[ 41] For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal and, in
accordance with the parties’ agreement, make no order as to costs.
LAUWERS J.A. (B. W. MILLER J.A. concurring): —
[ 42] I have had the benefit of reading the reasons of my colleague, Justice Sharpe. I concur in the result he reaches and
would dismiss the appeal for lack of evidence. However, my reasoning to that result differs.
[ 43] What is the scope of a school board’s duty to accommodate
the religion of a parent whose children attend its schools? The
appellant raises this issue in the context of provisions of the
Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 2, policy documents issued by
the Ministry of Education, and by the respondent school board,
as well as the decision made by school board officials to reject his
request for the accommodation of his religious beliefs.
[ 44] The underlying issue engaged by this appeal is this: What
are the limits imposed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms on a province’s power to use publicly funded education
to inculcate, in the language of s. 264 of the Education Act, certain beliefs and dispositions educational authorities have determined are desirable or necessary?
[ 45] It is common ground among the parties and the application
judge that the appeal is governed by the Doré/Loyola framework
[Doré v. Barreau du Québec,  1 S.C.R. 395,  S.C.J. No.
12 and Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), 
1 S.C.R. 613,  S.C.J. No. 12, 2015 SCC 12]. As Abella J.
explains in Loyola, at para. 39, the Doré/Loyola framework has
two steps. The first is to determine “whether the decision engages
the Charter by limiting its protections”. If so, the second step is to
determine “whether, in assessing the impact of the relevant
Charter protection and given the nature of the decision and the statutory and factual contexts, the decision reflects a proportionate
balancing of the Charter protections at play”.
[ 46] My analysis proceeds through the following propositions:
First, public education is designed to inculcate children in necessary civic virtues. Section 169.1 of the Education Act, the statutory authority underpinning the challenged school board decision,
was enacted to further this purpose. Teachers play a critical role
in inculcating civic virtues in schoolchildren.