ÿWPC[0 (2h0QX[È=GL;3=Ö˜Að64! *QE94?Ùî  Þ{Màáb¯Û¢Þ‰3ê„0ýà§2tÙ;S‹Ÿè½àÈ®;Ëæ =b”ÕŽózj¡“pûu?¦øÓêô¡0(V†¡´·+ W¨aDRù˜âVê,˜ø˜ƒЊÉx.%Ñ6X?†^d=ØÉ˱ ,"óñ1©t,ÕÓf˜F‡ $eËâI¹d;w”#d”RØt~ü³]§Ê5~·c™xC1ÊÊxLFW7¿[z!©¸Ð¦°áìÍ)ðÙÀÑJ> :‘O =GuôwTSœô!÷›WpGçò¬çÖ,¡¨R•µ[ÑsoÚ SÞƒDH–¨ýàuÔÙSôÉ¢]&Àµ›Å´\iýõÇQƒi ‚ ÿ;äU¯U–=H|ªB¾Žá-k¢ 0và 0`V! 0`¶! 0`" 0`v" 0`Ö" 086# 0Òn# 02@$ 0ür$ 0:n% 0Y¨% 0_& 0 `& 0jj' 0„Ô( B*X* D/‚* D+±* 0„Ü* D/`, 0Î, 06]- 0“- 0:›. 0^Õ. 0<3/U6o/U>¥/U*ã/^ 0w04010@0 mB0NY0˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,ä,,,,,ä0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ö\$¡¡ÔCEUS.,Ô2J+M ÿÿ0_level1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2G+M ÿÿ0_level2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2D+M ÿÿ0_level3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2A+M ÿÿ0_level4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>+M ÿÿ0_level5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;+M ÿÿ0_level6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28+M ÿÿ0_level7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25+M ÿÿ0_level8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22+M ÿÿ0_level9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2JM ÿÿ0_levsl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GM ÿÿ0_levsl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DM ÿÿ0_levsl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AM ÿÿ0_levsl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>M ÿÿ0_levsl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;M ÿÿ0_levsl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28M ÿÿ0_levsl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25M ÿÿ0_levsl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22M ÿÿ0_levsl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2JM ÿÿ0_levnl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GM ÿÿ0_levnl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DM ÿÿ0_levnl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AM ÿÿ0_levnl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>M ÿÿ0_levnl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;M ÿÿ0_levnl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28M ÿÿ0_levnl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25M ÿÿ0_levnl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22M ÿÿ0_levnl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(''ÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°Ôó óÔ  ÔÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡?<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡@ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡?<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔó óÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡@ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡?<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡@ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/Ó<š®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€5(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡A%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ7€6(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡@ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ&ÿÿ  d d4)1dxd'dxd<š®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€8(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡A%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ7€6(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡@ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡?<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡@ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡?<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡@ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô<þ6X9`(‹Courier Newô\  `‹&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`‹Arial{ñ* Äpì* Docume;e3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒö\!ÝÔCEUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòÔ_ÔWaldmanÔ_Ô€v.€CanadaóóÐ à ÐÌCommunication€No€694/1996*Ð pÀ ÐÌ3€November€1999Ð P   ÐÌÔ_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/67/D/694/1996Ð 0 € ÐÌÌVIEWSó óÐ P  ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€Ô_ÔAriehÔ_Ô€Hollis€Ô_ÔWaldmanÔ_Ô(Initially€represented€by€Mr.