On March 17, 2026, Québec’s Chair of the Committee on Citizen Relations (“Committee”) tabled the report (“Report”) on Bill 9, An Act respecting the reinforcement of laicity in Québec, 2nd Sess., 43rd Leg, 2025 (“Bill 9”) in Québec’s National Assembly (“Assembly”). The Committee made several amendments, but many of the proposed restrictions on religious freedoms remain. CCCC maintains that, if passed, Bill 9 could significantly limit how individuals and organizations express their faith in Québec.

What is Bill 9?

Bill 9 aims to reinforce secularism, also known as “laicity”, across a wide range of publicly funded settings. Bill 9 expands upon Québec’s ban on religious symbols and prohibits all religious practice in select post-secondary institutions, childcare centers, healthcare facilities, and private schools. “Religious practice” is defined as:

[a]ny action, except the wearing of a religious symbol, that may reasonably constitute, in fact or in appearance, the manifestation of a religious conviction or belief.

The example of “overt prayers or other similar practices” is provided to further contextualize the term “religious practice” in Bill 9.

Schools and Educational Settings

In private schools, Bill 9 would prohibit religious practices during regular school hours. Schools could still allow religious activities outside school hours, but only if participation is optional. Bill 9 would not apply to religious practices that take place in private residences within these institutions.

What this means for private Christian schools

Private religious schools could continue to operate, but as noted by Christian Legal Fellowship (“CLF”), they may face limits on accreditation and access to funding. To maintain faith-based activities, including religious instruction or worship, schools may need to move these activities outside regular school hours and make them optional. Bill 9 offers little practical guidance on how schools should express their religious identity in policies, curriculum, or community life.

Public Spaces and Places of Worship

Bill 9 protects religious practices within places of worship and prohibits interference with access to them.

However, organizations that want to hold religious gatherings in public spaces, such as parks or streets, would need municipal approval. It remains unclear how municipalities would assess and grant these requests.

What this means for churches and religious gatherings

Churches may face new limits on where they can gather. For example, a church that wants to hold a service in a public park would need to apply for municipal approval. It is unclear how municipalities would regulate these requests or impose limitations on group gatherings in public spaces. During public hearings on Bill 9, Québec’s Minister Responsible for Secularism indicated that some activities, such as funeral processions or collecting donations for charitable purposes, would still be permitted.

Religious Accommodation

People requesting religious accommodation would need to show that their request is sincere, reasonable, and consistent with equality rights. If the request involves time away from work, employers would consider:

1. how often the absence occurs;
2. how long it lasts;
3. the impact on job performance; and
4. fairness to other employees

When accommodation requests involve children in childcare settings, providers must ensure they do not affect:

1. the quality of the educational childcare services;
2. the educational program; and
3. the health, safety and well-being of the children

Bill 9 is broad in scope. As the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has noted, “this sweeping piece of legislation almost completely prohibits collective religious practice in public.”

What changed in the Committee’s Report on Bill 9?

The Committee’s Report (currently only available in French) introduces several amendments. These changes clarify certain provisions but do not significantly reduce the overall impact of Bill 9.

Key updates include:

• Extending the ban on religious symbols to include public service contractors (not just employees);
• Adjusting rules related to religious criteria in private schools;
• Removing childcare institutions from some segregation-related requirements;
• Requiring organizations that provide religious-based food options to offer a comparable non-religious option; and
• Allowing certain chapels at post-secondary institutions to continue operating (Concordia University, Université Laval, McGill University, and Bishop’s University).

The report also removes the requirement for municipalities to pass formal council resolutions before approving religious gatherings. While these are positive changes, the core tenets of, and therefore the concerns about, Bill 9 remain largely the same.

The Broader Context: Secularism in Québec

Bill 9 builds upon Québec’s existing secularism law, the Act respecting laicity of the State, CQLR  c L-0.3 (known as Bill 21). CCCC has previously published blogs on Bill 21’simpact on public-sector employees and its potential influence on Canadian’s attitudes towards religion.

Bill 21has drawn national attention to the religious freedoms of public-sector employees. The Supreme Court of Canada is currently hearing a constitutional challenge to the law, and specifically the legitimacy of section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, commonly known as the notwithstanding clause.

CCCC continues to advocate for the religious freedoms of Christian charities in Québec. We recently made arguments as an intervenor in a case addressing whether religious groups have equal access to public spaces in Québec, and are awaiting the court’s decision.

What Happens Next?

The Assembly will now review and vote on the Report. If the Assembly votes to adopt the Report, Bill 9 will move to the final stage of study during the legislative process. At that stage, only limited amendments are possible. After the legislative process is complete, the Lieutenant Governor must approve the bill before it becomes law.

What You Can Do

If you want to understand how Bill 9 may affect your organization, we encourage you to review CLF’s submissions to Québec’s National Assembly. We also ask for ongoing prayers for wisdom for decision-makers and for the protection of religious freedom in Québec. We will share further updates on the status of Bill 9 here on our blog.

We’re Here to Help

If you have questions or would like support, please contact our Member Support Team by phone or email.

The post Quebec’s Bill 9 – What Does Secularism Look Like For Religious Organizations? appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Bill 9 builds on and significantly expands Bill 21, Québec’s 2019 state secularism law. Bill 21, now known as the Act respecting the laicity of the State, prohibits certain civil servants (for example, teachers and police officers) from wearing religious symbols in the workplace. Bill 9 pushes the idea of secularism much further and again invokes the notwithstanding clause to protect the law from constitutional challenge.

Ban on Religious Practices in Public Places

Bill 9 introduces a new statute, the Act to foster religious neutrality, in particular in the public space. Among other things, this law would:

• Prohibit the use of public roads and public parks for collective religious practices without municipal pre-authorization
• Allow municipalities to authorize collective religious practices only if they:
  • Do not compromise safety
  • Are brief
  • Are open/accessible to everyone (e.g. cannot exclude anyone on the basis of a Charter protected ground of discrimination)
• Prohibit a person from limiting, hindering or disrupting religious practices in a place of worship
• Limit the ability to make accommodation requests on the grounds of religion, including in the workplace, daycares, and schools

The bill defines religious practice as “any action” that reasonably constitutes “the manifestation of a religious conviction or belief,” other than wearing a religious symbol.

The bill does, in effect, close the public square to prayer that is not pre-authorized by the municipality. It also raises serious questions about whether, for example, a group of women could meet for bible study in the park; a group of students could participate in street ministry; or a seniors ministry gather for a prayer walk. While none of these would conceivably compromise safety, it is unclear how “brief” the practice must be, and each of these excludes people on the basis of a Charter protected ground (sex/gender, age).

