Bernard 1

Meshach Bernard 

Mr. Paolillo

CLN4U1-01

13,April 2022

Multani v. Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys [2006] SCC 256

Facts :

Balvir Singh Multani, in his role as father to his minor son, Gurbaj Singh Multani, is the

plaintiff in this case. Gurbaj Singh Multani and his father are both orthodox Sikhs. Gurbaj Singh,

who was baptised in 1989, feels that wearing a kirpan at all times is a requirement of his faith.

Gurbaj Singh accidentally dropped the kirpan he was carrying beneath his clothing in the yard of

the school he was attending, École Sainte Catherine Laboure, on November 19, 2001. The

principal sent Gurbaj home, and Multani's parents and the school tried for weeks to come to an

arrangement before the school finally consented to let their child wear the religious symbol.

Gurbaj was allowed to bring his kirpan to school if he followed certain rules, such as hiding it

beneath his clothes. The school's governing body argues that it was in breach of article 5 of the

school's code of conduct, which barred the carrying of weapons and dangerous objects. Multani's

parents were told that their son might only carry a kirpan made of non-metal materials that were

considered safe. Multani then filed a case to the superior court of justice. On May 17, 2002, the

Superior Court granted Mr. Multani's request for a declaratory judgement, declaring the council

of commissioners' decision unlawful and enabling Gurbaj Singh to wear his kirpan under certain

conditions. The case was then taken to the Quebec court of appeal, which rejected the ruling of

the superior court of justice and decided in the judgement of the council of commissioners. The
 Bernard 2

lawyer for the Multani family took their case to the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that

the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision infringed on the Gurbaj's freedom of religion.

Issues:

The issue involves a dispute between two parties, Gurbaj Singh Multani and the Scolarie

Marguerite-Bourgeoys commission. To begin, the plaintiff Gurbaj claims that the decision

infringes on a few of his basic rights, including section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights

and Freedoms, which states, "freedom of conscience and religion," and section 3 of the Quebec

Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which declares, "Every individual is the proprietor of

fundamental freedoms, including freedom of conscience, religion, opinion, and expression, as

well as freedom of peaceful assembly and association." The plaintiff contends that his kirpan is

an important religious symbol, that the Sikh religion teaches nonviolence and encourages

compassion for other religions, also that kirpan must be worn at all times and that it should not

be used as a weapon to endanger others. Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, on the other hand,

argues that Gurbaj Multani has violated their rules and section 5 of the code of conduct.

According to the respondents, the presence of kirpans at schools enhances the likelihood of them

being utilised for violent purposes, either by those who carry them or by other students who may

violently remove them.

Decision:

The Supreme Court concluded the case by declaring that Gurbaj Singh's religious

freedom was clearly violated under sections 2(a) and 15 of the Canadian Charter of rights and

freedom . The suggestion of someone taking the kirpan had been brought up by the committee.
 Bernard 3

According to the Supreme Court, such a heist would be extraordinarily unusual because the thief

would have to restrain the victim and search beneath their clothes to obtain the kirpan. Judges

Marie Deschamps and Rosalie Abella further point out that there is no evidence that kirpans have

ever been used as weapons in schools. The Supreme Court denied that the kirpan symbolised

violence in any manner, instead stating that it is significant and is essential to someone. It was a

majority decision, with all eight judges determining that Multani's Charter Right to Freedom of

Religion was being violated. The Supreme Court of Canada overturned the Quebec Court of

Appeal's ruling as being unjustified. To conclude, the Supreme Court declared the council of

commissioners' ruling regarding the kirpan to be null and void, and Gurbaj Singh managed to

win the Multani v. Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys case.

Significance:

Multani v. Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys case win has a substantial impact

on how Canadian society is diversifying. The decision was a significant victory for the Sikh

community, as well as individuals of other backgrounds and beliefs. The Supreme Court of

Canada proved to Canadians that it will defend religious rights and other fundamental rights.

