Applicants argue directive infringes religious freedom under Quebec and Canadian Charters
With only a handful of students making use of them, Quebec’s ban on public-school prayer rooms is “trying to solve a problem that doesn’t really exist,” says Harini Sivalingam, director of equality programs at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
The CCLA, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, and a Quebec student are challenging the prayer ban, arguing it is unlawful and unconstitutional. They say it violates students’ freedom of religion, under s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and article 3 of the Quebec Charter. The applicants also argue the ban violates the right to equality under the Quebec Charter and nullifies the duty of reasonable accommodation it imposes on public bodies.
“There are not hundreds or thousands of students in a school trying to find a place to pray. It's really just a handful of students,” says Sivalingam. “Schools have been able to accommodate and allow the students to play during lunchtime. It’s not disruptive. It doesn't interfere with the school day. It hasn't been a problem.”
“The objective is really to kind of create or manufacture a problem that doesn't exist. Students feel that they are being surveilled by school administrators. They feel targeted. And it will definitely harm their dignity.”
On April 19, Quebec’s Minister of Education issued a directive prohibiting overt prayers in public schools, which was approved by the Government of Quebec by Decree 707-2023. The directive said that, to preserve the secular character of public schools, the schools must ensure no place is used for overt prayers or other religious practices. The CCLA and the NCCM are asking for a stay of execution, suspending the application of the directive until the final decision on the merits in an application for judicial review.
The plaintiff, A.B., brought the action on behalf of his son, a student at École secondaire des Sources. The plaintiff’s filings said that A.B., who is 16, has been following a prayer schedule since last September, which requires him to prayer once during the school day on the school premises. The plaintiff asked the school if A.B. and a few other Muslim students could haven access to a room where they could pray together and the school provided one.
On May 3, following the directive from the education minister, the school implemented a total ban on prayer and told A.B. and his fellow students that they were prohibited from praying anywhere at the school, inside or outside.
“We do believe that the directive is unlawful,” says Sivalingam. “The government cannot lawfully prohibit students from praying in school.”
She says the directive is also discriminatory because it creates a distinction among students between the religious and non-religious students, a distinction which compromises the rights of the religious students to full equality of their exercise of religion and their right to dignity, protected under s. 4 of the Charter. It also prevents schools from providing reasonable accommodations that were requested by students.
Olga Redko and Johanna Mortreux are counsel for the CCLA in the action.
