Skip to main content
Social Media
  • twitter
  • linkedin
Home
  • About the project
    • About the project
    • Partnerships and Collaborators
    • Coordination Unit
    • Project Management Team
    • International Network of Judges and Legal Scholars
    • Research assistants
  • Case Law Database
    • Case index
    • Database charts
  • News
    • News and announcements
    • Press newsroom
  • Resources
    • Working papers and other resources
    • Media kit
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 28 February 2022, Registration No. CV-21-00000095-0000

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
Canada
Case ID
Registration No. CV-21-00000095-0000
Decision date
28 February 2022
Deciding body (English)
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
  • Civil Court
  • Criminal Court
Type of jurisdiction
Double jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
State Court
Instance
Constitutional Review
Area
Non-discrimination
Further areas addressed
  • Health and freedom of association/public gathering/religion
  • Scope of powers of public authorities (legislative, executive etc.)
Outcome of the decision
Claim inadmissible or rejected
Link to the full text of the decision
Decision_EN available on https://www.ontariocourts.ca

Case analisys

General Summary

The case concerned the constitutionality of the limits imposed by the State of Ontario concerning religious gatherings during the spread of the pandemic. It has dealt with the potential violation of the freedom of religion stipulated by Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The applicants (several religious associations) sought to set aside three judicial orders obtained by Ontario to compel compliance with religious gathering limits.

The Superior Court dismissed the claim and found that such limits were reasonable and demonstrably justified in light of the spread of the pandemic.

Facts of the case

The claimants sought a historical declaration of constitutional invalidity of the limits imposed on religious gatherings and they did so by requesting the set aside of three judicial orders obtained by Ontario.

The measures at stake aimed at preventing the spread of COVID-19 by prohibiting large gatherings, whether indoors or outdoors. With specific regards to religious services, the challenged measures significantly reduced the size of religious gatherings by restricting attendance to 15, 25, or 30 percent capacity. According to the claimants, such limits severely hampered the constitutional freedom of religion, giving rise to discrimination and unreasonableness.

Type of measure challenged
Local government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Judicial orders obtained by the Government of Ontario to compel compliance
Individual / collective enforcement
Action brought by a specific group of claimants in their own interest for the purpose of injunctive measures or other remedies, including the annulment of administrative decisions, for the protection of a more general collective interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private collective
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Ordinary procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

The Court had analyzed Sections 1 and 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms considering that the Freedom of religion embodies concepts of liberty, equality, autonomy, and the recognition of human dignity, it has concluded that it contemplates the co-existence of spiritual and civil authority. Despite such freedom being not absolute in terms, the Court found that, by reducing the attendance to religious events, the need to arrange multiple services might involve expenditure of time, effort, and money, and it would also alter the character of the religious experience itself. Hence, it found that the numerical or percentage capacity limits that have been imposed on religious gatherings – either indoors or outdoors – did transgress Section 2(a) of the Charter.

However, pursuant to Section 1 of the Charter, the Court further analyzed whether such a violation could be justifiable in light of the current circumstances affecting public health and safety (the so-called Oaks test). In this regard, the Court noted that religious gathering limits were carefully tailored to reflect evolving circumstances, new scientific evidence, and changing levels of risk. Furthermore, Ontario never completely banned religious gatherings. Significantly, the tightest restrictions were imposed at times when the public health care system was pushed to capacity. Based on the above, the Court concluded that the limits imposed on religious gatherings by Ontario – despite being a violation of the freedom of religion – were proportionate, reasonable and demonstrably justified on the grounds of the severe threat posed by the pandemic.

Conclusions of the deciding body
  • The Ontario restrictions on the size of religious gatherings did interfere with the fundamental guarantee of freedom of religion enshrined within Section 2 of the Charter.
  • However, such restrictions were reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under Section 1 of the Charter.

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
  • Freedom of association, Public gathering, Assembly
  • Freedom of religion
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms, Sections 1 and 2(a)
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
  • Health v. freedom of association / public gathering
  • Health v. freedom of religion
General principle applied
  • Proportionality
  • Reasonableness
  • State of emergency or necessity
  • Precautionary
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)

The balancing test applied by the Court derived directly from Section 1 of the Canadian Charter, which states that the rights and freedoms enshrined therein are only subject to “such reasonable limits prescribed by the law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.

The Court has first found that the limits on religious gatherings did constitute a restriction to the freedom of religion. However, pursuant to Section 1 of the Charter, it considered that such limitations were still legitimate in light of the principles of proportionality, precaution and reasonableness. Such measures were not arbitrary, excessive nor disproportionate due to the severe circumstances brought by the pandemic.

Hence, the restrictions on religious freedom were justified in a democratic society.

Additional notes

Impact on national case law

This case directly stems from emergency legislation enacted to fight the spread of the pandemic.

Author of the case note
Raffaele Minicozzi
Published by Tahnee Ooms on 20 March 2022

More cases from Canada

  • Canada, Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, 11 February 2022, ‎2022 ONSC 999
    Area: Freedom to conduct a business
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of association, Public gathering, Assembly; Freedom of expression; Freedom to conduct a business; Right to bodily integrity; Right to property
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Canada, Court of Appeals of Québec, 21 January 2022, ‎2022 QCCA 85
    Area: Scope of powers of public authorities (legislative, executive etc.)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to an effective remedy; Right to good administration
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Canada, Federal Court, 18 October 2021, ‎2021 FC 1095
    Area: Scope of powers of public authorities (legislative, executive etc.)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of association, Public gathering, Assembly; Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital; Right to good administration; Other (Right to life, liberty and security)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Canada, Court of Québec – Youth Division‎, 14 January 2022, ‎[2022] QCCQ 178‎
    Area: Vaccination
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to bodily integrity
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • Canada, Québec High Court‎, 25 February 2022, ‎2022 QCCS 654‎
    Area: Vaccination
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital; Right to an effective remedy; Right to privacy
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Canada, Federal Court, 2 December 2021, ‎2021 FC 1341
    Area: Vaccination
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to an effective remedy; Right to privacy; Other (Right to refuse medical treatments)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from Canada

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 28 February 2022, Registration No. CV-21-00000095-0000
home

This project and its database have been made possible with the financial support from the World Health Organization

www.covid19litigation.org is run and maintained by the University of Trento
Via Calepina 14, I-38122 Trento (Italy) — P. Iva/C.F. IT-00340520220

Social Media Links

  • twitter
  • linkedin

Terms of use

www.covid19litigation.org
Site purpose

This site is for informational use only. Case law summaries are not legal advices and may not be relied on as such. Anyone seeking for legal advice should obtain appropriate legal counsel.

Site operation

This site may not be fully up-to-date (for example, cases may be reviewed, reversed, or appealed). This site may be taken down at any time without notice. The case law summaries provided on this site may be incomplete or outdated.

Copyright

Any files provided on this site were taken from a source that is, to the University of Trento and its Partners' best knowledge, from a freely available public resource, however, any further use of such files is at the user’s responsibility.

Responsibility

This site is maintained by the University of Trento, with financial support from the World Health Organization (WHO). The University of Trento will not be responsible for any use of the site.

No endorsement

Inclusion of a case on the website does not necessarily involve a view, position, or endorsement by the University of Trento or the WHO, including with respect to any legal matter. The site is not a product of WHO and does not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the WHO.

User account menu

  • Log in

Footer menu

  • Contacts
  • Terms of use
  • Privacy
  • Cookies