€Raj€Anand€from€Scott€&€Ô_ÔAylenÔ_Ô,Ð Ð  Ða€law€firm€in€Toronto,€Ontario)€Ð À ÐÌòòAlleged€victimóó:€The€author€Ð  ð ÐÌòòState€partyóó:€Canada€Ð €Ð ÐÌòòDate€of€communicationóó:€29€February€1996€óóÐ `° ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committeeóó,€established€under€article€28€of€the€International€Covenant€on€CivilÐ 0€ Ðand€Political€Rights,€Ð  p ÐÌòòMeeting€onóó€3€November€1999€Ð P ÐÌòòHaving€concludedóó€its€consideration€of€communication€No.694/1996€submitted€to€the€Human€RightsÐ à0 ÐCommittee€on€behalf€of€Ô_ÔAriehÔ_Ô€Hollis€Ô_ÔWaldmanÔ_Ô,€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€InternationalÐ Ð  ÐCovenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€Ð À! ÐÌòòHaving€taken€into€accountóó€all€written€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€author€of€theÐ  #ð! Ðcommunication,€his€counsel€and€the€State€party,€Ð $à" ÐÌòòAdopts€the€followingóó:€Ð p&À!$ ÐÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓViews€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocolóóó ó**Ð @)$' ÐÓ~ÓÌÌ1.1€The€author€of€the€communication€is€Mr.€Ô_ÔAriehÔ_Ô€Hollis€Ô_ÔWaldmanÔ_Ô,€a€Canadian€citizen€residing€inÐ ,`'* Ðthe€province€of€Ontario.€He€claims€to€be€a€victim€of€a€violation€of€articles€26,€and€articles€18(1),Ð -P(+ Ð18(4)€and€27€taken€in€conjunction€with€article€2(1).***€Ð ð-@), Ї1.2€The€author€is€a€father€of€two€school„age€children€and€a€member€of€the€Jewish€faith€who€enrolsÐ ° Ðhis€children€in€a€private€Jewish€day€school.€In€the€province€of€Ontario€Roman€Catholic€schools€areÐ  ð Ðthe€only€non„secular€schools€receiving€full€and€direct€public€funding.€Other€religious€schools€mustÐ à Ðfund€through€private€sources,€including€the€charging€of€tuition€fees.€Ð €Ð ÐÌ1.3€In€1994€Mr.€Ô_ÔWaldmanÔ_Ô€paid€$14,050€in€tuition€fees€for€his€children€to€attend€Ô_ÔBialikÔ_Ô€Hebrew€DayÐ ` ° ÐSchool€in€Toronto,€Ontario.€This€amount€was€reduced€by€a€federal€tax€credit€system€to€$10,810.89.Ð P   ÐThese€tuition€fees€were€paid€out€of€a€net€household€income€of€$73,367.26.€In€addition,€the€authorÐ @  Ðis€required€to€pay€local€property€taxes€to€fund€a€public€school€system€he€does€not€use.€Ð 0 € ÐÌòòThe€factsóó€Ð `  ÐÌ2.1€The€Ontario€public€school€system€offers€free€education€to€all€Ontario€residents€withoutÐ ð@  Ðdiscrimination€on€the€basis€of€religion€or€on€any€other€ground.€Public€schools€may€not€engage€in€anyÐ à0  Ðreligious€indoctrination.€Individuals€enjoy€the€freedom€to€establish€private€schools€and€to€send€theirÐ Ð  Ðchildren€to€these€schools€instead€of€the€public€schools.€The€only€statutory€requirement€for€openingÐ À Ða€private€school€in€Ontario€is€the€submission€of€a€"notice€of€intention€to€operate€a€private€school".Ð ° ÐOntario€private€schools€are€neither€licensed€nor€do€they€require€any€prior€Government€approval.€AsÐ  ð Ðof€30€September€1989,€there€were€64,699€students€attending€494€private€schools€in€Ontario.Ð à ÐEnrolment€in€private€schools€represents€3.3€percent€of€the€total€day€school€enrolment€in€Ontario.€Ð €Ð ÐÌ2.2€The€province€of€Ontario's€system€of€separate€school€funding€originates€with€provisions€inÐ `° ÐCanada's€1867€constitution.€In€1867€Catholics€represented€17%€of€the€population€of€Ontario,€whileÐ P  ÐProtestants€represented€82%.€All€other€religions€combined€represented€.2%€of€the€population.€At€theÐ @ Ðtime€of€Confederation€it€was€a€matter€of€concern€that€the€new€province€of€Ontario€would€beÐ 0€ Ðcontrolled€by€a€Protestant€majority€that€might€exercise€its€power€over€education€to€take€away€theÐ  p Ðrights€of€its€Roman€Catholic€minority.€The€solution€was€to€guarantee€their€rights€to€denominationalÐ ` Ðeducation,€and€to€define€those€rights€by€referring€to€the€state€of€the€law€at€the€time€of€Confederation.€Ð P ÐÌ2.3€As€a€consequence,€the€1867€Canadian€constitution€contains€explicit€guarantees€of€denominationalÐ à0 Ðschool€rights€in€section€93.€Section€93€of€the€Constitution€Act,€1867€grants€each€province€in€CanadaÐ Ð  Ðexclusive€jurisdiction€to€enact€laws€regarding€education,€limited€only€by€the€denominational€schoolÐ À! Ðrights€granted€in€1867.€In€Ontario,€the€section€93€power€is€exercised€through€the€Education€Act.