It is encouraging to see that places of worship are more strongly protected. At the same time, it raises the question of why existing laws are not used to address concerns about accessing places of worship (e.g. bylaw and criminal code offences).

Expand Secularism in Public Institutions

Bill 9 also amends and broadens Québec’s existing secularism law, the Act respecting the laicity of the State, CQLR c L-03. It would:

• Extend the existing ban on wearing religious symbols in certain public positions to include subsidized daycare centres, subsidized home educational childcare providers, and accredited private schools
• Prohibit “all religious practice” in these places and specifically ban “overt prayers and other similar practices” in schools, including accredited private schools. Religious practices could only occur as optional activities that take place outside of school time.

The bill creates some exceptions to the general ban on religious practices. For example:

• In healthcare institutions, if the religious practice doesn’t impact quality of care, operations, or patients’ well-being
• In correctional facilities, and places to be specified in regulations
• In municipalities, if certain conditions are met:
  • The government body does not fund the practice
  • All groups who want to lease or use the space are treated equitably
  • The space is not used “predominantly” for the religious practice.

The expanded secularism legislation would also:

• Require everyone to have their faces uncovered when giving or receiving public education services;
• Prohibit public institutions from offering meals or food based on religious diets.
• Establish secularism as a “foundation of national integration”
• Create a permanent role of Minister Responsible for Laicity
• Grant the Minister power to “verify compliance” with the Act

Amend Other Laws to Impose Secularism

Bill 9 impacts other legislation to either amend or repeal several acts:

• Act respecting private education, CQLR c E-9.1
  • Bill 9 would deny accreditation – and therefore access to subsidies – for private, faith-based schools. It would be phased in over a three-year period.
  • Faith-based schools are those whose services, selection of students or selection of staff are based on religious criteria.
• Freedom of Worship Act, CQLR c L-2
  • Bill 9 would repeal this law.
  • Although the Act uses outdated language (e.g. it speaks to a person driving on horseback or in a carriage at a pace faster than a slow and moderate trot!), its main goal is to ensure “good order” and avoid disturbances near churches.
• Act to foster adherence to State religious neutrality and, in particular, to provide a framework for requests for accommodation, CQLR c R-26.2.01
  • Bill 9 would repeal this law.This Act imposes a duty of religious neutrality on public servants and lists criteria to be taken into account for religious accommodation requests.
  • This Act would be replaced by the new Act to foster religious neutrality in particular in the public space.

What is Next?

Given the Québec government’s robust defence of Bill 21 it seems unlikely that constitutional criticism will slow or stop Bill 9, especially with the use of the notwithstanding clause. According to one media report, the Secularism Minister explained that Québecers:

“…can wish someone merry Christmas. We can sing Christmas songs. This is nothing but tradition. But we shouldn’t make any references to the birth of baby Jesus. […] When we wish someone a merry Christmas, we can think of Santa Claus and his elves, but nothing Catholic.”

One civil liberties group already described Bill 9 as “a clear and alarming infringement of freedom of religion, expression, peaceful assembly and equality.” The bill is expected to move through the normal legislative process, including public hearings.

We understand that Bill 9 raises serious concerns about religious freedom – not only in Québec, but how it could impact Canada as a whole – and will continue to monitor the progress of Bill 9. We’ll share updates on its status, how stakeholders respond, and whether the government makes any significant amendments before it passes.

The post Quebec’s Bill 9 – Closing the Public Square to Prayer? appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Alberta

Bill 53, Service Alberta Statutes (Virtual Meetings) Amendment Act, 2021 updates other acts, including the Societies Act, so organizations can meet and vote online. Unless the organization’s bylaws, articles or other governing documents expressly provide otherwise, the Societies Act now permits attendance at directors’ meetings or AGMs by electronic means. The entirety of the meetings can be held electronically, electronic notice is sufficient, and voting can take place electronically. The changes came into effect 26 March 2021 and are retroactive to 15 August 2020.

British Columbia

BC has updated legislation to permanently allow societies, cooperative associations and companies the option of holding fully virtual meetings. The Finance Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021 amended the Societies Act so that:

• Electronic meetings (full or partial) are allowed (ss 76, 77)

• Concepts of location or presence are replaced with the concept of attendance (so long as it also allows participation) (ss 76, 77, 82(4), 83)
• Method of voting is still governed by bylaws and means of voting must be authorized in the bylaws (ss 11(1), 83, 84(5), (6))

It’s important to know that the default permission for members to participate in an electronic meeting does not apply if the bylaws provide otherwise (s 83(1)). For more on how the amendments have been applied by BC courts, see CCCC Bulletin (Sept 2021) QuickPicks, p 6.

This permanent change replaces Ministerial Order No. M116. For more information you can check the BC government’s Not-for-profit Organizations page.

Manitoba

In Manitoba, Order in Council 325/2021 (September 29, 2021) has replaced three prior Orders in Council (88/2021 (March 2021), 257/2020 and 132/2020).

The September 2021 Order is identical to the March 2021 Order. It allows for electronic attendance at a meeting if the means permit everyone to adequately communicate with each other during the meeting and it applies “even if such means are not permitted or are specifically excluded by the incorporated body’s by-laws” (see s 7(2) of the Order).

If a notice of meeting has already been given and it is later changed, information about the change must be provided within a reasonable time via email and (where applicable) posting it to the corporation’s website, but a revised notice of meeting is not otherwise required.  Voting can take place electronically so long as the board of directors takes “reasonable measures to ensure” that voter identity is verified and each person who votes does so only in their own right or by a valid proxy.

There are similar provisions for Directors’ meetings.

The Order is effective October 1, 2021 – March 31, 2022, unless revoked sooner.

Among other legislative provisions, the Order suspends and replaces portions of The Cooperatives Act (ss 201(1), (2), 222(7), (8), s 224, ss 236(3), 379(1), (2)), the Cooperatives Regulation Man Reg 95/99 (s 11.3), and The Corporations Act (ss 109(9), 126(4), s 126.1, ss 127(a), s 135).

New Brunswick

There are no specific orders or directives related to the Corporate Registry of Service New Brunswick that speak to meeting delays or flexibility. Non-profits and charities operate under the Companies Act, which provides that all provisions of the Act apply to every non-profit corporation.

What to do? Check your by-laws to know how your corporate meetings are to take place. If your by-laws are silent, s 94 of the Act directs how elections should take place.

Section 94.2 of the act allows for directors to participate in director meetings or committee meetings by phone or “other communication facilities” if the by-laws provide for it or, subject to the by-laws, all the directors consent to that format.

