongly Cancelled Its Use of Convention Center

In Canada, suit was filed last week in a Quebec trial court by the Christian organization Harvest Ministries International challenging the province's cancellation of the organization's contract reserving the Quebec City Convention Centre for its Faith, Fire and Freedom Rally.  According to the Motion to Institute Proceedings (full text) in Harvest Ministries International v. Proulx, (Quebec Dist. Ct., filed 8/2/2023), the reservation was cancelled because Harvest Ministries anti-abortion views contradict Quebec's fundamental principles, even though the Rally itself was not an anti-abortion event.  The suit alleges that the cancellation violates Harvest Ministries' freedom of religion, expression and assembly and its right equality protected by Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It seeks damages of $212,000. The Justice Centre For Constitutional Freedoms issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Canadian Court Says Tai Chi Institute Is A Religious Institution

In Fung Loy Kok Taoism Institute v. City of Montreal, (Quebec Super. Ct., Sept. 20, 2021), a Canadian trial court in Quebec held that a Taoist Tai chi Institute is entitled to an exemption from property, municipal and school taxes. The court's 50-page opinion includes a lengthy discussion of what constitutes a "religion". Summarizing its ultimate conclusion on the tax issues, the court says in part:

These ... requests ... raise two major questions: what is a religion? What is a religious institution?....

... [S]hould Taoist Tai chi , as practiced, taught and disseminated in Canada by the Chinese monk Moy Lin-Shin ("master Moy"), be regarded as a religion in its own right rather than for proper gymnastics to promote internal balance and health?

... The Fung Loy Kok Institute of Taoism ... which offers classes or sessions of tai chi for a monetary contribution from the participants, does it qualify as a religious institution within the meaning of the law allowing it to benefit in Quebec from an exemption from property taxes? ...

At the end of its analysis, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that both the first and the second of these two questions must be answered in the affirmative.

Windsor Star reports on the decision.

Canadian Trial Court Upholds Most Applications of Quebec's Ban On Officials Wearing Religious Symbols

In Hak v. Attorney General of Quebec, (Que. Super. Ct., April 20, 2021), a Quebec (Canada) Superior Court judge in a 240-page opinion upheld, with two important exceptions, Bill 21 which prohibits a lengthy list of public officials, law enforcement and judicial officials as well as teachers from wearing religious symbols in the exercise of their official functions. (See prior posting.) Here is CBC News' summary of the decision:

Quebec's secularism law violates the basic rights of religious minorities in the province, but those violations are permissible because of the Constitution's notwithstanding clause, a Superior Court judge ruled on Tuesday.

But the ruling by Justice Marc-André Blanchard also declared that the most contentious parts of the law — the religious symbols ban for many government employees — can't be applied to English schools.

The desire of English school boards to foster diversity by choosing who they hire is protected by the minority-language education rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Blanchard said in his decision.

Crucially, that section of the charter (23) is not covered by the notwithstanding clause....

Blanchard also ruled that members of the province's National Assembly can't be forced to provide services to the public with their faces uncovered.

In other words, MNAs are allowed to wear religious symbols that cover their faces, such as a niqab, in accordance with the section of the charter that guarantees every citizen the right to be eligible to vote and be a member of the legislature.

Quebec's Justice Minister says that an appeal is planned. Montreal Gazette and the New York Times also analyze the decision.

Court Says Quebec Worship Limits Apply To Capacity for Each Room

Canadian Lawyer reports on a decision interpreting Quebec's COVID-19 limits on indoor worship services:

Current restrictions on indoor religious gatherings in Montreal means that a maximum of 10 people may congregate in each room of a house of worship, as long as each has a separate entrance or access to the street, the Quebec Superior Court of Justice has ruled in interpreting public health regulations during COVID-19.

Superior Court Justice Chantal Masse’s decision on Feb. 5 ended the legal battle of the Quebec Council of Hasidic Jews and several Jewish congregations, which successfully argued the 10-person limit per synagogue was unacceptable and violated freedom of religion....

Appeals Court Refuses Temporary Injunction Against Quebec's Secularism Act

In Hak v. Attorney General of Quebec, (Quebec Ct. App., Dec. 12, 2019) (full text of opinion in French), the Quebec Court of Appeal, by a 2-1 vote, upheld a trial court's refusal to issue a temporary injunction against the enforcement of two provisions of the Secularism Act (Bill 21). The sections at issue bar teachers, as well as various other public employees and officials, from wearing religious symbols in carrying out their official duties, and prohibit various public employees from carrying out their functions with their face covered. The individual plaintiff in the case who is about to graduate as a teacher wants to wear her hijab while teaching French in an English elementary or high school.