Ð °"  ÐUnder€the€Education€Act€every€separate€school€is€entitled€to€full€public€funding.€Separate€schoolsÐ  #ð! Ðare€defined€as€Roman€Catholic€schools.€The€Education€Act€states:€"1.€(1)€"separate€school€board"Ð $à" Ðmeans€a€board€that€operates€a€school€board€for€Roman€Catholics;...122.€(1)€Every€separate€schoolÐ €%Ð # Ðshall€share€in€the€legislative€grants€in€like€manner€as€a€public€school".€As€a€result,€Roman€CatholicÐ p&À!$ Ðschools€are€the€only€religious€schools€entitled€to€the€same€public€funding€as€the€public€secularÐ `'°"% Ðschools.€[*The€author€was€represented€by€Mr.€Raj€Anand€from€Scott€and€Ô_ÔAylenÔ_Ô,€a€law€firm€inÐ P( #& ÐToronto,€Ontario,€until€1998.€]€Ð @)$' ÐÌ2.4€The€Roman€Catholic€separate€school€system€is€not€a€private€school€system.€Like€the€publicÐ  +p&) Ðschool€system€it€is€funded€through€a€publicly€accountable,€democratically€elected€board€of€education.Ð ,`'* ÐSeparate€School€Boards€are€elected€by€Roman€Catholic€ratepayers,€and€these€school€boards€have€theÐ -P(+ Ðright€to€manage€the€denominational€aspects€of€the€separate€schools.€Unlike€private€schools,€RomanÐ ð-@), ÐCatholic€separate€schools€are€subject€to€all€Ministry€guidelines€and€regulations.€Neither€s.93€of€theÐ ° ÐConstitution€Act€1867€nor€the€Education€Act€provide€for€public€funding€to€Roman€CatholicÐ  ð Ðprivate/independent€schools.€Ten€private/independent€Roman€Catholic€schools€operate€in€OntarioÐ à Ðand€these€schools€receive€no€direct€public€financial€support.€Ð €Ð ÐÌ2.5€Private€religious€schools€in€Ontario€receive€financial€aid€in€the€form€of€(1)€exemption€fromÐ ` ° Ðproperty€taxes€on€non„profit€private€schools;€(2)€income€tax€deductions€for€tuition€attributable€toÐ P   Ðreligious€instruction;€and€(3)€income€tax€deductions€for€charitable€purposes.€A€1985€report€concludedÐ @  Ðthat€the€level€of€public€aid€to€Ontario€private€schools€amounted€to€about€one„sixth€of€the€averageÐ 0 € Ðtotal€in€cost€per€pupil€enrolled€in€a€private€school.€There€is€no€province€in€Canada€in€which€privateÐ  p  Ðschools€receive€funding€on€an€equal€basis€to€public€schools.€Direct€funding€of€private€schools€rangesÐ `  Ðfrom€0%€(Newfoundland,€New€Brunswick,€Ontario)€to€75%€(Alberta).€Ð P  ÐÌ2.6€The€issue€of€public€funding€for€non„Catholic€religious€schools€in€Ontario€has€been€the€subjectÐ à0  Ðof€domestic€litigation€since€1978.€The€first€case,€brought€8€February€1978,€sought€to€make€religiousÐ Ð  Ðinstruction€mandatory€in€specific€schools,€thereby€integrating€existing€Hebrew€schools€into€publicÐ À Ðschools.€On€3€April€1978,€affirmed€9€April€1979,€Ontario€courts€found€that€mandatory€religiousÐ ° Ðinstruction€in€public€schools€was€not€permitted.€Ð  ð ÐÌ2.7€In€1982€Canada's€constitution€was€amended€to€include€a€Charter€of€Rights€and€Freedoms€whichÐ €Ð Ðcontained€an€equality€rights€provision.€In€1985€the€Ontario€government€decided€to€amend€theÐ pÀ ÐEducation€Act€to€extend€public€funding€of€Roman€Catholic€schools€to€include€grades€11€to€13.Ð `° ÐRoman€Catholic€schools€had€been€fully€funded€from€kindergarten€to€grade€10€since€the€mid€1800's.Ð P  ÐThe€issue€of€the€constitutionality€of€this€law€(Bill€30)€in€view€of€the€Canadian€Charter€of€Rights€andÐ @ ÐFreedoms,€was€referred€by€the€Ontario€government€to€the€Ontario€Court€of€Appeal€in€1985.€Ð 0€ ÐÌ2.8€On€25€June€1987€in€the€òòBill€30óó€case€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€upheld€the€constitutionalityÐ ` Ðof€the€legislation€which€extended€full€funding€to€Roman€Catholic€schools.€The€majority€opinionÐ P Ðreasoned€that€section€93€of€the€Constitution€Act€1867€and€all€the€rights€and€privileges€it€affordedÐ ð@ Ðwere€immune€from€Charter€scrutiny.€Madam€Justice€Wilson,€writing€the€majority€opinion€stated:€"ItÐ à0 Ðwas€never€intended€...€that€the€Charter€could€be€used€to€invalidate€other€provisions€of€theÐ Ð  Ðconstitution,€particularly€a€provision€such€as€s.93€which€represented€a€fundamental€part€of€theÐ À! ÐConfederation€compromise."€Ð °"  ÐÌ2.9€At€the€same€time€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada,€in€the€majority€opinion€of€Wilson,€J.€affirmed:Ð $à" Ð"These€educational€rights,€granted€specifically€to€...€Roman€Catholics€in€Ontario,€make€it€impossibleÐ €%Ð # Ðto€treat€all€Canadians€equally.