Similarly, section 103.2 allows for attendance at member meetings by phone or “other communication facilities” that allow everyone participating to hear each other if the by-laws provide for it or all members entitled to vote consent to that format.

Newfoundland & Labrador

Bill 51, An Act to Amend the Condominium Act, 2009, the Co-Operatives Act and the Corporations Act, was introduced and passed in November 2020.

The Bill made permanent changes to those acts that allow director meetings, committee meetings, and member meetings to be held by telephone or electronic means. Similarly, voting can be entirely by phone or electronic means. Participants need to be able to clearly hear each other, be able to communicate, and where necessary, allow for anonymous voting.

The permission is subject to the corporation’s bylaws and whether they provide otherwise. The permission is also conditional on all directors consenting (for director and committee meetings), and on approval of the corporation (for member meetings).

Permanent flexibility for electronic and hybrid meetings means that the June 2020 permission to delay AGMs has not been renewed.

Nova Scotia

A Ministerial Direction prohibits societies and other corporate bodies from holding any statutorily required meetings in person if gathering restrictions or other applicable conditions cannot be met.

In place of in-person meetings, the Direction permits virtual and hybrid meetings whether or not virtual meetings are otherwise allowed or provided for in an enactment, article, bylaw or governing agreement.

Other requirements for the meetings should be met, such as quorum, record, notice; participants must be able to adequately communicate with one another.

It applies to societies incorporated under the Societies Act as well as all other societies or corporate bodies, incorporated by or under provincial laws or otherwise.

Alternatively, meetings can be deferred without penalty for a period of up to 90 days after the last date of the declared state of emergency. Where a meeting is deferred, everyone entitled to be present at the meeting must be notified in advance of the meeting date as required by applicable law, article, bylaw. If no notice period is stated, it must be no less than 7 calendar days.

This directive is in place for the duration of the State of Emergency (unless terminated earlier by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing). The State of Emergency has been extended more than 40 times, most recently until October 31, 2021.

Northwest Territories

The Northwest Territories has no specific orders or directives related to the Societies Act that speak to meeting delays or flexibility.

What to do? Check your by-laws to know how your corporate meetings are to take place. Unless your bylaws state otherwise, section 16.1 of the Act allows for a member to attend an AGM by phone or other mode of communication if everyone can hear each other.

If you’re still unsure, you may want to reach our to either NWT Corporate Registries, your legal counsel, or CCCC Member Support Team.

Nunavut

Nunavut has no specific orders or directives related to the Societies Act that speak to meeting delays or flexibility.

What to do? Check your by-laws to know how your corporate meetings are to take place. Section 5 of the Act requires that a society’s by-laws set out the mode of general meetings and section 17 of the Act requires that the AGM be held in Nunavut. The Act is otherwise silent on how societies are to hold the meeting.

Ontario

The ability to hold electronic corporate meetings has been extended to September 30, 2022.

Corporations under the following acts can continue holding virtual meetings until September 30, 2022:

• Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010 
• Business Corporations Act
• Co-operative Corporations Act
• Condominium Act, 1998
• Corporations Act

This means that despite provisions in a corporation’s letters patent, supplementary letters patent or by-laws of a corporation that provide otherwise, member, board and board committee meetings can be held electronically until September 30, 2022.

If you have questions about the extension of the effective period of the temporary legislative provisions related to virtual meetings, you can contact the government directly at OnCondo@ontario.ca and BusinessLawPolicy@ontario.ca.

For more from Ontario, visit COVID-19 changes to meetings and business operations.

Prince Edward Island

Prince Edward Island has no specific orders or directives related to the Companies Act that speak to meeting delays or flexibility. Charities operate under Part II of the Companies Act as well as applicable sections in other parts of the Act.

Your bylaws should tell you all you need to know about your meetings. To be granted letters patent for a non-profit company, a petition must accompany the application. That petition must include a variety of detailed information including the “mode of holding meetings, provision for quorum, rights of voting…” as per s 90(2)(b). The Act does not speak to digital, telephone, remote or other forms of meetings.

To help plan compliant meetings, see PEI’s Operational Plan FAQs and Public Health Measure Guidance.

Quebec

An Order in Council (1313-2021) issued on October 13, 2021 renews the public health emergency along with a laundry list of other Orders in Council and Ministerial Orders.

One of the renewed orders was Ministerial Order (2020-029). This Order allows any meeting of a deliberative body that normally takes place in person to be held by other means so long as everyone can communicate with each other immediately. If a secret ballot would normally be required, it can be held by any means of communication that everyone agrees upon, or alternatively, in a way that preserves the secret nature of the vote and can be verified.

“Deliberative bodies” includes non-profit organizations governed by the Companies Act [Act], as confirmed in a government press release [French only].

Since November 2019, the Act has allowed meetings by phone, videoconference or other digital means so long as everyone can communicate with each other immediately (ss 89.2-89.4, 224). But this permission in the Act is subject to bylaws of the corporation. So if the bylaws prohibit phone or electronic meetings, the Act isn’t much help.

That’s why Order 2020-029 was necessary. It essentially overrides any bylaw or other corporate provisions that would prohibit alternate meeting options. Since the public health emergency has been continually renewed since it was declared March 13, 2020 it is almost certain the Order will also continue to be renewed, extending the option for virtual meetings.

Saskatchewan

In Saskatchewan, the Non-profit Corporations Regulations, 1997 were amended by Order in Council to authorize non-profit corporations to hold member meetings by phone or electronic means, so long as the articles or bylaws do not prohibit it and participants are able to adequately communicate with one another. It was effective as of February 26, 2021.

The Non-profit Corporations Act requires that member meetings “shall be held at the place within Saskatchewan provided in the bylaws” (see s.122). The Order amends the definition of “held at the place” by adding a definition to s.13 of the Act to remove the geographic restriction. 

This amendment updates a previous change, made in May 2020, by adding clarifying language and specifying that people who attend virtually are deemed to be present at the meeting.

Yukon

Depending on the type of organization, a Ministerial Order issued March 2, 2021 relating to AGMs may still be effective. It applies for a “designated period.”

• For associations and societies, that is 90 days after the end of the state of emergency
• For corporations and limited partnerships, that is 30 days after the end of the state of emergency

The state of emergency ended August 25, 2021. That means the 30 days for corporations and limited partnerships has passed, and the 90 days for associations and societies will end November 23, 2021.

The Order allows AGMs to be partially or entirely by phone or electronic means. It’s allowed even if the bylaws don’t provide for the meeting, and whether the directors have chosen to hold an electronic meeting or if a member calls such a meeting. The Order allows all members to attend, participate, and where applicable, vote all by electronic means. Similarly, directors’ meetings can be held electronically. These meetings are deemed to have been held in Yukon and participants are considered to be present.