Judge Belanger refused to grant the temporary injunction, saying in part:

What the Attorney General invokes in this case and with reason, that is the presumption that the legislation addresses the common good . At this stage of the proceedings, the Court must assume that the Act serves a valid public purpose. Unless it is clear that the law enacted is not intended to serve a public purpose, the courts must take it for granted.

It follows from this principle that the courts will not suspend legislation passed by a legislature without having made a full constitutional review. Accordingly, suspension orders are only issued in clear cases.

We must recognize that we are not in a clear case where we can say right now that the Act is unconstitutional, despite the presence of serious issues.

Judge Mainville would likewise refuse a temporary injunction, saying in part:

[W]hen, as here, questions arise about the relationship between the state and religions, on which deep differences may reasonably exist within a free and democratic society, there is a need for courts to act with caution and circumspection because of the diversity of approaches to these issues and the difficulty of forming a uniform understanding of the meaning of religion in society. The role and impact of religion in society, as well as the forms of public expression of religious belief, are not the same in different times and contexts. They vary according to changing sociological and ideological factors, national traditions and demands imposed by the protection of the rights and freedoms of others and the maintenance of public order in a given society. The conception of the religious symbolism and its place in the public space are not perceived in the same way by each society.The State Secularism Act is a striking example in Canada.

It should therefore be noted that many of the issues relating to the wearing of religious symbols by police officers, teachers, principals and judicial personnel in Quebec - including the legal issues that arise - are complex and do not lend themselves to summary analyzes on the basis of piecemeal evidence, as the appellants ask us to do in this case.....

At this stage of the judicial proceedings, a suspension of sections 6 and 8 of the State Secularity Act can not be contemplated since the Court must presume that the public interest is served by the maintenance in force of these provisions given the presumption of constitutional validity. 

Chief Justice Hesler would have granted a temporary injunction, saying in part:

To sum up, it appears at this stage that the risk of suffering irreparable harm has materialized for certain teachers, all of whom are women, who aspired to a career in teaching. The prejudice will remain for the others who, not wishing to abandon the wearing of a religious sign, will have to give up their choice of career, or even move out of Quebec....

Without prejudging the fate of the appeal, which will be heard in October 2020, it is better to uphold respect for fundamental rights during the proceedings, considering the obligation on the courts to enforce these rights, rather than to deprive people of their fundamental rights, even for a limited time. [All English translations are via Google Translate].

Montreal Gazette reports on the decision.

Suit Filed Against Quebec's Ban On Public Employees Wearing Religious Symbols

AP reported yesterday that in the Canadian province of Quebec, another lawsuit has been filed challenging Bill 21. The law, passed earlier this year, prohibits a lengthy list of public officials, law enforcement and judicial officials as well as teachers from wearing religious symbols in the exercise of their official functions. A grandfather clause exempts most current officials and employees. (See prior posting.) This suit was brought by Fédération Autonome de l'Enseignement, a union representing 45,000 teachers.  Challengers claim the law not only violates freedom of religion, but also equality rights because its main impact is on teachers, 75% of whom are women.

Quebec Court Refuses To Enjoin Law Barring Officials From Wearing Religious Symbols

In Hak v. National Council of Canadian Muslims, (Quebec Super. Ct.., July 9, 2019) [opinion in French], a Quebec trial court refused to issue a temporary injunction against enforcement of the province's new law that prohibits a lengthy list of public officials, law enforcement and judicial officials as well as teachers from wearing religious symbols in the exercise of their official functions. (See prior posting.) According to CBC News:

The government hoped to shield the law from constitutional challenges by invoking the notwithstanding clause; meaning critics can't appeal to the fundamental freedoms section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to get it struck down....

At several points in his decision, [Judge] Yergeau said the injunction request had a steeper hill to climb because the civil society groups couldn't argue the law violated fundamental freedoms protected by the charter.

"The plaintiffs had no other choice for success than to base themselves on purely constitutional arguments, as opposed to Charter arguments, whose validity remains uncertain," the decision reads....

He noted, in particular, the arguments that the law trampled on federal jurisdiction and violated minority rights had enough merit to warrant further consideration by the courts.

