---
title: "A quasi-victory in the Saguenay prayer case ✦ Goldwater Droit"
meta:
  "og:description": "The Supreme Court of Canada ruled against the city of Saguenay and mayor Jean Tremblay over a dispute about Christian prayers during the city’s public council meetings."
  "og:title": "A quasi-victory in the Saguenay prayer case"
  description: "The Supreme Court of Canada ruled against the city of Saguenay and mayor Jean Tremblay over a dispute about Christian prayers during the city’s public council meetings."
---

![AFG](https://goldwaterdroit.com/_vercel/image?url=%2F_content-assets%2Fblog%2F2015%2F04%2Fanne-france-goldwater-a-quasi-victory-in-the-saguenay-prayer-case%2Fimages%2FAFG.jpg&w=1536&q=80)

[News & Insights](https://goldwaterdroit.com/en/news-insights)

# A quasi-victory in the Saguenay prayer case

15 April 2015

2 min read

[Religious Freedom](https://goldwaterdroit.com/en/news-insights?topic=religious-freedom) [Municipal Law](https://goldwaterdroit.com/en/news-insights?topic=municipal-law) [Legal Analysis](https://goldwaterdroit.com/en/news-insights?category=legal-analysis)

This morning, the [Supreme Court of Canada ruled against](http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15288/index.do) the city of Saguenay and mayor Jean Tremblay over a dispute about Christian prayers during the city’s public council meetings.

There is interesting nuance in the Supreme Court judgment in the _Simoneau_ case. The order of invalidity of by-law VS-R-2008-40 applies only in favour of Mr. Simoneau. This by-law is what formally instituted the recitation of the prayer in the municipal council meetings to begin with.

So, does this mean that Mr. Simoneau is forever going to have to attend every meeting of the municipal council, as a sort of paragon of religious freedom? Should he choose _not_ to attend on any given day, the municipal council will be free to pray its collective butt off. As I see it, if the Court thought it so important to emphasize that its injunction was granted _in favour of_ Alain Simoneau, then it is he who has the right to invoke the judgment.

Otherwise, the Court would be doing precisely what it said it _cannot and must not_ do, namely, act outside the jurisdiction of the original tribunal which had no power to invalidate the by-law.

Some victory!

What is important, I suppose, is that at least the Supreme Court reminded us that the state duty of neutrality in religious matters means absolute indifference to religious observance or inobservance. State neutrality means neither supporting any particular religion nor supporting atheism or agnosticism. Multiculturalism requires the state to tolerate – and accommodate! – both religious observance and inobservance («croyance et incroyance»). And this is pursuant to the _Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms_!

This reassures me that the promoters of the [veil-bashing _Charte_](https://goldwaterdroit.com/fr/nouvelles/2013/anne-france-goldwater-charte-valeurs-quebec-attaque-frontale-contre-egalite-femmes) do not have a hope in hell of getting their legislation passed. Hoorah!

_Anne-France Goldwater is the founder and senior partner at Goldwater Droit._

[**Previous Post**L'Arbitre in Brief (5.16): Relationship with Benefits, Occupied Territory and Young Couple on the Street](https://goldwaterdroit.com/en/news-insights/2015/03/larbitre-in-brief-5-16-relationship-with-benefits-occupied-territory-and-young-couple-on-the-street) [**Next Post **L'Arbitre in Brief (April 17, 2015): Brother-in-Law Sublet, the Repeat Offender Dog and the Castle in Les Méchins](https://goldwaterdroit.com/en/news-insights/2015/04/larbitre-in-brief-april-17-2015-brother-in-law-sublet-the-repeat-offender-dog-and-the-castle-in-les-mechins)