CLF intervenes after government denies space for faith gathering due to disagreement with religious beliefs
When, if ever, can the government deny equal services to citizens based solely on their constitutionally protected religious beliefs or opinions? The Christian Legal Fellowship submits that the answer is straightforward: never.
On June 2, 2023, less than three weeks before a scheduled religious conference, the Quebec Minister of Tourism abruptly cancelled a lease between Harvest Ministries International and the Société du Centre des Congrès du Québec for the use of the Centre to hold the event.
The Minister ordered the cancellation because she profoundly disagreed with religious opinions the Plaintiff had previously expressed regarding the sanctity of human life, including pre-born human life. Even though the conference was hosted by a private religious group (and was not even related to the subject of abortion), the government insisted that allowing a group with pro-life opinions at the Centre would have been incompatible with their “resolutely pro-choice” values.
The cancellation of a contract for a conference centre may seem a relatively small or private matter, but CLF recognizes that more is at stake in this case. If the government can treat an applicant unfairly based on his or her lawful religious beliefs and practices, and if such treatment prevails, it is to the detriment of every other Canadian whose beliefs may, today or in the future, be deemed ‘controversial’ by those who happen to be in power. This cannot stand in a free and democratic society that constitutionally cherishes both freedom and equality.
CLF was granted leave to intervene as a friend of the court to submit pleadings on important constitutional questions, each of which CLF and its members have developed considerable legal expertise and scholarship on:
1. The right to equality without discrimination based on religion
2. Freedom of religiously informed opinions
3. Freedom of peaceful assembly
Government action cannot violate equality rights
CLF’s factum explains that, under our Constitution, the use of public spaces must not be conditional on groups adhering to government-approved views, beliefs, or opinions. Where a government controls access to a public space in a way that effectively excludes applicants based on their (constitutionally protected) religious opinions, it is presumptively unconstitutional, and the onus is on the government to demonstrate that its actions are justified in a free and democratic society.
Contrary to the Charter’s guarantee of equality, the government’s decision has penalized members of a religious community based solely on one of their defining characteristics: their sincere religious beliefs about the sanctity of life. An arbitrary distinction was made between religious citizens who hold a particular and sincere belief and other citizens who do not. And in making this decision, the government imposed a burden, normalizing a discriminatory view that individuals holding such religious convictions do not belong in public spaces. This harms every person who shares those beliefs.
This decision also deprived Harvest Ministries (and every individual who is associated with their program) of a benefit available to others: the use of a public space for a lawful event to pursue a constitutionally protected activity (religious assembly). This is an affront not only to the rights of the individual members of the community represented by the Plaintiff, but also to the rights of any individual who shares the same beliefs, including those of other religions.
Government action cannot violate freedom of opinion
The decision to unilaterally cancel the rental contract also sends a clear message that people who hold certain opinions (lawful though they may be) can be penalized and marginalized simply for holding that opinion. Worse, it patronizes all members of Quebec society by attempting to suppress a lawful opinion, undermining society’s right to hear contrary opinions and to weigh those opinions for themselves.
Relying on scholarship developed out of our past symposiums, CLF argues that freedom of opinion is a discrete guarantee that protects unique interests. And, because it protects one’s inner freedom to pursue ideas and personal convictions, it may warrant even greater protection than external freedoms like freedom of expression.
The effect of the government’s decision was not just to suppress the future expression of a particular opinion but to penalize a group simply for certain opinions they expressed in the past. Punishing citizens for previously-expressed opinions is anathema to the principles of a free and democratic society, which demand not only the freedom to hold unpopular opinions, but to disseminate them, “however unpopular, distasteful or contrary to the mainstream”, so they can be critically examined and tested in society’s collective search for truth. (Irwin Toy, p 968; Ward, para 60). The government has no right to invoke its public power for the sole purpose of suppressing opinions it disagrees with. Both the Quebec Charter and the Canadian Charter ensure the freedom of individuals and associations to maintain their own opinions – not just those espoused by the state.
Government action cannot contravene freedom of peaceful assembly
Freedom of assembly is necessary for groups like Harvest Ministries and their members to exercise their freedom of religion, expression, and opinion. Thus, the government’s cancellation of the contract also engages the fundamental freedom of peaceful assembly which protects the right to physically and peacefully gather, as a group, for a collective purpose, including religious worship and observance.
Gathering as a group is an important activity that is constitutionally protected in its own right. As Prof. Jamie Cameron has written, “the Charter’s guarantee of peaceful assembly is grounded in its own conception of freedom that is collective, spatial, and performative in nature. …the act of assembling is the relevant constitutional event, and the value of it inheres in and attaches to the assembly, qua assembly.”
The necessity of protecting freedom of assembly has been demonstrated by efforts throughout history to restrict gatherings in efforts to isolate individuals, particularly minorities, from finding strength and support in numbers. Police raids that broke up prayer meetings and bible studies of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the 1940’s are just one example. The constitutional guarantee of freedom of peaceful assembly demands that these injustices never occur again, which is why a government interference with a peaceful assembly based on the beliefs of the assembled group is a highly dangerous precedent.
If today’s government can interfere with the gatherings of one religious group, tomorrow’s governments could prohibit gatherings of different minority groups based solely on ideological disapproval. This is why freedom of assembly is such an important democratic protection, and is necessary to empower “groups whose members’ individual voices may be all too easily drowned out” (Mounted Police, para 55).
Government action must be constitutionally justified
Charter violations must be justified by state actors under section 1 of the Charter. The Oakes test requires that a law or government action be in pursuit of “a pressing and substantial objective.” CLF argues that the censure or disapprobation of a lawful opinion cannot be a pressing and substantial objective.
CLF’s arguments have now been filed with the Superior Court in Quebec. You can read both a French version and an English translation below. We are very thankful for the team at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP in Montreal for their able assistance on this file, and look forward to presenting oral arguments in Quebec City in November of next year.
CLF will continue to advocate for the fundamental freedoms of all Canadians to worship without undue state interference, and to be treated as full and equal participants in Canadian life.
Read CLF/ACD's factum below:
Official version:
Unofficial English translation:
(Click the “[ ]” icon to enable full screen mode)