Legal Center

Canadian Judicial Opinions Regarding the Sikh Religious Identity
Summary of Landmark Decisions

The Quest for Justice: Enforcing the Right to Wear the 5K's, 1993
A detailed analysis of many ground breaking Sikh cases in Canada. [more]

Cases under Federal Human Rights Statutes

Bhinder v. Canadian National Railway Co., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 561
In Bhinder, a Sikh man refused to remove his turban in place of a hard hat in order to comply with a CNR work rule that all employees wear a hard hat at a particular work site. CNR refused to make exceptions to this rule and subsequently terminated Mr. Bhinder's employment when he failed to accept any other work not requiring a hard hat. Mr. Bhinder filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal alleging that CNR had discriminated against him based on his religion. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found in favour of Mr. Bhinder, holding that CNR had engaged in discriminatory practice. The decision was appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, where the Court set aside the Tribunal's decision and held that the hard hat rule was not a discriminatory practice. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the majority of the Court (in a 5-2 split) held that the hard hat rule was a bona fide occupational requirement. As such, there was no duty to accommodate since s. 14(a) of the Human Rights Act provided that there is no discriminatory practice where a bona fide occupational requirement exists. [more]

Grant v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 1 F.C. 158 (T.D.);
appl to the Fed. C.A. was dismissed: [1995] F.C.J. No. 830 (QL); application for leave to appeal to the S.C.C. dismissed: [1995] S.C.C.A. No. 394 (QL)
In Grant, the plaintiffs (non-Sikhs) sought an order prohibiting the Commissioner of the RCMP from allowing the wearing of a turban as part of the RCMP uniform. In addition, they sought a declaration that the Commissioner's actions in allowing the wearing of a turban were unconstitutional, in that such actions violated the plaintiffs' rights under sections 2(a), 7, and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Federal Court - Trial Division dismissed the action on the grounds that allowing Sikhs to wear turbans in the RCMP did not violate any sections in the Charter. There was no violation of the right to freedom of religion, the plaintiffs were not deprived of their right to life, liberty and security of the person, and the plaintiffs were not discriminated against by the policies. An appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal was dismissed, as was the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. [more - Part I  Part II  Part III]

Cases under Provincial Human Rights Legislation

Sidhu v. Fraser Pulp Chips Ltd., [1985] B.C.C.H.R.D. No. 6 (QL)
In Sidhu, a Sikh man filed a complaint against his employer, a pulp chips company, with the B.C. Human Rights Commission. He alleged that he was discriminated against in respect of his employment because of his race, place of origin and religion without reasonable cause. Mr. Sidhu was refused re-employment after recovering from a compensatible injury. In addition, he alleged that upon becoming a practicing Sikh (he began wearing the 5 religious symbols of Sikhism - the turban and beard, bracelet, kirpan, hair comb and sash to suspend the kirpan), he was subjected to racist language and improper treatment. The B.C. Council of Human Rights dismissed Mr. Sidhu's complaint on the grounds that he did not establish proof of religious discrimination. The Council also held that Mr. Sidhu's evidence did not support his complaint of discrimination based on race or place of origin. [more]

Peel Board of Education v. Pandori (1991) 3 O.R. (3d) 531 (Div. Ct.);
application for leave to appeal to the Ont. C.A. dismissed: [1991] O.J. No. 3200 (QL)
Mr. Pandori filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission against his employer, the Peel Board of Education, for prohibiting the wearing of the kirpan, an article of the Sikh faith, on school property. Mr. Pandori argued that this policy was discriminatory against Sikhs on the basis of their creed. In their findings, the Board of Inquiry held that the policy discriminated against the Sikhs and was not reasonable since there had no incidents of kirpan-related violence in any school system in Canada. In addition, even if it was found that the policy was reasonable, the Tribunal held that the school board could accommodate the use of kirpans without undue hardship. An appeal from the Board's decision to the Divisional Court was dismissed by that Court. A further applicatoin for leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was dismissed. [more]

Dhillon v. British Columbia (Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Motor Vehicle Branch), [1999] B.C.H.R.T.D. No. 25 (QL)
In Dhillon, a Sikh man argued that the B.C. Ministry of Transportation had
discriminated against him by not allowing him to take a road test on a motorcycle when
he refused to remove his turban in order to wear a helmet. Mr. Dhillon argued that he was denied a service customarily available to the public because of his religion, contrary to the B.C. Human Rights Code. The B.C. Motor Vehicle Act provided that a person who operates or rides as a passenger on a motorcycle, without properly wearing a safety helmet, commits an offence. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal concluded that the government had discriminated against Mr. Dhillon by failing to accommodate his religious beliefs to the point of undue hardship. The Tribunal further held that, by not providing an exemption for members of the Sikh religion, the applicable provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act discriminated against members of the Sikh religion who wear turbans as a bona fide article of their faith. [more]

Pannu v. Skeena Cellulose Inc., [2000] B.C.H.R.T.D. No. 56 (QL)
In Pannu, at issue were regulations of the B.C. Workers' Compensation Board that stated that anyone who may be exposed to poisonous gases in their employment must be clean-shaven in order to properly wear a face-mask also required by the regulations. As a Sikh man, Mr. Pannu wore a beard as a tenet of his faith and therefore refused to shave his beard in order to meet these requirements for his position at a pulp mill. Mr. Pannu's employment was terminated because his position required that he perform emergency shutdown tasks that would expose him to poisonous gases, and that he was required to be clean-shaven. Mr. Pannu filed a human rights complaint against his employer, the pulp mill, for not accommodating his religious beliefs. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal dismissed Mr. Pannu's complaint, holding that it would have been an undue hardship for the pulp mill company to accommodate Mr. Pannu. The Tribunal found that accommodating Mr. Pannu would have resulted in an increase in the magnitude of risk, and more significantly, an increase in the risk to others since the emergency shut-down task would then need to be completed by another employee. [more]

[BACK]