The Alberta courts found that a private school discriminated against two students by not allowing them to pray at school. This decision is a good reminder of the principles of accommodation and is especially useful for employers who receive accommodation requests from employees on religious grounds, such as for prayer breaks or access to a designated prayer room.

Facts

Webber Academy Foundation is a private school in Alberta that identifies itself as a non-denominational institution. Two children of the Sunni Islam faith were admitted to the school.

During their first two weeks of attendance, the children, whose religion requires them to pray five times per day, used empty rooms or offices at the school to pray. However, after these first two weeks, the school informed the parents that a "prayer space" was not permitted at the school due to its non-denominational status.

The school stated that the children could still pray during school hours, but without bowing or kneeling. However, since these instructions were not followed, the school refused to re-enroll the children for the following year.

The parents filed complaints with the Alberta Human Rights Commission on behalf of their respective children. Following a long judicial process,1 the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal and the Court of Queen's Bench2 ruled that the school had discriminated on the basis of religion in the provision of its educational services and had failed to meet its duty to accommodate. The school appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal of Alberta.

Reasons of the Court of Appeal of Alberta

The Court of Appeal of Alberta dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the school had discriminated against the students on the basis of religion and had failed in its duty to accommodate them.

The school argued that this duty to accommodate infringed two of its fundamental freedoms, namely the freedom of conscience and religion, and the freedom of association, which are guaranteed by subsections 2(a) and 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court rejected this argument:

  • The required accommodation, namely allowing the children to pray at school, does not infringe the school's freedom of conscience and religion.
  • Simply offering a place to pray does not interfere with the freedom to adhere to one's own religious beliefs.
  • The school alleged that the accommodation infringed its freedom of association, in that it had the "freedom to associate with like-minded people who agree that religious beliefs should be set aside in an educational setting."3 However, the evidence established that the school already accommodated certain religious differences, such as by allowing exceptions to its dress code and by displaying a Christmas tree. For the Court of Appeal of Alberta, this "serve[d] as an illustration that something that bears some religious connotation is not necessarily inconsistent with the mission of being non-denominational."4 The school failed to demonstrate how this simple accommodation interfered with its freedom of association.

On March 21, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the school's application for leave to appeal5 and therefore upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal of Alberta.6

Takeaways

  1. The conclusion reached by the Court of Appeal of Alberta could, in principle, be applied in other Canadian provinces that include religion as a protected ground of discrimination.
  2. While the institution in question was a school, the finding of discrimination could have an impact on Canadian employers more broadly. In fact, many employers receive requests from employees for religious accommodation, such as for days off for religious holidays and a modified work schedule to accommodate prayer times.
  3. Note that it is incumbent on the person requesting an accommodation to demonstrate how the employer's failure to accommodate them would impede the practice of their religion.
  4. We recommend you consult your Fasken lawyer for advice on these types of accommodation requests.

Footnotes

1. Amir and Nazar v Webber Academy Foundation, 2015 AHRC 8; Webber Academy Foundation v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), 2016 ABQB 442; Webber Academy Foundation v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), 2018 ABCA 207; Amir and Siddique v Webber Academy Foundation, 2020 AHRC 58; Webber Academy Foundation v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), 2021 ABQB 541.

2. Now the Court of King's Bench.

3. Webber Academy Foundation v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), 2023 ABCA 194 at para 68.

4. Ibid at para 79.

5. Webber Academy Foundation v Alberta Human Rights Commission (Director), et al., 2024 CanLII 22674 (SCC).

6. Webber Academy Foundation v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), 2023 ABCA 194.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.