The Ministerial Order allowing for electronic meetings is retroactive to any time in the designated period, or before the state of emergency was declared (March 27, 2020). You can read more about the Yukon’s legislation changes for COVID-19 here.

Federal

As of January 1, 2021, the normal rules for calling AGMs and presenting financial statements apply. A 2020 order extending deadlines for federally incorporated charities was not renewed.

Corporations Canada outlines three options for charities to consider:

• Virtual AGM

For virtual meetings, you need to check your by-laws to see what they allow. If the bylaw specifically allows virtual meetings, great! You can hold a fully virtual meeting. If the bylaw is silent or doesn’t permit virtual meetings, you can consider a partially virtual meeting. Some attend in person and other participate virtually as long as everyone can communicate.

In terms of voting, again, check your bylaws. Participants can vote digitally if it’s not prohibited and the voting platform complies with regulations (i.e. maintain anonymity).

• Resolution Instead of AGM

Practically, this is probably only an option for corporations with a small membership. The resolution must, at minimum include (1) director elections, (2) financial statements, (3) appointing the auditor or waiving such appointment. All other business items normally communicated at the AGM must also be included.

• Delay Calling the AGM

If it would be detrimental to call the AGM within the normal timeframe, non-for-profit corporations can apply to delay the AGM. You need to apply at least 30 business days before the notice to members has to be sent. Corporations Canada has a page with all the information you need on how to apply for an extension.

For more, check out this article on Holding a Successful AGM.

The post AGM Options Across Canada: 2021 Fall Update appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Alberta

Bill 53, Service Alberta Statutes (Virtual Meetings) Amendment Act, 2021 updates other acts, including the Societies Act, so organizations can meet and vote online. Unless the organization’s bylaws, articles or other governing documents expressly provide otherwise, the Societies Act now permits attendance at directors’ meetings or AGMS by electronic means. The entirety of the meetings can be held electronically, electronic notice is sufficient, and voting can take place electronically. The changes came into effect 26 March 2021 and are retroactive to 15 August 2020.

British Columbia

Ministerial Order No. M116 came into effect April 21, 2020 and will remain in effect until the declaration of a state of emergency expires or is cancelled (it was extended until 27 April 2021 and will presumably be renewed again).

This Order allows societies to host virtual or hybrid meetings, even if the society’s bylaws or any regulations under the Societies Act state otherwise.

Additionally, section 71 of the Societies Act provides flexibility for the timing of AGMs. Under s.71(3) the Registrar of Companies extended the date by which a society must hold its AGM. The extension goes no later than November 1 of the calendar year after the calendar year in which an AGM would otherwise have to be held, and which the Registrar authorizes.

The options are helpfully summarized here.

Manitoba

In Manitoba, Order in Council 88/2021 (17 March 2021) has replaced two prior Orders in Council (257/2020 and 132/2020).

The 2021 Order is identical to the previous Order. It allows for electronic attendance at a meeting if the means permit everyone to adequately communicate with each other during the meeting and it applies “even if such means are not permitted or are specifically excluded by the incorporated body’s by-laws” (see s 7(2) of the Order).

If a notice of meeting has already been given and it is later changed, information about the change must be provided within a reasonable time via email and (where applicable) posting it to the corporation’s website but a revised notice of meeting is not otherwise required.  Voting can take place electronically so long as the board of directors takes “reasonable measures to ensure” that voter identity is verified and each person who votes does so only in their own right or by a valid proxy.

There are similar provisions for Directors’ meetings.

The Order is effective March 31, 2021 – September 30, 2021 unless revoked sooner.

Among other legislative provisions, the Order suspends and replaces portions of The Cooperatives Act (ss 201(1), (2), 222(7), (8), s 224, ss 236(3), 379(1), (2)), the Cooperatives Regulation Man Reg 95/99 (s 11.3), and The Corporations Act (ss 109(9), 126(4), s 126.1, ss 127(a), s 135).

New Brunswick

There are no specific orders or directives related to the Corporate Registry of Service New Brunswick that speak to meeting delays or flexibility. Non-profits and charities operate under the Companies Act, which provides that all provisions of the Act apply to every non-profit corporation.

What to do? Check your by-laws to know how your corporate meetings are to take place. If your by-laws are silent, s 94 of the Act directs how elections should take place.

Section 94.1 of the act allows for directors to participate in director meetings or committee meetings by phone or “other communication facilities” if the by-laws provide for it or, subject to the by-laws, all the directors consent to that format.

Similarly, section 103.2 allows for attendance at member meetings by phone or “other communication facilities” that allow everyone participating to hear each other if the by-laws provide for it or, all members entitled to vote consent to that format.

Newfoundland & Labrador

Bill 51, An Act to Amend the Condominium Act, 2009, the Co-Operatives Act and the Corporations Act, was introduced and passed in November 2020.

The Bill made permanent changes to those acts that allow director meetings, committee meetings, and member meetings to be held by telephone or electronic means. Similarly, voting can be entirely by phone or electronic means. Participants need to be able to clearly hear each other, be able to communicate, and where necessary, allow for anonymous voting.

The permission is subject to the corporation’s bylaws and whether they provide otherwise. The permission is also conditional on all directors consenting (for director and committee meetings), and on approval of the corporation (for member meetings).

Permanent flexibility for electronic and hybrid meetings means that last year’s permission to delay AGMs has not been renewed.

Nova Scotia

A Ministerial Direction prohibits societies and other corporate bodies from holding any statutorily required meetings in person if gathering restrictions or other applicable conditions cannot be met. In place of in person meetings, the Direction permits virtual and hybrid meetings whether or not virtual meetings are otherwise allowed or provided for in an enactment, article, bylaw or governing agreement.

Other requirements for the meetings should be met, such as quorum, record, notice; participants must be able to adequately communicate with one another.

It applies to societies incorporated under the Societies Act as well as all other societies or corporate bodies, incorporated by or under provincial laws or otherwise.

Alternatively, meetings can be deferred without penalty for a period of up to 90 days after the last date of the declared state of emergency. Where a meeting is deferred, everyone entitled to be present at the meeting must be notified in advance of the meeting date as required by applicable law, article, bylaw. If no notice period is stated, it must be no less than 7 calendar days.

This directive is in place for the duration of the State of Emergency (unless terminated earlier by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing). The State of Emergency has been extended for the 28^th time to May 2, 2021.

Northwest Territories

The Northwest Territories has no specific orders or directives related to the Societies Act that speak to meeting delays or flexibility.