€The€country€was€founded€upon€the€recognition€of€special€or€unequalÐ p&À!$ Ðeducational€rights€for€specific€religious€groups€in€Ontario€..."€In€a€concurring€opinion€in€the€SupremeÐ `'°"% ÐCourt,€Ô_ÔEsteyÔ_Ô€J.€conceded:€"It€is€axiomatic€(and€many€counsel€before€this€court€conceded€the€point)Ð P( #& Ðthat€if€the€Charter€has€any€application€to€Bill€30,€this€Bill€would€be€found€discriminatory€and€inÐ @)$' Ðviolation€of€ss.€2(a)€and€15€of€the€Charter€of€Rights."€Ð 0*€%( ÐÌ2.10€In€a€further€case,€òòAdler€v.€Ontarioóó,€individuals€from€the€Calvinistic€or€Reformed€ChristianÐ ,`'* Ðtradition,€and€members€of€the€Sikh,€Hindu,€Muslim,€and€Jewish€faiths€challenged€theÐ -P(+ Ðconstitutionality€of€Ontario's€Education€Act,€claiming€a€violation€of€the€Charter's€provisions€onÐ ð-@), Ðfreedom€of€religion€and€equality.€They€argued€that€the€Education€Act,€by€requiring€attendance€atÐ ° Ðschool,€discriminated€against€those€whose€conscience€or€beliefs€prevented€them€from€sending€theirÐ  ð Ðchildren€to€either€the€publicly€funded€secular€or€publicly€funded€Roman€Catholic€schools,€becauseÐ à Ðof€the€high€costs€associated€with€their€children's€religious€education.€A€declaration€was€also€soughtÐ €Ð Ðstating€that€the€applicants€were€entitled€to€funding€equivalent€to€that€of€public€and€Roman€CatholicÐ pÀ Ðschools.€The€Ontario€Court€of€Appeal€determined€that€the€crux€of€òòAdleróó€was€an€attempt€to€revisit€theÐ ` ° Ðissue€which€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€had€already€disposed€of€in€the€òòBill€30óó€case.€Chief€JusticeÐ P   ÐÔ_ÔDubinÔ_Ô€stated€that€the€Bill€30€case€was€"really€quite€decisive€of€the€discrimination€issue€in€theseÐ @  Ðappeals."€They€also€rejected€the€argument€based€on€freedom€of€religion.€Ð 0 € ÐÌ2.11€On€appeal,€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€by€judgement€of€21€November€1996,€confirmed€thatÐ `  Ðits€decision€in€the€òòBill€30óó€case€was€determinative€in€the€òòAdleróó€litigation,€and€found€that€the€fundingÐ P  Ðof€Roman€Catholic€separate€schools€could€not€give€rise€to€an€infringement€of€the€Charter€becauseÐ ð@  Ðthe€province€of€Ontario€was€constitutionally€obligated€to€provide€such€funding.€Ð à0  ÐÌòòThe€complaintóó€Ð À ÐÌ3.1€The€author€contends€that€the€legislative€grant€of€power€to€fund€Roman€Catholic€schoolsÐ  ð Ðauthorized€by€section€93€of€the€Constitution€Act€of€Canada€1867,€and€carried€out€under€sections€122Ð à Ðand€128€of€the€Education€Act€(Ontario)€violates€Article€26€of€the€Covenant.€The€author€states€thatÐ €Ð Ðthese€provisions€create€a€distinction€or€preference€which€is€based€on€religion€and€which€has€the€effectÐ pÀ Ðof€impairing€the€enjoyment€or€exercise€by€all€persons,€on€an€equal€footing,€of€their€religious€rightsÐ `° Ðand€freedoms.€He€argues€that€the€conferral€of€a€benefit€on€a€single€religious€group€cannot€beÐ P  Ðsustained.€When€a€right€to€publicly€financed€religious€education€is€recognized€by€a€State€party,€noÐ @ Ðdifferentiation€should€be€made€among€individuals€on€the€basis€of€the€nature€of€their€particularÐ 0€ Ðbeliefs.€The€author€maintains€that€the€provision€of€full€funding€exclusively€to€Roman€CatholicÐ  p Ðschools€cannot€be€considered€reasonable.€The€historical€rationale€for€the€Ontario€government'sÐ ` Ðdiscriminatory€funding€practice,€that€of€protection€of€Roman€Catholic€minority€rights€from€theÐ P ÐProtestant€majority,€has€now€disappeared,€and€if€anything€has€been€transferred€to€other€minorityÐ ð@ Ðreligious€communities€in€Ontario.òò€1óó€It€is€also€unreasonable€in€view€of€the€fact€that€other€CanadianÐ à0 Ðprovinces€and€territories€do€not€discriminate€on€the€basis€of€religion€in€allocating€education€funding.€Ð Ð  ÐÌ3.2€The€author€also€claims€that€Ontario's€school€funding€practices€violate€Article€18(1)€taken€inÐ °"  Ðconjunction€with€Article€2.€The€author€states€that€he€experiences€financial€hardship€in€order€toÐ  #ð! Ðprovide€his€children€with€a€Jewish€education,€a€hardship€which€is€not€experienced€by€a€RomanÐ $à" ÐCatholic€parent€seeking€to€provide€his€children€with€a€Roman€Catholic€education.€The€author€claimsÐ €%Ð # Ðthat€such€hardship€significantly€impairs,€in€a€discriminatory€fashion,€the€enjoyment€of€the€right€toÐ p&À!