Freedom of Religion and Canada’s Commitments to Multiculturalism Howard Kislowicz * In this article, the author explores the Canadian law of religious freedom in light of Canada’s commitments to multiculturalism. Though these commitments are aspirational and imprecise, the author argues that two stable notions emerge from Canada’s Constitution and legislated multiculturalism policies: recognizing minor- ity cultural communities and fostering inter-cultural dialogue. The author goes on to examine the Canadian case law on religious freedom, arguing that there are at least three recurring themes that run through the prevailing decisions. First, the courts’ treatment of religion is individualistic, using the individual litigant’s sincer- ity of religious belief as the touchstone of whether a particular practice will benefit from constitutional protection. Second, the courts are highly concerned with the prevention of coercion and subjecting members of minority groups to the “tyranny of the majority.” Third, in justifying their decisions, courts rely heavily on the dis- course of tolerance. Using each of these themes as a springboard for critical analy- sis, the author argues that the legal doctrine of religious freedom is inconsistent with Canada’s multicultural ideals. The individualism of the case law fails to take into account the collective and public dimensions of religious experience, and thus fails to recognize important aspects of the identities of minority groups. The strong incentive to adopt particular language in order to be successful may coerce liti- gants into adopting arguments that are inconsistent with their religious views. The language of tolerance may subtly reinforce social hierarchies by implying that mi- norities are tolerated rather than full members of Canadian society and impede cross-cultural dialogue by essentializing and marginalizing members of minority groups. The author concludes that these “side-effects” of well-intentioned judicial * B.A., B.C.L., LL.B. (McGill), LL.M., S.J.D. Candidate (Toronto). This work was adapted from a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the LL.M. program at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law. The thesis was awarded the Alan Marks Medal for best thesis in the graduate law program. Many thanks are due to my supervisor, Prof. Ayelet Shachar, for her helpful comments and guidance. Thanks also to Prof. David Schneiderman and Nicole Baerg for their helpful comments. Previous versions of this paper were presented at the Twelfth Berlin Roundtables on Transnationality hosted by the Irmgaard Coninx Foundation, the 4th Annual University of Toronto Ethnic and Pluralism Studies Graduate Research Conference, and the 16th Annual Interdisciplinary Legal Studies Graduate Students’ Conference at the University of British Columbia. Thanks also to H´ el` ene Mayrand for assistance in translating the abstract. I am thankful to the organizers of and participants in those conferences for helpful discussion and suggestions. Special thanks to Dr. Naomi Lear for her comments and support. I gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Ontario Graduate Scholarship and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Mistakes are mine.