What to do? Check your by-laws to know how your corporate meetings are to take place. Unless your bylaws state otherwise, section 16.1 of the Act allows for a member to attend an AGM by phone or other mode of communication if everyone can hear each other.

Corporate Registries has stated that it will “not be dissolving any societies for failing to file their Notice of Directors and financial statements due to a society’s inability to hold an AGM because of the COVID-19 health emergency.”

Nunavut

Nunavut has no specific orders or directives related to the Societies Act that speak to meeting delays or flexibility.

What to do? Check your by-laws to know how your corporate meetings are to take place. Section 5 of the Act requires that a society’s by-laws set out the mode of general meetings and section 17 of the Act requires that the AGM be held in Nunavut. The Act is otherwise silent on how societies are to hold the meeting.

Ontario

The ability to hold electronic corporate meetings has been extended to December 31, 2021.

In 2020 a schedule was added to the Corporations Act for “special rules during emergency.” An April 6, 2021 regulation extends the application of these “special rules during emergency” to December 31, 2021.

This means that despite provisions in a corporation’s letters patent, supplementary letters patent or by-laws of a corporation that provide otherwise, member, board and board committee meetings can be held electronically until the end of 2021.

Prince Edward Island

Prince Edward Island has no specific orders or directives related to the Companies Act that speak to meeting delays or flexibility. Charities operate under Part II of the Companies Act as well as applicable sections in other parts of the Act.

Your bylaws should tell you all you need to know about your meetings. To be granted letters patent for a non-profit company, a petition must accompany the application. That petition must include a variety of detailed information including the “mode of holding meetings, provision for quorum, rights of voting…” as per s 90(2)(b). The Act does not speak to digital, telephone, remote or other forms of meetings.

To help plan compliant meetings, see PEI’s Meeting Guidance and Gatherings Guidance.

Quebec

An Order in Council (570-2021) issued on April 21, 2021 renews the public health emergency along with a lengthy list of other Orders in Council and Ministerial Orders.

One of the renewed orders was Ministerial Orders (2020-029). This Order allows any meeting of a deliberative body that normally takes place in person to be held by other means so long as everyone can communicate with each other immediately. If a secret ballot would normally be required, it can be held by any means of communication that everyone agrees upon, or alternatively, in a way that preserves the secret nature of the vote and can be verified.

“Deliberative bodies” includes non-profit organizations governed by the Companies Act [Act], as confirmed in a government press release [French only].

Since November 2019, the Act has allowed meetings by phone, videoconference or other digital means so long as everyone can communicate with each other immediately (ss 89.2-89.4, 224). But this permission in the Act is subject to bylaws of the corporation. So if the bylaws prohibit phone or electronic meetings, the Act isn’t much help.

That’s why the Order 2020-029 was necessary. It essentially overrides any bylaw or other corporate provisions that would prohibit alternate meeting options. Since the public health emergency has been continually renewed since it was declared March 13, it is almost certain it will continue to be renewed, extending the option for virtual meetings.

Saskatchewan

In Saskatchewan, the Non-profit Corporations Regulations, 1997 were amended by Order in Council to authorize non-profit corporations to hold member meetings by phone or electronic means, so long as the articles or bylaws do not prohibit it and participants are able to adequately communicate with one another. It was effective as of February 26, 2021.

The existing Non-profit Corporations Act requires that member meetings “shall be held at the place within Saskatchewan provided in the bylaws” (see s.122). The changes made in May 2020 had updated the definition of “held at the place” to remove geographic restrictions. The recent amendments add clarifying language and specify that people who attend virtually are deemed to be present at the meeting.

Yukon

A Ministerial Order (2 March 2021) effectively extends a May 2020 Order.

It allows a society under the Societies Act, an association under the Cooperative Associations Act and a for-profit corporation to hold AGMs partially or entirely by phone or electronic means. It’s allowed even if the bylaws don’t provide for the meeting, and whether the directors have chosen to hold an electronic meeting or if a member calls such a meeting. The Order allows all members to attend, participate, and where applicable, vote all by electronic means. Similarly, directors meetings can be held electronically.

These meetings are deemed to have been held in Yukon and participants are considered to be present.

The order applies for the “designated period” which means the period beginning March 17, 2020 and for societies and associations, ends 90 days after the end of the state of emergency. The state of emergency was renewed for the fourth time on March 3, 2021 for 90 days.

The Ministerial Order allowing for electronic meetings is retroactive to any time in the designated period, or before the state of emergency was declared (March 27, 2020).

Federal

A 2020 order extending deadlines for federally incorporated charities has expired. As of January 1, 2021, the normal rules for calling AGMs and presenting financial statements apply.

Corporations Canada outlines three options for charities to consider:

1. Virtual AGM

As for virtual meetings, you need to check your by-laws to see what they allow. If the bylaw specifically allows virtual meetings, great! You can hold a fully virtual meeting. If the bylaw is silent or doesn’t permit virtual meetings, you can consider a partially virtual meeting. Some attend in person and other participate virtually as long as everyone can communicate.

In terms of voting, again, check your bylaws. Participants can vote digitally if it’s not prohibited and the voting platform complies with regulations (i.e. maintain anonymity).

2. Resolution Instead of AGM

Practically, this is probably only an option for corporations with a small membership. The resolution must, at minimum include (1) director elections, (2) financial statements, (3) appointing the auditor or waiving such appointment. All other business items normally communicated at the AGM must also be included.

3. Delay Calling the AGM

If it would be detrimental to call the AGM within the normal timeframe, non-for-profit corporations can apply to delay the AGM. You need to apply at least 30 business days before the notice to members has to be sent. Corporations Canada has a page with all the information you need on how to apply for an extension.

For more, check out this article on Holding a Successful AGM.

Charity leaders are invited to share how they are responding to the COVID-19 challenges  within their organization in our online community forum, The Green: COVID-19 Response Room.

The post AGM Options Across Canada: 2021 Edition appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Alberta

The temporary relief provided by Ministerial Order 009-2020 is no longer effective as of August 15, 2020. Requirements for holding corporate AGMs and other meetings resume, and annual return filing timeless are reinstated.

The Ministerial order had granted a variety of administrative relief for organizations incorporated under the Societies Act, including suspending the obligation to hold in-person meetings, suspending report and returns to the Registrar, extending time for charitable registrations and renewals, and others.

British Columbia

Ministerial Order No. M116 came into effect April 21 and will remain in effect until the declaration of a state of emergency expires or is cancelled (it was again extended, now until November 10, 2020).

Additionally, section 71 of the Societies Actprovides flexibility for the timing of AGMs. Under s.71(3) the Registrar of Companies extended the date by which a society must hold its AGM to a date not later than November 1 of the calendar year after the calendar year in which an AGM would otherwise have to be held, and which the Registrar authorizes.