$ Ðmanifest€one's€religion,€including€the€freedom€to€provide€a€religious€education€for€one's€children,€orÐ `'°"% Ðto€establish€religious€schools.€Ð P( #& ÐÌ3.3€The€author€further€points€out€that€this€violation€is€not€sustainable€under€the€limitation€provisionsÐ 0*€%( Ðof€article€18(3),€which€only€permits€those€limitations€which€are€prescribed€by€law€and€are€necessaryÐ  +p&) Ðto€protect€public€safety,€order,€health€or€morals,€or€the€fundamental€rights€and€freedom€of€others.Ð ,`'* ÐAccording€to€the€author,€a€limitation€established€to€protect€morals€may€not€be€based€on€a€singleÐ -P(+ Ðtradition.€Ð ð-@), Ї3.4€The€author€further€asserts€that€when€a€right€to€publicly€financed€religious€education€is€recognizedÐ ° Ðby€a€State€party,€no€differentiation€should€be€made€on€the€basis€of€religion.€The€full€and€direct€publicÐ  ð Ðfunding€of€Roman€Catholic€schools€in€Ontario€does€not€equally€respect€the€liberty€of€non„RomanÐ à ÐCatholics€to€choose€an€education€in€conformity€with€a€parent's€religious€convictions,€contrary€toÐ €Ð ÐArticle€18(4)€taken€together€with€Article€2.€Ð pÀ ÐÌ3.5€The€author€states€that€Article€27€recognizes€that€separate€school€systems€are€crucial€to€theÐ P   Ðpractice€of€religion,€that€these€schools€form€an€essential€link€in€preserving€community€identity€andÐ @  Ðthe€survival€of€minority€religious€groups€and€that€positive€action€may€be€required€to€ensure€that€theÐ 0 € Ðrights€of€religious€minorities€are€protected.€Since€Roman€Catholics€are€the€only€religious€minorityÐ  p  Ðto€receive€full€and€direct€funding€for€religious€education€from€the€government€of€Ontario,€Article€27Ð `  Ðhas€not€been€applied,€as€required€by€Article€2,€without€distinction€on€the€basis€of€religion.€Ð P  ÐÌòòState€party's€observationsóó€Ð à0  ÐÌ4.1€By€note€of€29€April€1997,€the€State€party€agrees€to€the€combined€consideration€of€admissibilityÐ À Ðand€merits€of€the€communication€by€the€Committee.€Ð ° ÐÌ4.2€In€its€submission€of€February€1998,€the€State€party€denies€that€the€facts€of€the€case€discloseÐ à Ðviolations€of€articles€2,€18,€26€and€17€of€the€Covenant.€Ð €Ð ÐÌ4.3.1€With€regard€to€the€alleged€violation€of€article€26,€the€State€party€contends€the€communicationÐ `° Ðis€inadmissible€òòÔ_ÔrationeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔmateriaeÔ_Ôóó,€or,€in€the€alternative,€does€not€constitute€a€violation.€The€State€partyÐ P  Ðrecalls€that€a€differentiation€in€treatment€based€on€reasonable€and€objective€criteria€does€not€amountÐ @ Ðto€prohibited€discrimination€within€the€meaning€of€article€26.€It€refers€to€the€Committee'sÐ 0€ Ðjurisprudence€in€communication€No.€191/1985,òò€2óó€where€the€Committee€found€that€the€State€party€wasÐ  p Ðnot€violating€article€26€by€not€providing€the€same€level€of€subsidy€for€private€and€public€education,Ð ` Ðwhen€the€private€system€was€not€subject€to€State€supervision.€It€also€refers€to€the€Committee's€ViewsÐ P Ðin€communications€Nos.€298/1988€and€299/1988,òò€3óó€where€the€Committee€decided€that€the€State€partyÐ ð@ Ðcould€not€be€deemed€to€be€under€an€obligation€to€provide€the€same€benefits€to€private€schools€as€toÐ à0 Ðpublic€schools,€and€that€the€preferential€treatment€given€to€public€sector€schooling€was€reasonableÐ Ð  Ðand€based€on€objective€criteria.€The€Committee€also€considered€that€the€State€party€could€not€beÐ À! Ðdeemed€to€discriminate€against€parents€who€freely€choose€not€to€avail€themselves€of€benefits€whichÐ °"  Ðare€generally€open€to€all.€Ð  #ð! ÐÌ4.3.2€The€State€party€argues€that€its€funding€of€public€schools€but€not€private€schools€is€notÐ €%Ð # Ðdiscriminatory.€All€children€of€every€or€no€religious€denomination€have€the€same€right€to€attend€freeÐ p&À!$ Ðsecular€public€schools€maintained€with€tax€funds.€According€to€the€State€party,€it€is€not€a€deprivationÐ `'°"% Ðby€the€Government€that€a€child€or€a€parent€voluntarily€chooses€to€forego€the€exercise€of€the€right€toÐ P( #& Ðeducational€benefits€provided€in€the€public€school€system.€The€State€party€emphasizes€that€theÐ @)$' Ðprovince€of€Ontario€does€not€fund€any€private€schools,€whether€they€are€religious€or€not.€TheÐ 0*€%( Ðdistinction€made€in€the€funding€of€schools€is€based€not€on€religion,€but€on€whether€or€not€the€schoolÐ  +p&) Ðis€a€public€or€a€private/independent€institution.