This case win is not only a significant victory for the Sikh community but also strengthens our

judicial system by making cases in the future such as this much smoother to judge and use as

precedent. Gubraj's triumph was important to me because I feel his religious rights are being

disrespected and that his faith is important to him and should be practised unhindered. If this

case ruled in opposite , the Sikh community and other religions will be disappointed in the laws

of Canada and section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, believing that their

rights to religion and conscience will be ignored and not protected, as will as all religions in
 Bernard 4

Canada, who rely on their rights and other fundamental rights to be protected without

interference. All cultures will be disappointed because they will believe that their right to

practise their culture in Canada is not accepted. 

 Bernard 5

Oakes Test: Should Mr. Multani’s Sec. 2(a) right to freedom of religion be ignored?

 
If the government  wishes to ignore a right guaranteed by the Charter, the government
must show that:    
 
NO    ← 1. Is there Pressing and Substantial Objective? Highlight YES or NO  →  YES 
         What does our society value? Is the government trying to stop something that is       
    important to stop according to what society values? Explain          
 
No,Society values freedom of conscience and religion, as well as the opportunity to
practice their culture freely, and these rights should not be restricted. If these rights are
suspended, Canada will be unable to protect the religious rights of its citizens. No, the
government is not attempting to prevent something significant to society from occurring.

↓           ↓

NO         ←       2. Is there a Rational Connection? Highlight YES or NO         →   YES

                           By infringing upon (ignoring) this right, will it achieve
                           the government’s goal in trying to stop something that goes                   
                           against society’s values stated in #1)                   Explain                                    
 
No, it will not fulfil the government's purpose of ending anything that violates society
values because there is no violence associated with using a kirpan or religious symbol that
will endanger someone in schools or anyone, but it is valuable to someone and significant
to their culture. Gurbaj Singh has never had a behavioral problem at school and has never
used violence. The possibility that student would use his kirpan for violent intentions is
negligible.

↓         ↓

NO           ←     3. Is there Minimal Impairment? Highlight YES or NO   →   YES

                            Is the suspension of that right reasonable and not so 
                            drastic that a person can still enjoy life, liberty, and security?   
                            “Just like in medication” are the side effects minimal? Explain                 
        

 
No, suspending Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which
states "freedom of religion and conscience," will be unreasonable and harsh, disrupting
Gubaj's fundamental rights to life, liberty, and security. He will always be uncomfortable.
He will be humiliated, psychologically damaged, and disrespected that he will no longer
be able to carry his Kirpan with him at all times and believes that his rights will not be
protected .
 Bernard 6

↓      ↓

NO     ←      4. Is there a Proportionate Effect? Highlight YES or NO        →  YES

                            Will society benefit by having the right in question? 
                            infringed upon? We must consider if the possible                                   
                           benefits of limiting a Charter right outweigh all possible harms    Explain  

No, questioning this rights will not benefit society. Infringing on such rights will only lead
to conflict and be detrimental to society's values. The Sikh community will be
embarrassed, and people of all religions will lose faith in the justice system because they
believe their rights are not being protected.

↓ Highlight or bold the result below the arrow

↓
                          
Infringement  not justified!                   Infringement Justified!
They cannot be ignored. The right can be ignored.
 Bernard 7

Work cited

"Ban on Sikh kirpan overturned by Supreme Court | CBC News." CBCnews, 3 Mar. 2006,

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ban-on-sikh-kirpan-overturned-by-supreme-court-1.618238.Accessed

19 April 2022.

Carter, Terrance S. "A. INTRODUCTION." Supreme Court Gives Strong Endorsement to

Freedom of Religion, www.carters.ca/pub/bulletin/church/2006/chchlb17.htm. Accessed 19 Apr.

2022.

"SCC case information - search." Supreme court of Canada,03 December 2012 https://scc-

csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15/index.do.Accessed 19 April 2022.