But he also said claims that the law had caused irreparable harm were "purely hypothetical and often speculative" given the motion filed so quickly after it was passed.

Quebec Enacts Ban On Public Employees Wearing Religious Symbols

On June 16 in Canada, Quebec's Parliament passed and the Lieutenant Governor signed (legislative history) Bill 21 (full text as introduced; adopted amendments), a controversial law that prohibits a lengthy list of public officials, law enforcement and judicial officials as well as teachers from wearing religious symbols in the exercise of their official functions. A grandfather clause exempts most current officials and employees. However it prohibits any other accommodations from being granted under the law. The new law also requires an extensive list of public employees to carry out their functions with their face uncovered. It also requires persons who seek public services to present themselves with their face uncovered if necessary for identification or security. Parliament invoked the "notwithstanding clause" of the Canadian Constitution to prevent constitutional challenges.

The new law additionally sets out broader principles of secularism for the province:

CHAPTER I: AFFIRMATION OF THE LAICITY OF THE STATE

1. The State of Québec is a lay State.

2. The laicity of the State is based on the following principles: (1) the separation of State and religions; (2) the religious neutrality of the State; (3) the equality of all citizens; and (4) freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

The new law also amends Sec. 9.1 of Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to  to add "State laicity" as one of the permissible factors to consider in limiting freedoms.  Montreal Gazette reports on the legislation. Chatelaine summarizes the new law and its enactment:

After a long debate, the bill was passed at 10:30 p.m. on June 16 with support from the Parti Québécois. The Quebec Liberal Party and Québec Solidaire voted against the bill. Bill 21 formally bans teachers, police officers, judges and many others from wearing items like hijabs, turbans, kippas, and crucifixes in the course of their duties. It also doubles down on pre-existing legislation that requires citizens to uncover their faces when accessing public services like municipal transit and the legal system.

One day after the law was enacted, the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Civil Liberties Union filed suit to declare the law invalid and to obtain an interim order staying its operation while the litigation is pending.  The complaint (full text) in Hak v. Attorney General of Quebec, (Quebec Super. Ct., file 6/17/2019), contends that the law exceeds the powers of the province, is impermissibly vague and contravenes the "internal architecture" of the Canadian Constitution. CTV News reports on the lawsuit.

Canadian Court Certifies Class In Sex Abuse Suit Against Jehovah's Witnesses

In Canada in a class action lawsuit against two Jehovah's Witness entities, a Quebec Superior Court has approved the certification of a class consisting of current or former Jehovah's Witnesses who allege they were sexually assaulted as minors in Quebec by either an elder of the religious group or a fellow member. As reported by CTV News, plaintiffs allege failure to protect and efforts to dissuade reporting to police authorities. A Jehovah's Witnesses spokesman said that the organization reports abuse allegations to authorities as required by the Youth Protection Act.

Canadian Suit Challenges Failure of Hasidic Schools To Follow Provincial Curriculum

CBC reports that a trial date has been set for a year from now in a case filed in 2015 challenging the failure of Hasidic Jewish schools to comply with the curriculum set by education authorities in the Canadian province of Quebec. Plaintiff Yohanen Lowen and his wife Shifra allege that when Yohanen graduated high school at age 18, he could barely add and subtract, he could not read and write in English or French, and he was unequipped to find employment. The lawsuit was brought against both the Quebec Education Ministry and Hasidic schools in a secluded ultra-Orthodox community near Montreal.

Quebec Appellate Court Allows Litigant To Wear Hijab In Courtroom

A Canadian appellate court has upheld the right of a litigant to wear a hijab in the courtroom.  In El-Alloul v. Attorney General of Quebec, (QCCA, Oct. 3, 2018), the Quebec Court of Appeals held:

[72] Contrary to what the trial judge decided, the provisions of the Regulation of the Court of Québec dealing with the dress code do not prohibit a litigant from wearing a religious head scarf (hijab) in a courtroom when that practice results from a sincerely-held religious belief. It is only where that practice could conflict with an overriding public interest, such as another person’s constitutional rights, that a court may restrict it in a courtroom environment. The provisions of the Regulation of the Court of Québec dealing with court attire, in and of themselves, do not express such an overriding public interest sufficient to restrict the constitutional right to freedom of religious expression....

