The appellant sought to fulfill what she understood to be her obligation, as informed by religious teaching, to observe an exceptionless moral norm. As I explain below, the application judge mischaracterized the appellant’s claim as a matter of protection from interference with worship: protecting her “spiritual focal point of worship” and “object of belief”. As the appellant’s claim was not about protecting the object of her worship, or with interference with worship generally, the application judge erred in analogizing the claim to the one advanced in Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), 2017 SCC 54, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 386.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.