King V Blessed Virgin Mary School Summary

King v. The Blessed Virgin Mary School

Majority decision

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians likewise of their gender, religious, spiritual and cultural views. Section 2 a guarantees the “freedom of conscience and religion”. This right allows individuals to practice follow there religious views and to practice them within the confounds of our society. If a section 2 A violation occurs that individual or group has the right to appeal the decision at various levels of the court system within Canada. There are tests such as the Amselem test to determine if the section 2 A is a reasonable infringement that had minimal impairment. Further a section a violation would have to pass tests outlined and created by the

Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has determined that there was a Section 2 A violation of Kings right to practice his religion of Sikhism. The redeems that will be instated are as follow:
1. The Blessed Virgin School has to pay all of Kings legal fees and expenses gathered by King up until the Supreme Court of Canada
2. King will be allowed to teach at The Blessed Virgin School while he is wearing his turban, Kanga (hair comb), Kara (steel bracelet) and his Kirpan (ceremonial dagger).
1. The Supreme Court of Canada has concluded that and recognized that King did not surrender his section 2A, freedom of freedom of conscience and religion when he signed the Blessed Virgin Mary School contract fifteen years earlier. In this particular case King did not “voluntarily” forfeit his section 2A right to freedom of conscience and religion. King did not have a clear understanding that fifteen years later he would not be able to teach at The Blessed Virgin Mary School due to his choice to follow and practice the religion of Sikhism. This principle was clearly expressed by Justice Iacobucci in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the case of S Syndicate Northcrest v. Amselem et al. Furthermore; if King did not sign the contract fifteen years earlier he would not get the position as a teacher at the Blessed Virgin Mary school. King alleges that he did not remember reading the contract, which he signed as a result he did not fully comprehend the outcome of certain clauses within the contract itself.

2.

When we look at the reasonable person standard within Canadian Law it is classified as something that an “ordinary, cautious and prudent person” would consider reasonable in the situation. The Blessed Virgin Mary School attempted to reason with King and told him that he didn’t have to change his religious beliefs but he could not wear the his Sikh articles of faith while teaching the Blessed Virgin Mary School. What King did at home in his own time was never brought up in this case and it should not be. The Supreme Court of Canada has concluded that the “accommodation” offered to King was not reasonable. This accommodation is a biased viewpoint that favours the Christian faith. The Blessed Virgin Mary School has not done there due diligence and as a result there accommodation is not reasonable according to the Supreme Court of Canada. King is a Social studies teacher and at no time did he make any verbal or written admissions indicating that he was going to impose his Sikhism viewpoint upon the students or other staff present at Blessed Virgin Mary

School.

3. The Supreme Court of Canada concludes that the Government of Alberta has made an error in concluding that the Section 2 A rights that Mary School violated were reasonable. King was a social studies teacher at the Blessed Virgin School. The school does have a right to question King about his religious viewpoint. Likewise, Doug’s religious viewpoint will not be taught to students during school. He will not be teaching any religion classes; furthermore his Sikhism viewpoint will not be imposed upon the students. The material that Doug will be teaching his students comes from the Government of Alberta. The court does agree with King; the Canadian Charter 2A violation is not reasonable in accordance with what has been presented to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Amselem test has been applied and the Supreme Court of Canada’s findings are as follows:
1.

King can demonstrate to the Supreme Court of Canada that he has a “sincere” belief towards the religion of Sikhism. King has covered his uncut hair with a turban, he is wearing a Kanga (hair comb) around his neck, he wears a Kara (steel bracelet) and he is wearing a Kirpan (ceremonial dagger). All of these changes in Kings life is proof of a “genuine nexus”. Also, King has produced a sworn affidavit from elders from the Sikh community. Religion is “a particular and comprehensive system of faith and worship and or a belief in a divine power, deeply held convictions about faith” CITE). According to the religion of Sikhism a Sikh who has included the the K’s in his lifestyle has committed to the teachings of Sikhism and its Gurus (BBC Sikh website cite). As the Supreme Court of Canada we are satisfied that King has demonstrated a “sincere belief” towards the religion and teachings of

Sikhism.

2. Not allowing King to wear his turban, carry his hair comb, wear his Kara and carry his Kirpan does interfere with Kings ability to “act in accordance with his religious practices”. King has proven that not wearing these items will have a spiritual and psychological on his lifestyle. If King does not wear these religious items it will have a significant impact on his lifestyle as a practicing Sikh. As he is devoted to the religion of Sikhism and its teaching. Furthermore, when we look at the reasonable person standard any “ordinary, cautious and prudent person” would consider the viewpoint of the Blessed Virgin Mary School unreasonable and biased. The Supreme Court of Canada has concluded that the assessment the non-trivial meets the reasonable person set out by Canadian law. The application of the Amselem test has failed the Supreme Court of Canada has concluded that there has been a section 2A violation.
Case Law
When we look at the case of Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite- Bourgeois the Supreme Court concluded that there was a section 2A violation against Multani. This case can directly correlate to the case of King v The Blessed Virgin Mary School. Both appellants are practicing Sikhs. Both parties were not given a reasonable opportunity. In the case of King he was told he simply cannot wear his Sikh articles at school but is allowed to practice and follow the faith of Sikhism. He was given a set policy that The Blessed Virgin Mary School dictated without reasoning at all. This accommodation is not reasonable to any reasonable member of society.