€Ð ,`'* ÐÌ4.3.3€According€to€the€State€party,€the€establishment€of€secular€public€institutions€is€consistent€withÐ ð-@), Ðthe€values€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€Secular€institutions€do€not€discriminate€against€religion,Ð ° Ðthey€are€a€legitimate€form€of€Government€neutrality.€According€to€the€State€party,€a€secular€systemÐ  ð Ðis€a€tool€which€assists€in€preventing€discrimination€among€citizens€on€the€basis€of€their€religiousÐ à Ðfaiths.€The€State€party€makes€no€distinctions€among€different€religious€groups€in€its€public€educationÐ €Ð Ðand€does€not€limit€any€religious€group's€ability€to€establish€private€schools.€Ð pÀ ÐÌ4.3.4€Apart€from€its€obligations€under€the€Constitution€Act€1867,€the€State€party€provides€no€directÐ P   Ðfunding€to€religious€schools.€In€such€circumstances,€the€State€party€argues€that€it€is€notÐ @  Ðdiscriminatory€to€refuse€funding€for€religious€schools.€In€making€its€decision,€the€State€party€seeksÐ 0 € Ðto€achieve€the€very€values€advanced€by€article€26,€the€creation€of€a€tolerant€society€where€there€isÐ  p  Ðrespect€and€equality€for€all€religious€beliefs.€The€State€party€argues€that€it€would€defeat€the€purposesÐ `  Ðof€article€26€itself€if€the€Committee€was€to€hold€that€because€of€the€provisions€in€the€ConstitutionÐ P  ÐAct€1867€requiring€the€funding€of€Roman€Catholic€schools,€the€State€party€now€must€fund€all€privateÐ ð@  Ðreligious€schools,€thus€undermining€its€very€ability€to€create€and€promote€a€tolerant€society€that€trulyÐ à0  Ðprotects€religious€freedom,€when€in€the€absence€if€the€1867€constitutional€provision,€it€would€haveÐ Ð  Ðno€obligation€under€the€Covenant€to€fund€any€religious€schools€at€all.€Ð À ÐÌ4.4.1.€In€relation€to€article€18,€the€State€party€refers€to€the€Ô_ÔtravauxÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔprparatoiresÔ_Ô€which€make€it€clearÐ  ð Ðthat€article€18€does€not€include€the€right€to€require€the€State€to€fund€private€religious€schools.€DuringÐ à Ðthe€drafting€the€question€was€expressly€raised€and€answered€in€the€negative.òò4óó€As€a€consequence,€theÐ €Ð ÐState€party€argues€that€the€author's€claim€under€article€18€is€inadmissible€òòÔ_ÔrationeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔmateriaeÔ_Ôóó.€In€theÐ pÀ Ðalternative,€the€State€party€argues€that€its€policy€meets€the€guarantee€of€freedom€of€religion€containedÐ `° Ðin€article€18,€because€it€provides€a€public€school€system€which€is€open€to€persons€of€all€religiousÐ P  Ðbeliefs€and€which€does€not€provide€instruction€in€a€particular€religion€or€belief,€and€because€thereÐ @ Ðis€freedom€to€establish€private€religious€schools€and€parents€are€free€to€send€their€children€to€suchÐ 0€ Ðreligious€schools.€The€State€party€denies€that€paragraph€4€of€article€18€obligates€States€to€subsidizeÐ  p Ðprivate€religious€schools€or€religious€education.òò€5óó€According€to€the€State€party,€the€purpose€of€articleÐ ` Ð18€is€to€ensure€that€religious€observance,€beliefs€and€practices€remain€a€private€matter,€free€fromÐ P ÐState€coercion€or€restraint.€It€is€the€State's€obligation€to€provide€an€education€open€and€accessible€toÐ ð@ Ðall€children€regardless€of€religion.€There€is€no€obligation€to€either€offer€or€finance€religiousÐ à0 Ðinstruction€or€indoctrination.€While€the€province€must€ensure€that€religious€freedom€and€religiousÐ Ð  Ðdifferences€are€accommodated€within€the€public€school€system,€it€has€no€obligation€to€fundÐ À! Ðindividuals€who,€for€religious€reasons,€exercise€their€freedom€to€opt€out€of€the€public€school€system.€Ð °"  ÐÌ4.4.2€The€State€party€argues€that€failure€to€act€in€order€to€facilitate€the€practice€of€religion€cannot€beÐ $à" Ðconsidered€state€interference€with€freedom€of€religion.€It€points€out€that€there€are€many€spheres€ofÐ €%Ð # Ðgovernment€action€which€hold€religious€significance€for€religious€believers€and€the€State€partyÐ p&À!$ Ðrejects€the€suggestion€that€it€must€pay€for€religious€dimensions€in€spheres€in€which€it€takes€a€role,Ð `'°"% Ðsuch€as€religious€marriages€and€religious€community€institutions€such€as€churches€and€hospitals.