View cases - Stewart McKelvey

- 52 -82 Against the appellants’ rights, the respondent Syndicat claims that thepotential setting up of succahs on the appellants’ balconies for the nine-day holiday ofSuccot would interfere with the co-owners’ rights to the peaceful enjoyment of theirproperty and to personal security, protected under ss. 6 and 1 of the Quebec Charter,respectively, thus justifying the total blanket prohibition against setting up succahs.83 More specifically, in this case the co-owners’ rights to peaceful enjoyment2004 SCC 47 (CanLII)of their co-owned property in general, and of the balconies as “common portions”thereof in particular, has been articulated as a function of preserving the economic andaesthetic value of their property, which, they assert, is a component of an individual’sright to enjoy his or her property under the Quebec Charter. Similarly, the respondentclaims that the co-owners’ rights to personal security under the Charter have beenimplicated; because the balconies of the Sanctuaire are fire-escape routes, cordoning offof the balcony would jeopardize the co-owners’ safety in an emergency situation. Inessence, the Syndicat is requesting in the name of the co-ownership that the appellantscease and desist from setting up these succahs, claiming that their presence negativelyaffects the co-owners’ aesthetic, economic, and security interests in the property.84 In the final analysis, however, I am of the view that the alleged intrusionsor deleterious effects on the respondent’s rights or interests under the circumstances are,at best, minimal and thus cannot be reasonably considered as imposing valid limits onthe exercise of the appellants’ religious freedom.85 In practice, to what degree would the respondent be harmed were theappellants allowed to set up a succah for a period of 9 out of 365 days a year? Theevidence before us does not provide a satisfactory answer. The respondent has simply