The options are helpfully summarized here.

Manitoba

In Manitoba, Order in Council 257/2020 has replaced Order in Council 132/2020. The new Order is almost identical to the old. It allows for electronic attendance at a meeting if the means permit everyone to adequately communicate with each other during the meeting and it applies “even if such means are not permitted or are specifically excluded by the incorporated body’s by-laws” (see s 7(2) of the Order).

If a notice of meeting has already been given and it is later changed, information about the change must be provided within a reasonable time via email and (where applicable) posting it to the corporation’s website but a revised notice of meeting is not otherwise required.  Voting can take place electronically so long as the board of directors takes “reasonable measures to ensure” that voter identity is verified and each person who votes does so only in their own right or by a valid proxy.

There are similar provisions for Directors’ meetings.

The key difference in the new Order is that it doesn’t give any more time extensions for holding AGMs.  The Order is effective October 1, 2020 – March 30, 2021 unless revoked sooner.

Among other legislative provisions, the Order suspends and replaces portions of The Cooperatives Act (ss 201(1), (2), 222(7), (8), s 224, ss 236(3), 379(1), (2)), the Cooperatives Regulation Man Reg 95/99 (s 11.3), and The Corporations Act (ss 109(9), 126(4), s 126.1, ss 127(a), s 135).

New Brunswick

There are no specific orders or directives related to the Corporate Registry of Service New Brunswick that speak to meeting delays or flexibility. Non-profits and charities operate under the Companies Act, which provides that all provisions of the Act apply to every non-profit corporation.

What to do? Check your by-laws to know how your corporate meetings are to take place. If your by-laws are silent, s 94 of the Act directs how elections should take place.

Section 94.1 of the act allows for directors to participate in director meetings or committee meetings by phone or “other communication facilities” if the by-laws provide for it or, subject to the by-laws, all the directors consent to that format.

Similarly, section 103.2 allows for attendance at member meetings by phone or “other communication facilities” that allow everyone participating to hear each other if the by-laws provide for it or, all members entitled to vote consent to that format.

Newfoundland & Labrador

As explained in a public advisory from earlier this spring, timelines under the Corporations Act were varied by Ministerial Order. This means that

1. A non-profit corporation can delay holding its AGM for 6 months if the time to call an AGM occurred between May 3, 2020 and October 31, 2020
2. Annual 2020 return filings can be delayed for 6 months if the anniversary month of incorporation was May to October

Nova Scotia

A Ministerial Direction allows for virtual meeting options or meeting deferral whether or not it would otherwise be allowed under any other applicable law, including enactments, articles, bylaws or governing agreements. This directive is in place for the duration of the State of Emergency (unless terminated earlier by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing). It has been further extended to November 15, 2020.

It applies to societies incorporated under the Societies Act as well as all other societies or corporate bodies, incorporated by or under provincial laws or otherwise.

Northwest Territories

The Northwest Territories has no specific orders or directives related to the Societies Act that speak to meeting delays or flexibility.

What to do? Check your by-laws to know how your corporate meetings are to take place. Unless your bylaws state otherwise, section 16.1 of the Act allows for a member to attend an AGM by phone or other mode of communication if everyone can hear each other.

Nunavut

Nunavut has no specific orders or directives related to the Societies Act that speak to meeting delays or flexibility.

What to do? Check your by-laws to know how your corporate meetings are to take place. Section 5 of the Act requires that a society’s by-laws set out the mode of general meetings and section 17 of the Act requires that the AGM be held in Nunavut. The Act is otherwise silent on how societies are to hold the meeting.

 Ontario

Ontario has again extended flexibility for meetings under the Corporations Act. The Special Rules During Emergency that have been extended to May 31, 2021 include:

• Allowing corporate member meetings to be held by phone or electronic means (Section 3; temporarily suspending s125.1 of the Corporations Act)
• Allowing corporate director meetings to be held by phone or electronic means (Section 5; temporarily suspending s283(3.1) of the Corporations Act)
• Allowing elections and votes to be held by alternate means when it’s not feasible to abide by the bylaws (Section 6; temporarily suspending s287(1) of the Corporations Act)

The time extension granted for annual meetings (section 7) was not renewed. The amendments allowing for deferred annual meetings will expire 120 days after the end of the emergency period. The emergency period began March 17. It ended when the Reopening Ontario (A Flexible Response to COVID-19) Act, 2020 came into force on July 24, 2020.

Corporations must have held (or hold) their annual meetings as follows:

• If the last day you were required to hold your AGM was during the emergency period, the meeting must have been held within 90 days after July 24, 2020 (by October 22, 2020)
• If the last day you were required to hold your AGM was within 30 days after the emergency, the meeting must be held within 120 days after July 24,2020 (by November 21, 2020)

Prince Edward Island

Prince Edward Island has no specific orders or directives related to the Companies Act that speak to meeting delays or flexibility. Charities operate under Part II of the Companies Act as well as applicable sections in other parts of the Act.

Your bylaws should tell you all you need to know about your meetings. To be granted letters patent for a non-profit company, a petition must accompany the application. That petition must include a variety of detailed information including the “mode of holding meetings, provision for quorum, rights of voting…” as per s 90(2)(b). The Act does not speak to digital, telephone, remote or other forms of meetings.

To help plan compliant meetings, see PEI Gatherings Guidance.

Quebec

An Order in Council (1150-2020) issued on November 4, 2020 renews the public health emergency along with a laundry list of other Orders in Council and Ministerial Orders.

One of the renewed orders was Ministerial Orders (2020-029). This Order allows any meeting of a deliberative body that normally takes place in person to be held by other means so long as everyone can communicate with each other immediately. If a secret ballot would normally be required, it can be held by any means of communication that everyone agrees upon, or alternatively, in a way that preserves the secret nature of the vote and can be verified.

“Deliberative bodies” includes non-profit organizations governed by the Companies Act [Act], as confirmed in a government press release [French only].

Since November 2019, the Act has allowed meetings by phone, videoconference or other digital means so long as everyone can communicate with each other immediately (ss 89.2-89.4, 224). But this permission in the Act is subject to bylaws of the corporation. So if the bylaws prohibit phone or electronic meetings, the Act isn’t much help.

That’s why the Order 2020-029 was necessary. It essentially overrides any bylaw or other corporate provisions that would prohibit alternate meeting options. Since the public health emergency has been continually renewed since it was declared March 13, it is almost certain it will continue to be renewed, extending the option for virtual meetings.

