Skip to main content
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track on the Olympic Games
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track onthe Olympics Games
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

It's worth remembering that, beneath their robes and beyond their brains, the nine judges of the Supreme Court are human beings just like the rest of us. In theory, they're insulated from public pressures, and view all matters before them solely through the lens of law. But it's no easier for them to issue a judgment that cuts against the tide of public opinion that it is for other Canadians to say things that, even when they are true, and perhaps especially when they are so, risk upsetting the neighbours. Nobody wants to be unpopular. Not even judges.

And that's just one of the reasons to praise the Supreme Court's ruling in Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia, a case that turns on the meaning of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. The Ktunaxa First Nation argued that a proposed ski resort development in the interior of B.C. violated their religious freedom. The Court rejected that argument – respectfully, but correctly.

A ski resort in the area has been under consideration, review, Crown-Indigenous negotiation and/or litigation since the early 1990s. Until 2009, the Ktunaxa appeared to be on the path to reaching an agreement with the developer, under which compensation would be paid and changes made to reduce the project's environmental impact.

Story continues below advertisement

But in June of 2009, a Ktunaxa elder said he'd had a revelation that "any movement of earth and the construction of permanent structures would desecrate the area and destroy the valley's spiritual value." The Ktunaxa said that would drive away the so-called Grizzly Bear Spirit.

The development plan had earlier been altered to accommodate actual bears. But the Ktunaxa were now saying that the bear spirit, and their right to religious freedom, should be protected by blocking development.

Every religious belief – a deity who parts a sea, a man who dies and is reborn – seems strange to those who do not hold it. The Charter protects all beliefs, whether widespread or rare, ancient or novel. As the court explains in this case, religious freedom means the government cannot interfere with your religious views or practices. But the court said that doesn't extend to creating a property right or other rights over the land said to be connected to those religious beliefs.

Government can't get into deciding where a non-material bear lives. And that means going ahead with a development on traditional Indigenous territory comes down to adequate consultation with the affected Indigenous group, under Section 35 of the Constitution – as it should.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies