Case information

Charter of Rights — Human Rights and Freedoms — Freedom of religion — Discrimination — Employment — Safety — Mandatory helmet — Truck driver — Are Sikh truck drivers entering the port of Montreal for short periods of time entitled to be accommodated and permitted to wear a turban instead of a hard hat? — Can the safety considerations justify the refusal of accommodation under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter given that the turban is accepted in ports across the world, including Canada? — Did the view taken of safety by the Courts below have the effect of imposing an absolute safety standard contrary to Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite Bourgeoys and thus substantially modifying the Oakes test under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter and the Quebec Charter?

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicants are Sikh truck drivers wearing the turban. In order to comply with their legal obligations, the respondents adopted a policy requiring anyone walking on the grounds of their port terminals to wear a protective helmet. The applicants refused to wear a helmet for reasons related to their religious beliefs. Accommodation measures were attempted, but were unsuitable for the applicants and were abandoned due to their lack of economical and organizational viability. The applicants stop carrying out transportation at the respondents’ port terminals and filed an application for a declaratory judgment exempting them from wearing a protective helmet. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the application. First, the court concluded that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not apply given that the respondents’ policy was not a government act, and rather that the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, CQLR c C 12 (Quebec Charter) applied. Second, the court concluded that, while the applicants demonstrated prima facie discrimination (s. 10 of the Quebec Charter) as well as interference with their freedom of religion (s. 3 of the Quebec Charter), the respondents succeeded in demonstrating that it was justified under s. 15(1) (2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, RSC 1985, c H 6 and s. 9.1 of the Quebec Charter, considering that the policy constitutes a minimal interference with the applicants’ freedom of religion, taking into account the risks and obligations of the respondents in matters of health and safety at work. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the applicants’ appeal, finding that the trial judge made no error in reaching his conclusions.