Supreme Court of Canada strikes down a kirpan ban in Multani

Who: Gurbaj Singh Multani, born in 1989, a baptised Sikh student, and his father Balvir Singh Multani, who brought the case in his own name and as his son's tutor; the school board, the Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys (CSMB), and the Attorney General of Quebec. The interveners were the World Sikh Organization of Canada, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

What: On 19 November 2001 Gurbaj Singh accidentally dropped the kirpan he wore under his clothes in the yard of École Sainte-Catherine-Labouré in Quebec. On 21 December 2001 the CSMB offered, as a “reasonable accommodation”, to let him wear it sealed inside his clothing, and the family agreed. On 12 February 2002 the school's governing board refused to ratify that, saying it broke the code of conduct's ban on weapons and dangerous objects. On 19 March 2002 the council of commissioners upheld the refusal and said only a symbolic kirpan, such as a pendant or one made of a harmless material, would do. The Superior Court declared that decision null on 17 May 2002, but the Quebec Court of Appeal set that aside on 4 March 2004.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal on 12 April 2005 and decided it on 2 March 2006. Justice Charron, for five of the eight judges who gave judgment (Justice Major took no part), held that the council's decision infringed freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the Charter: Gurbaj Singh sincerely believed a plastic or wooden kirpan would not meet his religion's requirements, and the ban deprived him of the right to attend a public school. She held that it could not be justified under section 1. School safety was a pressing aim, but a total ban did not impair his rights as little as possible. The risk of misuse under conditions was very low, and no violent incident involving a kirpan in a school had been reported. Justices Deschamps, Abella and LeBel agreed in the result on different reasoning. Because Gurbaj Singh had left the school, the Court declared the council's decision null.

Where: The Supreme Court of Canada, on a case from a school in Quebec.

Why it mattered: As the judgment's official summary puts it, a total ban “undermines the value of this religious symbol and sends students the message that some religious practices do not merit the same protection as others”, and accommodating him showed “the importance that our society attaches to protecting freedom of religion and to showing respect for its minorities”. The Court drew on earlier kirpan cases, among them Pandori v. Peel Board of Education (Ontario, 1990).