# data[].attributes.headline
 In R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd., 1986 CanLII 12 (SCC), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713, Dickson C.J. said at paragraphs 96 and 97: (19)

# data[].attributes.subject
 In R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd., 1986 CanLII 12 (SCC), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713, Dickson C.J. said at paragraphs 96 and 97: (19)

# data[].attributes.body
It means only that indirect or unintentional burdens will not be held to be outside the scope of Charter protection. This does not mean, however, that every burden on religious practices is offensive to the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.

# data[].attributes.body
The freedom of practicing religion is limited to whether the beliefs cause physical or psychological harm to the well-being of others.

# data[].attributes.headline
Paragraph 19-  R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd.

# data[].attributes.subject
Paragraph 19-  R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd.

# data[].attributes.body
One must prove that they hold reasonable belief that their religious beliefs or conduct may be threatened or is actually being threatened or inferred with. This would violate the terms of the Constitution which shelters individuals and groups from threats regarding their religious pursuits. If infringement is deemed insubstantial or trivial, the case has lost merit in judicial courts.

# data[].attributes.body
Even if an individual demonstrates their strong belief in a religion, they still are obligated to "consider how the exercise of  their right impacts upon the rights of others in the context of the competing rights of private individuals." If conduct potentially causes harm, the individual is not automatically protected, this protection being measured in relation to other rights.
Case name: Syndicat
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
-ali

# data[].attributes.body
(In Syndicat)
Freedom is not limitless. As individuals, we cannot simply do anything in the name of freedom. Actions that harm the rights of others will not be protected. Ultimately, the practice and belief of religion does not trump the protection of our society.

# data[].attributes.body
- analyzed is whether the Applicants were restricted in their religious practice or coerced by police
- to do something they would otherwise have not done or done
- must demonstrate that their right to practice Obeah was interfered with or restricted by the police
- must show that: that he/he practices a belief, and that engendering a personal connection with the divine or with the subject or object of an individual's spiritual faith, he or she is sincere in his or her belief
- religion typically involves a particular and comprehensive system of faith and worship, religion is about freely and deeply held personal convictions or beliefs connected to an individual's spiritual faith and integrally linked to one's self-definition and spiritual fulfillment, the practices of which allow individuals to foster a connection with the divine or with the subject or object of that spiritual faith
- should not need to prove the objective validity of their beliefs in that their beliefs are objectively recognized as valid by other members of the same religion, nor is such an inquiry appropriate for courts to make
- a court is not qualified to rule on the validity or veracity of any given religious practice or belief, or to choose among various interpretations of belief
- it is qualified to inquire into the sincerity of a claimant's belief

# data[].attributes.body
In Multani v. Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys
Freedom of religion is not absolute and it can conflict with other constitutional rights

In British Columbia College of Teachers v. Trinity Western University et al
Although freedom of belief may be broad, the freedom to act upon those beliefs is considerably narrower, and it is the latter freedom at issue in this case

In Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15
Freedom of religion is restricted by the right of others to hold and to manifest beliefs and opinions of their own, and to be free from injury from the exercise of the freedom of religion of others.

# data[].attributes.body
Paragraph 5-9

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., 1985 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295 at 330, a case that explored the parameters of s.2 (a) of the Charter:
"A truly free society is one which can accommodate a wide variety of beliefs, diversity of tastes and pursuits, customs and codes ofconduct.  A free society is one which aims at equality with respect to the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms..."

In Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47 (CanLII), [2004] S.C.J. No. 46, at para. 50, Iacobucci J. said:
"In my view, the State is in no position to be, nor should it become, the arbiter of religious dogma. Accordingly, courts should avoid judicially interpreting and thus determining, either explicitly or implicitly."

# data[].attributes.body
Freedom of religion is not absolute, just as there are limits to freedom of expression. The expression of religion has to fall under a certain scope so that the public is protected from any threatening activity. (From the Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto)

# data[].attributes.body
(Big M Drug Mart Ltd.)
Freedom of religion means one has the ability to conduct religious activity without coercion or constraint. If the government forced a confession through the use of religion, the person can argue they were coerced. However, limitations exist when one's religious freedom imposes on the rights/safety of another.

# data[].attributes.body
(In Big M Drug Mart Ltd.,)
Examined whether police conduct interfered with the Applicants’ ability to worship freely or to practice in accordance with their religious beliefs?

Freedom of religion is the right to go about your religious beliefs as you choose and declare these beliefs openly without fear of shame or condemnation.
If a person is pressured by the state or another person to choose an option they may not have chosen otherwise, they are not acting of their own volition and therefore are not truly free. The Charter serves to protect people within reason from compulsion or restraint.

# data[].attributes.headline
Paragraph 19 (R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd.) (SCC)

# data[].attributes.subject
Paragraph 19 (R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd.) (SCC)

# data[].attributes.body
- The purpose of 2a is to ensure that society does not interfere with profoundly personal beliefs that govern one's perception of oneself, humankind, nature, and, in some cases, a higher or different order of being.
- It is not the courts job to interfere with peoples religious beliefs

# data[].attributes.body
42:
Essentially states that the claimant was not able to prove that his case was more than trivial and that the government was in the wrong. "Thus, this Applicant must demonstrate that the degree of interference with his religious freedom was more than trivial or insubstantial and if so, that it would not threaten or cause physical or psychological harm to the well-being of others.  In my view, he has not succeeded on the first point."
In other words, he could not prove that Leon infringed on his rights and could not prove that he was causing him harm or was interfering with his right to freedom of religion.