Saskatchewan

In Saskatchewan, OC 222/2020 authorizes non-profit corporations to hold annual general meetings (AGMs) by phone, video-conference or other electronic means, so long as the articles or bylaws do not prohibit it and participants are able to adequately communicate with one another. It is effective as of the day of filing, which is May 14, 2020.

The existing Non-profit Corporations Act requires that member meetings “shall be held at the place within Saskatchewan provided in the bylaws” (see s.122). The Order amends the definition of “held at the place” by adding a definition to s.13 of the existing Non-profit Corporations Regulations, 1997 to remove the geographic restriction. 

Yukon

A Ministerial Order issued earlier this year (May 13, 2020) remains in effect. A society under the Societies Act, an association under the Cooperative Associations Act and for-profit corporations are allowed to hold AGMs partially or entirely by phone or electronic means even if the bylaws don’t provide for the meeting, if the directors choose to hold it by those means or a member calls such a meeting and it allows all member to attend, participate, and where applicable, vote.

Similarly, directors meetings can be held electronically.

These meetings are deemed to have been held in Yukon and participants are considered to be present.

The order applies for the “designated period” which means the period beginning March 17, 2020 and for societies and associations, ends 90 days after the end of the state of emergency. The state of emergency was renewed for the second time on September 9, 2020 for 90 days. It is retroactive to any time in the designated period, or before the state of emergency was declared (March 27, 2020).

Federal

An August order extending deadlines for federally incorporated charities remains in place. It allows charities to delay calling the AGM and delay presenting financial statements by six months.

That means the 2020 AGM can be extended to the shorter of the following two options: (1) 21 months after the previous AGM and no more than 12 months after the last financial year-end or (2) December 31, 2020.  You don’t have to apply to Corporations Canada to take advantage of these extensions.

As for virtual meetings, you need to check your by-laws to see what they allow. If the bylaw specifically allows virtual meetings, great! You can hold a fully virtual meeting. If the bylaw is silent or doesn’t permit virtual meetings, you can consider a partially virtual meeting. Some attend in person and other participate virtually as long as everyone can communicate.

Corporations Canada suggests an alternative could be to sign a resolution instead of an AGM. Practically, this is probably only an option for corporations with a small membership. The resolution must, at minimum include (1) director elections, (2) financial statements, (3) appointing the auditor or waiving such appointment. All other business items normally communicated at the AGM must also be included.

For more, check out this article on Holding a Successful AGM.

Charity leaders are invited to share how they are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic within their organization in our online community forum, The Green: COVID-19 Response Room.

The post AGM Options Across Canada appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

The Quebec government recently passed legislation that requires all government employees – from school teachers to police officers – not to wear any religious symbols.  That means no Jewish men wearing the yarmulke; no Sikhs wearing a turban; no Muslims wearing the hijab; no Christians wearing a cross lapel pin. 

What does all this mean for Christian charities?

First, even if we do not live in Quebec, we may find ourselves facing similar attitudes, as we are living in a time of militant secularism. This is not a secularism that is neutral or indifferent toward religion. Rather, it is a forceful, anti-religious secularism that claims to be acting under the banner of separation of church and state or state neutrality. Unfortunately, this form of secularism takes on characteristics of an extremist religion, imposed by the state on all citizens.

Second, the logic of this approach inevitably leads the secular state to conclude that it can no longer approve or accredit religious enterprises, because to do so would be an endorsement of the religious entity and its beliefs. Already, we’ve seen this logic on display at the Supreme Court of Canada in the Trinity Western University case, where the government insisted (and the Court agreed) basically saying, “we will not accredit a religious school because if we do, we are approving the discrimination of that school towards others.”

Already, the new bill is going to be challenged in the courts. It is questionable how far the court challenge will go, given that the Quebec government is using the “notwithstanding clause” in the Charter to override the religious freedom rights in s. 2(a) of the Charter. The notwithstanding clause allows legislatures to temporarily pass legislation that they know will violate Charter rights. Some suggest that the clause is undemocratic – however, it forms part of the Charter which was passed by the Canadian Parliament (and the UK Parliament) in 1982. It is meant to be a check against the power of the judiciary, to prevent judicial interference in the will of the legislature. 

To accommodate religious garb and adornment is a very low bar in the grand scheme of things. To deny accommodation means we are intruding on religious practices and denying the very beliefs that underlie those external symbols of faith. The justification for this Quebec policy originates with the 2008 commission report on reasonable accommodation of cultural communities co-chaired by Quebec sociologist Gérard Bouchard and McGill philosophy professor Charles Taylor. Their report recommended the banning of religious symbols of judges, policy officers and prison guards. Charles Taylor now says that recommendation was a mistake. Bouchard still maintains the recommendation was proper, but that it is being carried too far to include teachers.

What has happened, it would appear, is that the radical secularists have taken the Bouchard/Taylor recommendation and expanded it. Call it a “slippery slope” or an “abuse” – the fact remains we now have on the record legislation that is clearly anti-religious. That does not bode well for religious freedom for individuals or religious organizations in the long term.

Rather than bemoan this reality, however, we can use the controversy over religion in the public square as an opportunity. The public spotlight does not have to be feared but can be embraced to educate society on the contributions religious communities make every day. Yes, in some circles, religion is viewed as a problem for social cohesion. But we exhibit the exact opposite. The members of CCCC, now a community of some 3400 charities, are engaged in comprehensive work to enhance our country’s success. We assist all who are in need without regard to their religious or non-religious positions. We lift people out of poverty, we educate for competence in multiple fields of endeavour, we feed and clothe. The concern for our neighbour’s well-being is motivated by a religious imperative that guides our lives. This is who we are, and regardless of opposition, we can and should continue to care for others with Christ-like compassion, dedication, and hope.

The post Québec’s New Secularism appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

You may have noticed that recently Québec has been a cauldron of angst regarding all matters religious. The current debate over the “Charter of Values”[2] is forming a dynamic backdrop to Loyola’s opposition to the government’s imposition of the ERC as it now gets ready to have its case heard in Ottawa.

The school does not object to the ERC goals (recognition of others and pursuit of the common good) or competencies (ethical reflection, understanding of religion, and dialogue), but it does object to the ERC’s restrictions against the teacher sharing his/her religious or ethical views in the classroom. When the school asked for an exemption to the ERC and the right to use its own curriculum instead, the government said no because the school’s approach was faith-based rather than “cultural”. In cross examination, government officials agreed that during the course a Catholic teacher could not favour one moral position, such as marital fidelity, over another.[3]

The Québec government is also making a strident argument that religious corporations do not have a right to religious freedom. Religious freedom, they argue, is only for individuals. I am doubtful that the Supreme Court will buy into that position since the Court has recognized in the past that religious freedom has communal aspects.[4]  However, the Court has not categorically defined exactly what the parameters are for the religious freedom rights of religious bodies as distinct from individuals. This case is a prime opportunity to address the issue. Should the Québec government convince the Court otherwise, then we can expect serious challenges to the operations of religious communities in the future—particularly their internal governance.

