Section 29 of theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically addresses rights regardingdenominational schools andseparate schools. Section 29 is not the source of these rights but instead reaffirms the pre-existing special rights belonging toRoman Catholics andProtestants, despitefreedom of religion and religiousequality undersections 2 and15 of theCharter. Such rights may include financial support from theprovincial governments. In the caseMahe v. Alberta (1990), theSupreme Court of Canada also had to reconcile denominational school rights withminority languageeducational rights undersection 23 of theCharter.

The section reads:

29. Nothing in this Charter abrogates or derogates from any rights or privileges guaranteed by or under the Constitution of Canada in respect of denominational, separate or dissentient schools.

TheConstitution of Canada contains a number of denominational school rights. They usually belong to Catholics and Protestants wherever they form the minority population of the relevant province. The formerChief Justice of CanadaBeverley McLachlin once referred to this as an early form of freedom of religion in Canada.^[1]

Section 93 of theConstitution Act, 1867 awards jurisdiction over education to the provincial governments, with a few exceptions. Catholics have denominational school rights inOntario. Both Catholics and Protestants had these rights inQuebec, until abrogated by theConstitution Amendment, 1997 (Québec). Quebec was and is predominantly Catholic (though the effects this has had on the province's politics have changed over the years; seeQuiet Revolution). Section 17 of theAlberta Act, 1905 also guarantees denominational school rights for Catholics inAlberta. While the rights for Catholics and Protestants seem to contradictCharter values of equality, section 29 clarifies the privileges cannot be challenged onCharter grounds. It was inserted because the authors of theConstitution Act, 1982 did not want to be held responsible for challenging the old system.^[2]

As noted in the Supreme Court case''Reference re Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Education Act (Ont.)'' [1987] 1 SCR 1148 (SCC), this clarification is really the only function of section 29. Section 29 does not itself shield the rights of denominational schools from theCharter, since the rights are themselves a part of the Constitution and thus cannot be unconstitutional or subject toCharter review.^[3] This line of thinking was confirmed by the Supreme Court inGosselin (Tutor of) v. Quebec (Attorney General) (2005).

In the caseAdler v. Ontario (1996) religious freedoms under sections 2 and 15 of theCharter were used to argue that lack of government funding forJewish Canadian schools and certain Christian schools in Ontario was unconstitutional, since by contrast Catholic schools received government money. The majority of the Supreme Court, however, dismissed the argument, noting section 93's importance as an agreement made between the founders of the nation to makeConfederation possible. Since it was a political deal and not based upon the principle of freedom, section 2 of theCharter could not extend section 93 rights to other religions. Moreover, to find that section 2 could extend denominational school rights would contradict the specificity of section 93, and section 29 indicates such a contradiction cannot exist and that denominational schools are notCharter issues.

InMahe v. Alberta, the Court found that minority language rights ofFrench Canadians in Alberta required that the French community be represented on theschool board. While this seemed to border on altering denominational school rights and raised section 29 concerns, since the school board in this case was a religious one, the Court justified it since the religious content of the education was unchanged, and the powers of the school board were merely "regulated" so that the religious teachings could be provided inFrench.

• Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
• Religion in Canada

• Articles with short description
• Short description matches Wikidata