Canadian courts not being “arbiter(s) of religious dogma,” as the Supreme Court put it in a landmark 2004 case, Moldaver took no issue with the claim: ski resort goes in, spirit bear moves on. Instead, like Moldaver, they took them at their word: ski resort goes in, spirit bear moves on. “The appellants are not seeking protection for the freedom to believe in Grizzly Bear Spirit or to pursue practices related to it. The practical difference in protecting “focal points” of religious belief that exist in the real world today is that it activates real-life consequences. It is too simplistic to say the court dismissed the very idea of a land-based religious freedom claim under the Charter, says law professor Benjamin Berger, an expert on religious freedom at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Source: National Post November 03, 2017 00:45 UTC