Conflict of Rights: Difference between revisions
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==[http://canlii.ca/t/1jdhv Reference re Same-Sex Marriage, 2004 SCC 79 (CanLII), (2004) 3 SCR 698]== | ==[http://canlii.ca/t/1jdhv Reference re Same-Sex Marriage, 2004 SCC 79 (CanLII), (2004) 3 SCR 698]== | ||
50 This leaves the issue of whether the Proposed Act will create an impermissible collision of rights. <b><u>The potential for a collision of rights does not necessarily imply unconstitutionality.</b></u> The collision between rights must be approached on the contextual facts of actual conflicts. The first question is whether the rights alleged to conflict can be reconciled: Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers, | 50 This leaves the issue of whether the Proposed Act will create an impermissible collision of rights. <b><u>The potential for a collision of rights does not necessarily imply unconstitutionality.</b></u> The collision between rights must be approached on the contextual facts of actual conflicts. The first question is whether the rights alleged to conflict can be reconciled: [http://canlii.ca/t/dmd Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers, (2001) 1 S.C.R. 772, 2001 SCC 31, at para. 29]. <b><u>Where the rights cannot be reconciled, a true conflict of rights is made out. In such cases, the Court will find a limit on religious freedom and go on to balance the interests at stake under s. 1 of the Charter</b></u>: [http://canlii.ca/t/1frbr Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15, 1996 CanLII 237 (SCC), (1996) 1 S.C.R. 825, at paras. 73-74]. In both steps, <b><u>the Court must proceed on the basis that the Charter does not create a hierarchy of rights</b></u> ([http://canlii.ca/t/1frnq Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., 1994 CanLII 39 (SCC), (1994) 3 S.C.R. 835, at p. 877]) and that the right to religious freedom enshrined in s. 2(a) of the Charter is expansive. |
Revision as of 18:43, 5 May 2020
Reference re Same-Sex Marriage, 2004 SCC 79 (CanLII), (2004) 3 SCR 698
50 This leaves the issue of whether the Proposed Act will create an impermissible collision of rights. The potential for a collision of rights does not necessarily imply unconstitutionality. The collision between rights must be approached on the contextual facts of actual conflicts. The first question is whether the rights alleged to conflict can be reconciled: Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers, (2001) 1 S.C.R. 772, 2001 SCC 31, at para. 29. Where the rights cannot be reconciled, a true conflict of rights is made out. In such cases, the Court will find a limit on religious freedom and go on to balance the interests at stake under s. 1 of the Charter: Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15, 1996 CanLII 237 (SCC), (1996) 1 S.C.R. 825, at paras. 73-74. In both steps, the Court must proceed on the basis that the Charter does not create a hierarchy of rights (Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., 1994 CanLII 39 (SCC), (1994) 3 S.C.R. 835, at p. 877) and that the right to religious freedom enshrined in s. 2(a) of the Charter is expansive.