[91] ... [I]t is not necessary for a trial judge to test the sincerity of religious beliefs and practices each time someone appears in a courtroom wearing religious garments, particularly where such garments are well-known, such as a hijab for a Muslim woman, a Roman collar for a Catholic priest, a kippa for an orthodox Jew, etc. This is also the case for those litigants wearing a pendant or other suitable religious jewelry. Where the religious practice is well known and understood, there is rarely a need to proceed to an inquiry. As rightly noted by Justice Iacobucci in Syndicat Northcrest v. Anselem:  “an intrusive government inquiry into the nature of a claimant’s beliefs would in itself threaten the values of religious liberty”....

[93] Of course, from time to time, there may occur situations which warrant further inquiry; it is incumbent on trial judges to identify these situations by using common sense. An example is the full facial covering, such as the niqab, which raises issues related to the proper identification of litigants, the proper assessment of the credibility of witnesses and the fairness of the judicial proceedings.... 

Lawyer's Daily reports on the decision.

Quebec Court: Muslim Community Center Is Not "House of Worship"

The Globe and Mail reported yesterday that a Quebec Superior Court judge has ruled that a Muslim community center in a Montreal suburb is not a "house of worship". The city of Mascouche attempted to shut down the community center in a strip shopping mall on the ground that under zoning rules "houses of worship" are not permitted in the area. A room in the community center was used by men for prayer. The court said however that "prayers can be uttered in all places and not exclusively in a place of worship."

Suit Challenges Quebec's New Anti-Niqab Law

As announced by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, a suit was filed in a Quebec Superior Court yesterday challenging the constitutionality of Sec. 10 of Quebec's recently enacted Religious Neutrality Law (see prior posting).  The law provides that public sector employees in carrying out their functions may not cover their faces, and that private citizens must have their faces uncovered when receiving public services.  The complaint (full text) in National Council of Canadian Muslims v. Attorney General of Quebec, (Que. Super., filed 11/7/2017) contends that Sec. 10 of the violates freedom of religion and equality protections of the Quebec and Canadian Charters of Rights and Freedoms.  It asserts that the Act's requirement particularly impacts Muslim women.

Quebec Enacts New Religious Neutrality Law

In Canada in Wednesday, Quebec's National Assembly passed Bill 62 (full text) which is designed to assure that those providing government services, including subsidized educational institutions, adhere to principles of religious neutrality.  Exceptions in the Act include those engaged in religious instruction in universities, or to prison or university chaplains.  In a section aimed at burqas, the Act bans both those furnishing government services, and those receiving them, from doing so with their face covered, though accommodations are possible. A UPI report on the new law suggests that it will prevent Muslim women who wear the burqa from visiting libraries or riding public buses.  The Act also provides criteria for granting religious accommodations to public employees. Among other things, any accommodation must be "consistent with the right for equality between women and men," and may "not compromise the principle of State religious neutrality." [Thanks to Scott Mange and Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Quebec Tribunal Finds Discrimination When Jewish Owner Enforces Jewish Practice On Jewish Employees

In Canada, Quebec's Tribunal for Human Rights in a decision last month held that the Jewish owner of a hair salon violated the religious rights of a Jewish employee when she decided that none of the Jewish employees should work on Saturdays, the Jewish Sabbath.  Hair stylist  Richard Zilberg wanted to include Saturdays in his 6-day work week since this was the busiest day of the week, but Spa Liv Zen owner Iris Gressy prohibited it. Zilberg was fired after he revealed to a client the reason he was no longer available on Saturdays.  In Commission on Human Rights and Youth Rights v. 9220-3454 Quebec, Inc., (QCTDP, June 27, 2017), the Tribunal held that this violated Zilberg's rights under Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to equality in employment, freedom of conscience and religion, and dignity and respect for his private life.  According to the Tribunal:

[Zilberg] stated that the Defendants’ decision amounted to a hurtful determination of how he should practice his religion. He felt outraged that the Defendants could ... impose upon him a religious practice that violates his rights to freedom of conscience and religion.

... [H]e felt no less true to his faith because, for various personal reasons, he did not conform to the religious practice of observing the Sabbath; he in fact celebrated other important Jewish holidays with his family.

... Consequently, the interdiction to work on Saturdays imposed upon Mr. Zilberg genuinely affected him as he practiced his religion according to his own personal values.

The Tribunal awarded Zilberg $6,006 in material damages and $4,000 for the moral prejudice he suffered, and $2,500 in punitive damages. Neither Cressy nor her business contested the claims against them and neither were present at the Tribunal hearing. Canadian Press this week reported on the decision.

