## Facts

- Gurbaj Singh Multani, an orthodox Sikh student aged 12–13, believed his religion required him to wear a metal kirpan at all times.
- In November 2001, he accidentally dropped the kirpan, which was worn under his clothing, in the courtyard of his public school in Montreal.
- The school board initially authorized him to wear the kirpan at school under strict safety conditions requiring it to be sealed and secured inside his clothing.
- In February 2002, the school’s governing board refused to ratify the accommodation, treating the kirpan as a prohibited “weapon” under the school’s code of conduct.
- The school board’s council of commissioners upheld the prohibition, suggesting a symbolic or non-metal alternative.
- The Quebec Superior Court set aside the prohibition and allowed the kirpan subject to strict conditions; the Quebec Court of Appeal restored the ban.
- The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and reinstated permission to wear the kirpan under safety conditions.

## Issues

1. Did prohibiting the student from wearing a kirpan at school infringe freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
2. If so, was the infringement justified as a reasonable limit under s. 1 of the Charter?
3. Can a limit arising from an administrative decision made under statutory authority qualify as “prescribed by law” for s. 1 purposes?

## Decision

- The Court unanimously allowed the appeal and set aside the decision upholding the ban (with concurring reasons on the analytical framework).
- The prohibition infringed the student’s freedom of religion under s. 2(a).
- The infringement was not justified under s. 1 because an absolute ban was not minimally impairing given available, enforceable safety conditions.
- The student was permitted to wear the kirpan at school subject to strict conditions designed to reduce risk.
- The majority held that an administrative decision implementing statutory authority may constitute a limit “prescribed by law” and therefore must satisfy Charter justification requirements.

## Legal Principles

- Freedom of religion is infringed where (1) a claimant shows a sincere religious belief connected to a practice, and (2) state action interferes with that practice in a manner that is more than trivial or insubstantial.
- For s. 1 justification, a safety objective can be pressing and substantial, but the state must show proportionality, including minimal impairment of the right.
- A blanket prohibition that substantially burdens religious practice will fail minimal impairment where credible, less restrictive measures can address the safety objective.
- Public bodies exercising delegated statutory powers are bound by the Charter and must ensure decisions meet minimum constitutional protections.
- Limits on Charter rights may arise through administrative decisions; when they do, the decision must be supportable under Charter standards, not only general administrative “reasonableness.”

## Conclusion

The Court held that a public school’s total ban on a Sikh student wearing a kirpan violated freedom of religion and could not be justified by generalized safety concerns where strict, practical conditions could substantially mitigate risk, requiring accommodation rather than prohibition.


Multani v. Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256 (Can. 2006)