Would a religious grotto in Bellevue Park be legal?

Loyal SooToday reader Tom Brason sent us a copy of a letter he sent to the Mayor and Councillors of Sault Ste. Marie. Brason wrote us the following pre-amble to his letter.

Loyal SooToday reader Tom Brason sent us a copy of a letter he sent to the Mayor and Councillors of Sault Ste. Marie.

Brason wrote us the following pre-amble to his letter.

"Reacting to my instincts about the legal capacity of council to impose a religious monument on the Citizens of Sault Ste Marie I did some researching and came up with an Ontario Court of Appeals decision that should have a dramatic affect on Council," Brason said.

He goes on to say he is surprised staff wasn't aware of these legal precidents and he believes Council should not vote on the grotto issue.

"I just checked the one of a few court decisions impacting this case," said Brason. "You'll see the lower courts decision in the first 10 percent and the Judges reason for overturning it in the rest, along with references to a Sudbury board of education and comments on a case involving the Lordsday Act."

*************************

Re: Court Case says Grotto cannot even go to a vote

Dear Mayor Amaroso and members of Council.

According to the accompanying case from the Ontario Court of Appeals City Council cannot impose any religious values or religious symbols on the citizens of our city.

The Grotto being a religious shrine to a distinct religious faction within the city of Sault Ste Marie comes within this category.

The case involves a decision by the acting Mayor of Penetanguishe to begin council meetings by reciting the Lord’s Prayer and the resulting challenge in court.

The presiding Ontario Court of Appeals Judge overturned a lower court decision and in doing so quoted instances from Zylberberg V. Sudbury Board of Education and a decision affecting the Lords Day Act, both of which have a direct bearing on the proposed decision for City Council to erect a religious grotto in a public park within the Sault.

In the Zylberberg case they emphasize that students as well as adults have the right to ‘not’ be coerced or be put into a position that may expose their religious dissent, subjecting themselves to possible and unnecessary repercussions.

That children do not have to be put into the difficult position to ask to be excused as the class recites the lords prayer, nor do adults have to face the same dilemma or be faced with other “state imposed” and unnecessary religious views.

“What may appear good and true to a majoritarian religious group, or to the state acting at their behest, may not, for religious reasons, be imposed upon citizens who take a contrary view. The Charter safeguards religious minorities from the threat of "the tyranny of the majority".

This court has held both in Zylberberg as well as in Canadian Civil Liberties Association v. Ontario (Minister of Education), that when the purpose of the impugned legislation or governmental action is to compel religious observance, then it cannot be justified under section one, "You cannot subject the public to city ordained religious views which may detrimentally affect members of our society or in effect, coerce them."

Mayor and Council, it appears that according to the information contained in the court’s decision, the city cannot erect any religious monument or provide the space in a public park that was set aside for all to enjoy regardless of our cultures or religious preferences.

Sincerely,

Tom Brason

****************************

Earlier SooToday.com coverage of this story