The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in favour of Montreal orthodox Jews who contested a ban on religious structures on their condominium properties.
The high court said today that religious freedoms take precedence over co-ownership contracts.
Four Jewish families appealed rulings starting in 1998 by the Quebec Superior Court and Quebec Court of Appeal that said they didn't have the right to erect succahs on their balconies during the fall holiday of Succot.
The structures, made of wood and covered with cedar branches, are used each year for nine days to commemorate the difficult conditions Jews faced after fleeing Egypt.
The co-ownership association of the exclusive Sanctuaire du Mont-Royal argued before the high court in January that condominium contracts prohibited decorations, alterations and constructions on the balconies. It instead proposed a communal structure in the complex's garden.
In a 5-4 decision, the justices said the state can't regulate personal religious beliefs.
"A claimant need not show some sort of objective religious obligation, requirement or precept to invoke freedom of religion," Justice Franck Iacobucci wrote for the majority.
"It is the religious or spiritual essence of an action, not any mandatory or perceived-as-mandatory nature of its observance, that attracts protection.
"The state is in no position to be, nor should it become, the arbiter of religious dogma."
When someone invokes protection of freedom of religion, courts must simply be assured the applicant's religious beliefs are sincere and "in good faith, neither fictitious nor capricious, and that it is not an artifice," said the ruling.
Julius Grey, one of the lawyers in the case, welcomed the ruling.
"It's a statement that freedom of religion prevailed so that the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms and all the provincial charters prevail over declarations of co-ownership and other kind of documents," he told CBC Radio.
Pierre Champagne, lawyer for the condo owners, said his clients will probably be satisfied with the ruling.
"One is not going to be free to install whatever he wants really, but is going to be only for a certain restricted period. It will have to be harmonious with the building, it will have to be integrated with the colour and general appearance of the building."
The justices said the lower courts erred in choosing between two competing interpretations of Jewish law.
The justices also rejected the condo association's claim the religious huts would devalue the property.
"The potential annoyance caused by a few succahs being set up for a period of nine days each year would undoubtedly be quite trivial."
The court said the families must erect the structures so they don't pose threats to safety by blocking doors or obstructing fire lanes. They must also conform, as much as possible, with the general aesthetics of the property.
Several other religious groups also sought intervenor status in the case.