Balvir Singh Multani and his son, Gurbaj Singh Multani, are orthodox Sikhs.
After review, the Commission scolaire decided that Gurbaj could not wear the kirpan to school, no matter how it was secured. In a unanimous ruling the Supreme Court of Canada upholds the decision of a Board of Inquiry which ruled that the Board of School Trustees, District No.
15 discriminated with respect to a public service because it failed to take appropriate action against a teacher, Malcolm Ross, who made repeated public attacks on Jewish people.
The Court rejects the respondents’ argument that the duty to accommodate is a rule is inappropriate for the Canadian social context.
On the first issue, therefore, the Supreme Court finds that the B. Council of Human Rights did not err when it found that there was a duty on the respondents to accommodate Mr. The Court then considers the nature of the duty to accommodate and what obligations that duty imposes on a trade union.
Despite extraordinary successes, the Canadian commitment to multiculturalism is being tested in unexpected ways.
A resurgence of orthodoxy in Christianity, Islam and Judaism is sharpening lines of division between “them” and “us.” Canadians are uncertain about what limits, if any, there are to embedding diverse religious as well as cultural traditions within the Canadian context.This page contains summaries of some of the most important cases published in C. A kirpan is a metal dagger, which symbolizes virtue and honour. They believe that their religion requires them to wear a kirpan at all times., which narrowly construed the practices constituting "advancing religion" in the charitable sense, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a landmark 5-4 ruling in Syndicat Northcrest v. Under the terms of the Sanctuaire's by-laws in the declaration of ownership, the balconies of individual units, although "common portions" of the immovable, were nonetheless "reserved to the exclusive use" of the co-owners of the units to which they were attached. He concluded that the goal of establishing restrictions was rationally linked to the goal of administering the building and that restrictions had been enacted on the basis of a bona fide belief they were necessary to fulfil its mandate. The Appellants, all Orthodox Jews, owners of condominium units in Place Northcrest, two luxury buildings forming part of a larger complex in Montreal, Le Sanctuaire du Mont-Royal (the "Sanctuaire"). The employer must show that no reasonable alternative to the discriminatory rule was possible.