Religion News Service
OTTAWA, CANADA, July 14, 2004: HPI found this interesting as it paralleled the recent situation at a Florida housing development over restrictions on the flying of Hindu flags, jandhis, as an observance of the Guyanese and Trinidadian Hindu residents. There are also significant communities of Carribean Hindus in Canada who might benefit from this ruling:
Freedom of religion includes the right of Orthodox Jews to erect religious ceremonial huts on the balconies of their condominiums even if the structures violate ownership agreements, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled late last month. In a 5-4 ruling, the high court said religious freedoms trump the co-ownership contracts four Montreal Jewish families had signed that prevented any alterations to their balconies. The court overturned two lower court rulings that said the families did not have the right to erect sukkahs on their balconies during the fall holiday of Sukkot. The high court agreed that the Jewish residents were right to decline a compromise — the erection of a communal sukkah in the gardens of the condo complex. The appellants had argued that the Bible compels them to dwell in small, enclosed temporary huts on their balconies each year during the eight-day festival of Sukkot. They were opposed by a company that co-owns the buildings, Syndicat Northcrest, which obtained injunctions that permitted the demolition of the sukkahs. The company said the structures were an eyesore, a fire hazard and lowered property values. The court rejected arguments that the four Jewish families violated their co-ownership agreements. “They had no choice but to sign the declaration of co-ownership if they wanted to reside at that complex,” said the ruling. “It would be both insensitive and morally repugnant to intimate that the appellants simply move elsewhere if they take issue with a clause restricting their right to freedom of religion.” The dissenting judges said the appellants’ religion dictated only that they eat meals in the structures, and that the co-owners’ concern for their environment and their compromise offer were legitimate. The court ruled, however, that the sukkahs cannot block doors or obstruct fire lanes, and must conform, as much as possible, to the general aesthetics of the property.