|
Municipal - Religious Neutrality. Tafsik Organization et al v. The City of Toronto
In Tafsik Organization et al v. The City of Toronto (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed an interlocutory injunction in the course of a JR application, here seeking to restrain "the respondent, The City of Toronto (the “City” or “Toronto”), from raising the flag of the State of Palestine at Toronto City Hall on November 17, 2025".
The court considers any duty of neutrality regarding international political or religious issues, here in a municipal context:Is the Approval unreasonable on the basis that raising a politically charged foreign flag at City Hall in the present context conveys partisanship, undermines neutrality and cohesion among communities, and does not maintain municipality neutrality as required by Saguenay?
[45] The applicants submit that the Approval permits a politically charged foreign flag at City Hall in the present context conveys partisanship and undermines neutrality and cohesion among communities. They argue that this is contrary to “the duty of municipalities to remain neutral in belief-laden matters” established in Saguenay.
[46] In Saguenay, at para. 77, the court found that the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms imposes a duty of religious neutrality on the state that prevents a government from using its powers to promote or impose a religious belief. The court also stated:[75] .... in addition to its role in promoting diversity and multiculturalism, the state’s duty of religious neutrality is based on a democratic imperative. The rights and freedoms set out in the Quebec Charter and the Canadian Charter reflect the pursuit of an ideal: a free and democratic society. This pursuit requires the state to encourage everyone to participate freely in public life regardless of their beliefs … The state may not act in such a way as to create a preferential public space that favours certain religious groups and is hostile to others. It follows that the state may not, by expressing its own religious preference, promote the participation of believers to the exclusion of non-believers or vice versa.
[76] When all is said and done, the state's duty to protect every person's freedom of conscience and religion means that it may not use its powers in such a way as to promote the participation of certain believers or non-believers in public life to the detriment of others. It is prohibited from adhering to one religion to the exclusion of all others. Section 3 of the Quebec Charter imposes a duty on the state to remain neutral in this regard. Today, the state's duty of neutrality has become a necessary consequence of enshrining the freedom of conscience and religion in the Canadian Charter and the Quebec Charter. [Emphasis added, citations omitted.] [47] Neither the Flag Policy nor the Approval promote or impose a religious belief, and thus neither engage the duty of religious neutrality imposed by Saguenay. There is no mention of religion in the Flag Policy nor is there anything in the Approval which suggests that religion was a factor in granting the Approval. By permitting the raising of the flag of the State of Palestine on the City’s courtesy flag pole, the City did not promote Islam in the same way that the City, by permitting the raising of the flag of the State of Israel several months earlier on the same flag pole, did not promote Judaism.
[48] The duty of religious neutrality does not extend to political neutrality. In any event, politics is not a relevant consideration under the Flag Policy for the issuance of an Approval.
[49] The Flag Policy emphasizes that the issuance of an approval should not be viewed as promoting any particular political view. It states that an approval for the use of a courtesy flag pole “neither implies or expresses support for the politics or policies of nations and/or organizations but raises the flag in recognition of those citizens or members that have made the request”.
[50] Toronto’s Chief of Protocol, Aretha Phillip, states that the Flag Policy is designed to promote neutrality:Some requests that are approved pursuant to the Policy can be viewed by some as controversial – for example, to raise the flag of a nation whose foreign or domestic policies may not be popular in Canada. However, the Policy is designed to ensure neutrality and to avoid biases and value judgements on the part of City Staff and City Council by requiring only that the flag requested to be raised is that of a nation recognized by the Government of Canada. [51] I find that the applicants’ assertion that the decision to issue the Approval was unreasonable on the basis that it promoted the State of Palestine, or its policies, or that it breached the duty of religious neutrality does not raise a serious issue.
|
