Reading Hutterian Brethren v Alberta in a Larger Constitutional Law Context

Authors

Diana Ginn, Dalhousie University Schulich School of LawFollow
James Peter Barry, Dalhousie University Schulich School of Law

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2014

Keywords

Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony v. Alberta, Freedom of Religion, Supreme Court of Canada, Minimal Impairment Test, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Constitutional Challenges

Abstract

This paper explores how a key aspect of the Supreme Court of Canada's articulation of freedom of religion fits with the court's developing jurisprudence on constitutional review of government action more generally. In particular, we examine how the 2009 decision, Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony v. Alberta, which rejects incorporating concepts of accommodation into the s. I minimal impairment test, reflects the court's evolving thinking on whether and how constitutional challenges to legislation should be differentiated from constitutional challenges to other forms of governmental activity.

Comments

https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/aqrty43&i=320

Recommended Citation

Diana Ginn & James Barry, "Reading Hutterian Brethren v. Alberta in a Larger Constitutional Law Context" (2014) 43:3 Advocates' Q 306.