Resources

Legislation and Policies

Factum

PART I - FACTS

1. Appellant Gurbaj Singh Multani ("Gurbaj Singh") is a high school student.  He is an orthodox follower of the Sikh religion and is required to wear a kirpan at all times.  On November 19, 2001, he dropped his kirpan in the schoolyard, and the school administration prohibited him from bringing the object to school again.
Multani (guardian of) v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, [2004] J.Q. No. 1904 ("Court of Appeal decision"), paragraph 7.

2. On December 21, 2001, the lower levels of Respondent Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys ("CSMB") allowed Gurbaj Singh to wear his kirpan on the condition that it be placed in a scabbard with a flap sewn securely shut to ensure that it could net be voluntarily or accidentally removed from the scabbard and used as an offensive or defensive weapon.
Ibid., paragraph 9.

3. However, on March 11, 2002, the CSMB overturned that decision and prohibited Gurbaj Singh from wearing the kirpan at school, adding: That the Commission scolaire accept the wearing of the symbolic kirpan as a pendant or in any other form and of a material that would make it harmless. Ibid., paragraph 12.

4. The evidence in the docket shows that wearing the symbolic kirpan is not in keeping with Gurbaj Singh's religion. Ibid., paragraphs 56, 71.

5. In a decision on May 27, 2002, the trial judge overturned the CSMB's decision and allowed Gurbaj Singh to wear the kirpan on the following conditions:

1. that the kirpan be worn under his clothes;
2. that the kirpan be carried in a scabbard made of wood and not metal, to prevent it from causing injury;
3. that the kirpan be placed in its scabbard and wrapped and sewn in a sturdy fabric pouch, and that this pouch be sewn to the guthra;
4. that school personnel be authorized to verify, in a reasonable fashion, that these conditions were being followed
5. that Gurbaj Singh be required to keep the kirpan in his possession at all times, and that its disappearance be reported to school authorities immediately;
6. that if the present judgment were not respected, Gurbaj Singh would definitively lose the right to wear his kirpan at school.

Ibid., paragraph 17.

6. In a decision on March 4, 2004, the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the Superior Court's ruling and reinstated the CSMB's decision prohibiting Gurbaj Singh from wearing his kirpan at school. Ibid., paragraph 103.

PART II - ISSUES

7. What elements must be demonstrated, in terms of both substance and process, to justify a safety policy that discriminates on the basis of religion?

8. Did the CSMB discharge its burden of showing that it considered and reasonably rejected all possible options that would make the kirpan reasonably inoffensive so as to maintain the necessary level of safety at school?