| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys
''Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys'', () 1 S.C.R. 256, 2006 SCC 6 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in which the Court struck down an order of a Quebec school authority, that prohibited a Sikh child from wearing a kirpan to school, as a violation of freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms''. This order could not be saved under section 1 of the ''Charter''.
The case involved a 12-year-old Sikh named Gurbaj Singh, who in November 2001 dropped a metal kirpan at his school, École Sainte‑Catherine‑Labouré. This prompted the school board to request certain limits on the wearing of the kirpan, including that it be covered at all times. The Sikh family accepted this request. However, another board, in February 2002, overrode the school board, deciding that the kirpan was a weapon and thus was not allowed under the code of conduct. The council of commissioners agreed with the latter decision, although they suggested a non-metal kirpan could be used. The Quebec Court of Appeal found in favour of the council of commissioners.
==Decision==
First, the majority of the Court, whose opinion was authored by Justice Louise Charron, denied that the case should be decided under the rules of administrative law, which required simple reasonableness. The majority believed this would limit the rights under the Charter. As Charron wrote, "The rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter establish a minimum constitutional protection that must be taken into account by the legislature and by every person or body subject to the Canadian Charter."〔Para. 16.〕 The rule against weapons under administrative law was not the subject of this case. The real focus was how in practise the law banned the kirpan.〔Para. 19.〕 The Court went on to note that the council of commissioners, which had banned the kirpan, was bound by the Charter. This was because the council was created by a statute and thus received its powers from a legislature. While the concurring justices Deschamps and Abella believed section 1 of the Charter could only be used on unconstitutional written laws, Charron wrote that section 1 can also be applied to delegated power. If the power is used according to the law, it is "prescribed by law" as required by section 1; ''Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice)'' (2000) was an example of a case in which delegated power was not prescribed by law.〔Para. 22.〕 Since the council acted according to the law, the Court could now look at the freedom of religion issue.〔Para. 23.〕
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|