€Ð P( #& ÐÌ4.4.3€In€the€alternative,€if€the€Committee€were€to€interpret€article€18€as€requiring€States€to€fundÐ 0*€%( Ðreligious€schools,€the€State€party€argues€that€its€limitation€meets€the€requirements€of€paragraph€3€ofÐ  +p&) Ðarticle€18€as€it€is€prescribed€by€law€and€is€necessary€to€protect€public€order€and€the€fundamentalÐ ,`'* Ðrights€and€freedoms€of€others.€The€objectives€of€the€State€party's€education€system€are€the€provisionÐ -P(+ Ðof€a€tuition„free,€secular€public€education,€universally€accessible€to€all€residents€withoutÐ ð-@), Ðdiscrimination€and€the€establishment€of€a€public€education€system€which€fosters€and€promotes€theÐ ° Ðvalues€of€a€pluralist,€democratic€society,€including€social€cohesion,€religious€tolerance€andÐ  ð Ðunderstanding.€The€State€party€argues€that€if€it€were€required€to€fund€private€religious€schools,€thisÐ à Ðwould€have€a€detrimental€impact€on€the€public€schools€and€hence€the€fostering€of€a€tolerant,Ð €Ð Ðmulticultural,€non„discriminatory€society€in€the€province.€Ð pÀ ÐÌ4.4.4€Public€schools,€in€the€State€party's€opinion,€are€a€rational€means€of€fostering€social€cohesionÐ P   Ðand€respect€for€religious€and€other€differences.€Schools€are€better€able€to€teach€commonÐ @  Ðunderstanding€and€shared€values€if€they€are€less€homogeneous.€The€State€party€submits€that€one€ofÐ 0 € Ðthe€strengths€of€a€public€system€of€education€is€that€it€provides€a€venue€where€people€of€all€colours,Ð  p  Ðraces,€national€and€ethnic€origins,€and€religions€interact€and€try€to€come€to€terms€with€one€another'sÐ `  Ðdifferences.€In€this€way,€the€public€schools€build€social€cohesion,€tolerance€and€understanding.Ð P  ÐExtending€public€school€funding€rights€to€private€religious€schools€will€undermine€this€ability€andÐ ð@  Ðmay€result€in€a€significant€increase€in€the€number€and€kind€of€private€schools.€This€would€have€anÐ à0  Ðadverse€effect€on€the€viability€of€the€public€school€system€which€would€become€the€system€servingÐ Ð  Ðstudents€not€found€admissible€by€any€other€system.€Such€potential€fragmentation€of€the€schoolÐ À Ðsystem€is€an€expensive€and€debilitating€structure€for€society.€Moreover,€extending€public€schoolÐ ° Ðfunding€rights€to€private€religious€schools€could€compound€the€problems€of€religious€coercion€andÐ  ð Ðostracism€sometimes€faced€by€minority€religious€groups€in€homogeneous€rural€areas€of€the€province.Ð à ÐThe€majority€religious€group€could€reintroduce€and€even€make€compulsory€the€practice€of€schoolÐ €Ð Ðprayer€and€religious€indoctrination€and€minority€religious€groups€would€have€to€conform€or€attendÐ pÀ Ðtheir€own,€virtually€segregated€schools.€To€the€extent€that€full€funding€of€private€schools€enablesÐ `° Ðsuch€schools€to€supplant€public€schools,€the€government€objective€of€universal€access€to€educationÐ P  Ðwill€be€impaired.€Full€public€funding€of€private€religious€schools€is€likely€to€lead€to€increased€publicÐ @ Ðschool€closings€and€to€the€reduction€of€the€range€of€programs€and€services€a€public€system€can€affordÐ 0€ Ðto€offer.€Ð  p ÐÌ4.4.5€The€State€party€concludes€that€if€the€province€of€Ontario€were€required€to€fund€private€religiousÐ P Ðschools,€this€would€have€a€detrimental€impact€on€the€public€schools,€and€hence€the€fostering€of€aÐ ð@ Ðtolerant,€multicultural,€non„discriminatory€society€in€the€province,€thus€undermining€the€fundamentalÐ à0 Ðrights€and€freedoms€of€others.€According€to€the€State€party€it€has€struck€the€appropriate€balance€byÐ Ð  Ðfunding€a€public€school€system€where€members€of€all€groups€can€learn€together€while€retaining€theÐ À! Ðfreedom€of€parents€to€send€children€to€private€religious€schools,€at€their€own€expense,€if€they€doÐ °"  Ðdesire.€Ð  #ð! ÐÌ4.5.1€As€to€the€author's€allegation€that€he€is€a€victim€of€a€violation€of€article€18€in€conjunction€withÐ €%Ð # Ðarticle€2€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€recalls€that€article€2€does€not€establish€an€independent€rightÐ p&À!$ Ðbut€is€a€general€undertaking€by€States€and€cannot€be€invoked€by€individuals€under€the€OptionalÐ `'°"% ÐProtocol€without€reference€to€other€specific€articles€of€the€Covenant.€It€cannot€be€argued€that€articleÐ P( #& Ð2€in€combination€with€article€18€has€been€violated€if€there€is€no€such€right€in€article€18€itself.