Hi kirk, and welcome to Quatloos. Nice to see a legal argument, by the way, and an important one.
I think it would be helpful to quote out a bit more of
Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony to provide some context:
[92] Canadian law reflects the fundamental proposition that the state cannot by law directly compel religious belief or practice. Thus, this Court has held that if the purpose of a law is to interfere with religious practices, the law cannot be upheld: Big M Drug Mart ...To compel religious practice by force of law deprives the individual of the fundamental right to choose his or her mode of religious experience, or lack thereof. Such laws will fail at the first stage of Oakes and proportionality will not need to be considered.
[93] Cases of direct compulsion are straightforward. However, it may be more difficult to measure the seriousness of a limit on freedom of religion where the limit arises not from a direct assault on the right to choose, but as the result of incidental and unintended effects of the law. In many such cases, the limit does not preclude choice as to religious belief or practice, but it does make it more costly.
[94] The incidental effects of a law passed for the general good on a particular religious practice may be so great that they effectively deprive the adherent of a meaningful choice … Or the government program to which the limit is attached may be compulsory, with the result that the adherent is left with a stark choice between violating his or her religious belief and disobeying the law … The absence of a meaningful choice in such cases renders the impact of the limit very serious.
[95] However, in many cases, the incidental effects of a law passed for the general good on a particular religious practice may be less serious. The limit may impose costs on the religious practitioner in terms of money, tradition or inconvenience. However, these costs may still leave the adherent with a meaningful choice concerning the religious practice at issue. The Charter guarantees freedom of religion, but does not indemnify practitioners against all costs incident to the practice of religion. Many religious practices entail costs which society reasonably expects the adherents to bear. The inability to access conditional benefits or privileges conferred by law may be among such costs. A limit on the right that exacts a cost but nevertheless leaves the adherent with a meaningful choice about the religious practice at issue will be less serious than a limit that effectively deprives the adherent of such choice.
[Emphasis added.]
I’m going to limit my commentary to income tax, because I think that’s what Mr. Peterson is trying to avoid. If one were to hold an honest belief that it is against their religion to pay income tax, then that would very likely mean that the
Income Tax Act, which compels payment of income tax, is in breach of the
Charter, s. 2(a) right to freedom of religion. What
Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony is all about is when
Charter, s. 1 can override that breach. It reads:
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
So the right to express religious belief is not unlimited – it can be put under restrictions that are “reasonable” and “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. Whether a
Charter breach is permitted under
Charter, s. 1 is evaluated by a procedure set out in this case:
R v Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103 (
http://canlii.ca/t/1ftv6). In A
lberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony the Supreme Court of Canada is applying this “Oakes Test”.
First, look at the place the word "compels" shows up in this quote. If you read the case that is referenced after "compels",
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 SCR 295 (
http://canlii.ca/t/1fv2b), you will see that case was a
Charter challenge to those old laws that used to prohibit Sunday shopping, because that was the 'Lord's Day of Rest'. In
Big M, the Supreme Court concluded that was forcing a religion on people - "compelling" - and that's basically prohibited. Laws can make secular compulsions, but not religious ones.
So the rest of the quoted analysis is about secular obligations. Notice that the Court says that belief that has a cost is a less serious factor – it’s a question of whether you can pick or choose to follow your religious beliefs, or not.
Mr. Peterson and Mr. Belanger do not have to pay income tax. All they have to do is live in a manner so that their income is low enough that they do not meet the minimum tax threshold. It’s a choice. If they choose to live in a manner where their income is above that threshold, then they are obliged to pay income tax. It’s that simple.
There really isn’t any argument that the Canadian government is entitled to collect income tax. There’s a nice summary of various points that have been argued in
Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 at paras. 341-347. The same judgment reviews arguments that “God’s Law” trumps other authority: paras. 276-285. You can read
Meads v. Meads here (
http://canlii.ca/t/fsvjq), if you are interested.
I hope that's helpful.
SMS Möwe
