their sense of themselves, their community and their universe”:
Christian Education South Africa v. Minister of Education,
 ZACC 11, 2000 ( 10) B. Const. L.R. 1051 (S. Afr. Const.
Ct.), at para. 36.
[ 75] Chief Justice Dickson expressed a similar understanding:
“The purpose of s. 2(a) is to ensure that society does not interfere
with profoundly personal beliefs that govern one’s perception of
oneself, humankind, nature, and, in some cases, a higher or different order of being”: R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd., 
2 S.C.R. 713,  S.C.J. No. 70, at para. 97.
[ 76] Chief Justice Dickson had earlier noted, “[w]ith the
Charter, it has become the right of every Canadian to work out for
himself or herself what his or her religious obligations, if any,
should be and it is not for the state to dictate otherwise”, in R. v.
Big M Drug Mart Ltd.,  1 S.C.R. 295,  S.C.J. No. 17,
at para. 135.
[ 77] These words about freedom of religion apply with necessary modifications in the context of the parental right to a
measure of control over the moral and religious education of
their children. There is really no dispute about the existence of
this parental right. The issue is about its reach.
( 5) What is at stake for the parent?
[ 78] Parents know that the world in general and education in
particular can defeat them in transmitting their religious faith
to their children, so the stakes are high. It is therefore especially
important for the court to attend to the appellant’s reasons for
believing that his right to freedom of religion has been infringed.
In particular, the court must attend to the nature of the interest
he is trying to protect and advance — the formation of the character and religious faith of his children.
[ 79] The court’s responsibility in addressing a religious freedom claim is to engage deeply and sympathetically in the “
agonistic” analysis needed to fully understand the religious claim in
the claimant’s own terms, as Professor Benjamin Berger asserts
in Law’s Religion: Religious Difference and the Claims of Constitutionalism (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015), at
pp. 111, 188.
[ 80] We would not be paying due respect to the appellant’s
faith commitment by merely accepting, as the application judge
and my colleague do, that the appellant holds a sincere religious
belief guided by Biblical and Greek Orthodox teachings. We
must go further and ask whether the school board’s refusal
to provide the accommodation the appellant sought unduly
impedes the appellant in fulfilling his duties as a parent.