|
What was at issue in that case was whether the Lord's Day Act, in providing that "it shall be unlawful for any person on the Lord's Day ... to carry on or transact any business of his ordinary calling ... " abrogated, abridged or infringed the right to "freedom of religion", and it was con-tended on behalf of the appellant that the phrase "freedom of religion" as used in the Bill of Rights meant "freedom to enjoy the freedom which my own religion allows without being confined by restrictions imposed by Parliament for the purpose of enforcing the tenets of a faith to which I do not subscribe". In considering this contention, it became necessary to examine the decided cases in order to determine what was the accepted meaning of "freedom of religion" as it existed in Canada immediately before the Bill of Rights was enacted and the last-quoted excerpt from the reasons for justment must, in my view, be read in this sense. This appears to me to be confirmed by the succeeding paragraph of these reasons where it is said:
|