(2) Section 2(a): Freedom of conscience and religion
 Section 2(a) of the Charter provides:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion.
Interference with freedom of religion
 In Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western
University,  2 S.C.R. 293,  S.C.J. No. 32, 2018 SCC 32,
at para. 62, the Supreme Court adopted the definition of religious
freedom expressed in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.,  1 S.C.R.
295,  S.C.J. No. 17, at p. 336 S.C.R.:
[T]he right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to
declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and
the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching
 At para. 63, the court set out the requirements of the test:
[F]irst, that he or she sincerely believes in a practice or belief that has a nexus
with religion; and second, that the impugned state conduct interferes, in
a manner that is more than trivial or insubstantial, with his or her ability to
act in accordance with that practice or belief[.]
This was the test applied by the Divisional Court, referring to
Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem,  2 S.C.R. 551,  S.C.J.
No. 46, 2004 SCC 47, at para. 56. See, also, Alberta v. Hutterian
Brethren of Wilson Colony,  2 S.C.R. 567,  S.C.J. No.
37, 2009 SCC 37, at para. 32.
 The sincerity of belief and interference are conceded. But the
College contends that the interference is trivial and insubstantial
and does not contravene s. 2(a).
 I disagree. To explain my reasons, it is necessary to examine
the appellants’ beliefs and their objections to performing or
referring patients for the procedures at issue.
The role of religion in the appellants’ lives and the impact
of their religious beliefs
 While the individual appellants’ objections are not uniform,
they all have a sincere religious belief that human life is sacred,
that abortion and MAiD are sinful, and that complicity in either
practice, in the manner required by the Policies, is equally sinful.
 The individual appellants’ religious faith is central to their
identities and their religious beliefs are sincerely held. As one, Dr.
Michelle Korvemaker, put it, “[m]y faith is the most important
part of my life. It defines who I am, what I do and how I do it. I
practice medicine first as a Christian.”