Canadian Clergy Sex Abuse Class Action Settled For $30 Milliion

The National Post reports that a court in Quebec has approved a $30 million settlement-- the largest in a clergy sex abuse case in Quebec history.  The case-- a class action brought in 2012-- alleged that at least 60 deaf students at the Catholic Church-run Montreal Institute for the Deaf (a boy's boarding school) were abused between 1940 and 1982. The suit named 28 members of the Clercs de St. Viateur du Canada and 6 lay people working at the school as offenders.

Canada's Supreme Court Says Quebec Catholic School Should Be Allowed Modified Religious Culture Program

In Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), (Sup Ct Canada, March 19, 2015), Canada's Supreme Court  held that the Quebec Minister of Education's refusal to grant an exemption to allow Loyola, an English-speaking Jesuit high school, to adopt an alternative to the mandated Program on Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) infringes the school's religious freedom more than is necessary to carry out the objectives of the ERC requirement.  The mandated ERC program has 3 components: religious culture, ethics and dialogue. The government insisted that all these parts be taught from a neutral perspective.  Loyola wanted to offer an alternative course taught from the perspective of Catholic beliefs and ethics. As summarized by the Court, the majority of 4 justices held that the case should be remanded to the Minister of Education in light of the following principles:

In the Quebec context, where private denominational schools are legal, preventing a school like Loyola from teaching and discussing Catholicism from its own perspective does little to further the ERC Program’s objectives while at the same time seriously interfering with religious freedom. The Minister’s decision suggests that engagement with an individual’s own religion on his or her own terms can be presumed to impair respect for others. This assumption led the Minister to a decision that does not, overall, strike a proportionate balance between the Charter  protections and statutory objectives at stake in this case.

That said, the Minister is not required to permit Loyola to teach about the ethics of other religions from a Catholic perspective. The risk of such an approach would be that other religions would necessarily be seen not as differently legitimate belief systems, but as worthy of respect only to the extent that they aligned with the tenets of Catholicism. This contradicts the ERC Program’s goals of ensuring respect for different religious beliefs. In a multicultural society, it is not a breach of anyone’s freedom of religion to be required to learn (or teach) about the doctrines and ethics of other world religions in a neutral and respectful way. In a religious high school, where students are learning about the precepts of one particular faith throughout their education, it is arguably even more important that they learn, in as objective a way as possible, about other belief systems and the reasons underlying those beliefs.

Three justices in a separate opinion argued that the Court should grant the exemption and fashion a remedy, saying:

Loyola’s teachers must be permitted to describe and explain Catholic doctrine and ethical beliefs from the Catholic perspective. Loyola’s teachers must describe and explain the ethical beliefs and doctrines of other religions in an objective and respectful way. Loyola’s teachers must maintain a respectful tone of debate, but where the context of the classroom discussion requires it, they may identify what Catholic beliefs are, why Catholics follow those beliefs, and the ways in which other ethical or doctrinal propositions do not accord with those beliefs.

 Orangeville Banner reports on the decision.

Wearing Hijab In Canadian Courtroom Stirs Controversy

Wearing of the hijab (Muslim head scarf) in the courtroom has become an issue of controversy in the Canadian province of Quebec.  CBC News reports that when Montreal area resident Rania El-Alloul appeared in court on Feb. 24 in an attempt to recover her auto which had been seized by the Quebec automobile insurance board, Judge Eliana Marengo refused to hear her testimony unless she would remove her hijab.  The judge's action stirred widespread criticism, and those sympathizing with El-Alloul even began on online crowdfunding effort to raise funds for a new car for her. While the effort has raised nearly $44,000, El-Alloul may not be able to take the funds or the car it will buy without losing her entitlement to welfare.  Meanwhile, another Montreal resident has filed a complaint about Judge Marengo's action with the Conseil de la magistrature du Québec (the Quebec Judicial Council) which has the authority to investigate and impose sanctions on provincial judges.

Canadian Trial Court Awards Damages Against Religious Order In Sex Abuse Class Action

According to Canadian Press, a Quebec trial court ruled yesterday that the Catholic order of priests, the Redemptorist Order, is liable in a class action to all sexual assault victims who attended Saint-Alphonse Seminary in Quebec City between 1960 and 1987. Nine priests are also named in the suit, but 6 of them are dead and the other 3 say they are living in poverty.  Under the court's verdict, each victim will receive at least $75,000, and some will receive $150,000.  So far, 70 former students have have filed alleging they were abuse victims.