Background

Loyola High School in Montréal is an all-boys private school run by the Jesuit Order and a registered charity. As a confessional school, it’s very purpose is to inculcate the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church for the next generation of young men. It is very open about that goal. It is why it exists. In fact, the goal of teaching the faith to the next generation is the reason why private Christian schools operate throughout all of Canada. In many ways, the future of such religious communities are dependent on the successful transmission of the faith that occurs in the schools. For this reason, what is and is not taught in the classroom is a cause of great concern.

Government also has an interest in education. Properly educated citizens have the means to take on their responsibilities to ensure our liberal democracy operates in its best form. Failure to educate a child contributes to financial and emotional poverty. Such a cost is not in our society’s interest. It is not surprising, therefore, that education is the lightening rod that is given to the stakeholders—parents, church, and state.

The Problem

Loyola’s core objection to the ERC is that the teacher of the ERC is not permitted to share his/her religious or ethical views in the classroom. In other words, Loyola’s teachers cannot use the Roman Catholic viewpoint when instructing their students; they cannot uphold Catholic teachings on ethical issues or teach that  the Christian understanding of God is true.

In short, during the time the ERC course is taught, Loyola is expected by the Québec Government to lay aside its Roman Catholicism. It must be neutral. For all intents and purposes during that time it ceases to be a Roman Catholic school. In this way, the state has carved a “neutral” space out of a private religious school’s schedule for students to be taught religion and ethics from a secular point of view.

The Road To Court

Loyola requested of the Québec Ministry of Education, Recreation and Sport (“MELS”) an exemption from the ERC on the basis that its own program meets the two objectives and the three competencies. MELS denied the request on the basis that Loyola’s program was “confessional”—it taught from a faith perspective, and that was unacceptable.

At the trial court, the judge said that the MELS decision could not be based on confessionality but only on the basis of whether Loyola’s program was equivalent. The Québec Government argued that because Loyola was a corporation, it did not have the right to religious freedom. The trial judge disagreed with the government and held that as a religious corporation and as a religious school it benefited from freedom of religion.

The judge was not impressed with how MELS handled the matter and said that violating the religious freedom of Loyola was comparable to the treatment of Galileo by the Roman Catholic Church in the 17^th Century. The violation was not justified in a free and democratic country.

The Québec Court of Appeal (“CA”) took an opposite position to that of the trial judge. The CA did not address the Québec government’s argument that it had no obligation to guard the religious freedom of Loyola because Loyola was a corporation and had no right to religious freedom. As far as the CA was concerned, the government’s decision was reasonable, and given that government sought to “deconfessionalise education,” it had every right to use confessional manner of teaching as a criteria to deny Loyola’s request for an exemption.

The case is now before the Supreme Court of Canada. Loyola has filed its factum. Potential interveners have until December 2, 2013 to apply for permission to intervene in the case.

Why CCCC is Involved

As a membership organization of over 3,300 Christian charities across Canada, the CCCC views religious freedom as integral to the right of religious organizations to continue their ministries of service. The following reasons outline why CCCC has taken the decision to apply to the Supreme Court for Intervener status:

• To highlight the importance of our Christian identity. Religious organizations are groups of like-minded individuals who have come together to practically implement their religious beliefs. For example, a group of individuals who are Mennonites may want to organize a peace and reconciliation ministry as a public expression of their theological understanding of the Gospel of peace as taught in the New Testament Scriptures. Though this organization might be carrying out work that a secular or a non-religious group may want to start, the fact remains that it was this particular religious group who came together and they ought to be permitted to carry out their faith in the manner they so choose. The ability to carry out those works of service requires each organization to maintain their own Christian identity as they understand themselves.
• To reinforce the historical importance of freedom of religion. The Supreme Court of Canada has noted that religious freedom has historically been prototypical. Chief Justice Dickson wrote, “Religious belief and practice are historically prototypical and, in many ways, paradigmatic of conscientiously‑held beliefs and manifestations and are therefore protected by the Charter.”[5]  This suggests that religious freedom was often the first freedom in western democracies, followed by other freedoms, such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and so on. In the modern era (since the Reformation), it has been religious freedom that has led the way to even greater civil liberties. In the 20^th Century, country after country that denied religious freedom denied all other freedoms. Freedom of religious institutions has a long historical presence with freedom of religion for the individual. They are symbiotic .
• To examine and clarify the legal perspective on the religious freedom of religious institutions. There has been little discussion in constitutional jurisprudence about the religious freedom of religious institutions. This case presents an opportunity for the law to develop its understandings in that regard.  While we have yet to have a detailed analysis of the religious freedom of religious institutions, there have been a number of statements that suggest the law already has an understanding of this concept, though it has not been as clearly articulated as it should. Justice Rand, in a 1953 decision, stated:

Strictly speaking, civil rights arise from positive law; but freedom of speech, religion and the inviolability of the person, are original freedoms which are at once the necessary attributes and modes of self-expression of human beings and the primary conditions of their community life within a legal order.[6]

Justice McLachlin stated that she agreed “that religious freedom has both individual and collective aspects.”[7]

• To avoid potential consequences.  What if religious institutions are not recognized as having a religious freedom right?  The following challenges come to mind:
  • Discrimination. There is a growing trend to view faith-based practises as discriminatory. For example, religious organizations that only hire those who are in harmony with their faith commitments may be viewed as discriminatory.
  • Identity. As outlined above, if religious institutions do not have religious freedom, then they will be forced to lose their identity and adopt a secular framework.
  • Devaluing of Religion. Should religious institutions not have religious freedom, then one has to wonder whether the secularizing forces will target the so-called privileges of religion—property tax exemption for church properties.
• To educate. By intervening in this case, CCCC is taking responsibility to educate the Canadian judiciary and society at large about the important role of Christian charities. Some members of society appear to be of the view that the stronger a person’s religious conviction, the more they disdain others. However, we know different. Our 3,300 members work day in and day out in service for others. We serve not expecting a thing in return. The false assumptions of the nature of religious organizations are to be challenged. By taking an active role in this case, we are affirming the rights of religious communities across the country to be true to their faith inspired commitment to respect and serve others with an open heart.

The post Only A Little Pork In The Soup: Can Religious Beliefs Be Put On Hold? appeared first on CCCC Blogs.