Legal Cases
Dealing with Discrimination | Legal Cases | Sikh MPs | Sikh MLAs/MPPs
LEGAL CASES – SELECTED CANADIAN JURISPRUDENCE
Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, 2006 SCC 6 (CanLII)
Supreme Court of Canada decision allowing the wearing of kirpans in public schools by Sikh students. The decision was unanimous. The SCC held that there was no evidence that the kirpan posed a safety risk. (WSO participated as Interveners)
Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47 (CanLII)
Case regarding a condominium restricting the building of succah huts on balconies by Jewish owners. At issue was the appropriate test to be applied when determining the “sincerity of belief”, and whether expert evidence was necessary to establish this belief. The Supreme Court of Canada held that a claimant need not show some sort of objective religious obligation, requirement or precept to invoke freedom of religion (ie. expert evidence was not required to invoke freedom of religion). (WSO participated as Intervenors)
Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys v. Singh Multani, 2004 CanLII 31405 (QC C.A.)
Decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal overturning the lower court decision, and prohibiting the kirpan in Quebec schools for safety reasons. The Decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. (WSO participated as Interveners)
Singh Multani c. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeois, 2002 CanLII 473 (QC C.S)
Quebec Superior Court decision upholding an agreement allowing Gurbaj Singh Multani to wear his kirpan to school. The decision was appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal
Nijjar v. Canada 3000 Airlines Ltd., 1999 CanLII 4313 (C.H.R.T.)
Tribunal decision allowing airlines to place restrictions on the kirpan onboard airplanes. The Tribunal held that a kirpan which had a “greater potential for injury than the eating utensils used on board the aircraft” could be prohibited.
Dhillon v. British Columbia (Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Motor Vehicle Branch), [1999] B.C.H.R.T.D. No. 25
A BC Human Rights Tribunal decision allowing Sikh motorcyclists to wear the turban while riding, and exempting them from helmet requirements.
Case not available online; please contact your local law library for a copy, or contact the WSO
Grant et al. v. Attorney General (Canada)[1995] 1 F.C. 158 (F.C.A.)
On appeal from the Trial Division. The Court of Appeal found that the Trial Judge was correct in concluding that there was no infringement of the Charter in allowing the RCMP to accommodate the turban. The Court found that upholding the turban regulation was accommodating the right to freedom of religion. (WSO participated as interveners) Grant et al. v. Attorney General (Canada ) [1995] S.C.C.A. No. 394 Case not available online; please contact your local law library for a copy, or contact WSO
The Plaintiffs sought leave to appeal the Court of Appeal decision. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed without reasons and with costs.
Case not available online; please contact your local law library for a copy, or contact WSO
Grant v. Canada ( Attorney General ) ( T.D. ), 1994 CanLII 3507 (F.C.)
A challenge by ex-RCMP officers to the RCMP’s accommodation of the turban in the RCMP uniform. The Trial Judge upheld the right of the RCMP to accommodate the turban. (WSO participated as Intervenors)
Peel Board of Education v. Pandori (1991) 3 O.R. (3d) 531 (Div. Ct.);
This case upheld the right of Sikh students and teachers to wear kirpans in public school classrooms in Ontario.
Case not available online; please contact your local law library for a copy, or contact the WSO
Bhinder v. CN, 1985 CanLII 19 (S.C.C.)
Supreme Court of Canada Decision regarding the requirement for CN employees to wear hard hats. Mr. Bhinder refused to wear a hard hat over his turban. The Court ruled that this was a bona fide occupational requirement. There was a strong dissent by Chief Justice Dickson and the future Chief Justice Lamer.