€Ð @)$' ÐÌ4.5.2€Alternatively,€the€State€party€rejects€a€violation€of€article€2€because€a€differentiation€based€onÐ  +p&) Ðreasonable€and€objective€criteria€does€not€amount€to€a€distinction€or€discrimination€within€theÐ ,`'* Ðmeaning€of€article€2€of€the€Covenant.€For€substantive€arguments€concerning€the€issue€ofÐ -P(+ Ðdiscrimination,€it€refers€to€its€arguments€relating€to€the€alleged€violation€of€article€26.€Ð ð-@), Ї4.6.1€In€respect€to€the€alleged€violation€of€article€27,€the€State€party€contends€that€the€communicationÐ ° Ðis€inadmissible€òòÔ_ÔrationeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔmateriaeÔ_Ôóó€or€in€the€alternative€does€not€demonstrate€a€violation.€According€toÐ  ð Ðthe€State€party,€the€Ô_ÔtravauxÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔprparatoiresÔ_Ô€make€it€clear€that€article€27€does€not€include€a€right€toÐ à Ðrequire€the€State€to€fund€private€religious€schools.€The€article€only€protects€against€State€actions€ofÐ €Ð Ða€negative€character:€individuals€"shall€not€be€denied€the€right".€A€proposal€to€include€an€obligationÐ pÀ Ðto€take€positive€measures€was€defeated.òò€6óó€Although€under€article€27€a€State€party€may€be€required€toÐ ` ° Ðtake€certain€positive€actions,€in€the€light€of€the€intention€of€the€drafters€positive€actions€should€beÐ P   Ðrequired€only€in€rare€circumstances.€According€to€the€State€party,€the€province€of€Ontario€has€takenÐ @  Ðpositive€measures€which€protect€the€right€of€members€of€religious€minorities€to€establish€religiousÐ 0 € Ðschools€and€to€send€their€children€to€those€schools.€It€is€not€further€required€to€fund€those€schools.€Ð  p  ÐÌ4.6.2€In€the€alternative,€restrictions€on€the€rights€contained€in€article€27€may€occur€where€they€haveÐ P  Ða€reasonable€and€objective€justification€and€are€consistent€with€the€provisions€of€the€Covenant€readÐ ð@  Ðas€a€whole.€For€the€reasons€given€in€relation€to€the€creation€of€a€tolerant€society,€Ontario's€decisionÐ à0  Ðnot€to€extend€funding€to€all€private€religious€schools€meets€this€test€for€justification.€Ð Ð  ÐÌ4.6.3€The€State€party€refers€to€its€arguments€in€relation€to€article€18€and€reiterates€that€there€can€beÐ ° Ðno€argument€that€article€27€in€combination€with€article€2€has€been€violated€if€there€is€no€such€rightÐ  ð Ðin€article€27€itself.€In€the€alternative,€there€is€no€violation€of€article€2€because€a€differentiation€basedÐ à Ðon€reasonable€and€objective€criteria€does€not€amount€to€an€invidious€distinction€or€discriminationÐ €Ð Ðwithin€the€meaning€of€article€2.€The€State€party€refers€to€its€arguments€concerning€article€26€above.€Ð pÀ ÐÌòòAuthor's€commentsóó€Ð P  ÐÌ5.1€Counsel€submits€that€the€State€party€has€admitted€the€discriminatory€nature€of€the€educationalÐ 0€ Ðfunding,€and€based€this€on€a€constitutional€obligation.€Counsel€argues€that€article€26€of€the€CovenantÐ  p Ðdoes€not€allow€exceptions€for€discriminatory€constitutional€laws€and€that€historical€anomalies€cannotÐ ` Ðthwart€the€application€of€the€equality€provisions€of€the€Covenant.€Counsel€rejects€as€circular€the€StateÐ P Ðparty's€argument€that€the€difference€between€the€funding€of€Roman€Catholic€schools€and€otherÐ ð@ Ðreligious€schools€is€one€between€public€and€private€schools.€Counsel€notes€that€the€public€qualityÐ à0 Ðof€Roman€Catholic€schools€is€a€bureaucratic€construct€assigned€to€one€group€of€ratepayers€based€onÐ Ð  Ðtheir€religious€affiliation€to€the€discriminatory€exclusion€of€all€other€ratepayers.€Ð À! ÐÌ5.2€Counsel€rejects€the€State€party's€argument€that€the€extension€of€non„discriminatory€publicÐ  #ð! Ðfunding€to€other€religious€schools€would€harm€the€goals€of€a€tolerant,€multi„cultural,€non„Ð $à" Ðdiscriminatory€society,€and€argues€that€on€the€contrary,€the€current€circumstance€of€discriminatoryÐ €%Ð # Ðand€selective€funding€of€only€one€religious€denomination€in€the€establishment€and€operation€ofÐ p&À!$ Ðreligious€schools€is€highly€detrimental€to€fostering€a€tolerant,€non„discriminatory€society€in€theÐ `'°"% Ðprovince€and€encourages€the€divided€society€among€religious€lines€that€it€claims€to€defeat.€Ð P( #& ÐÌ5.3€According€to€counsel,€the€State€party's€argument€that€the€claim€under€article€18€is€inadmissibleÐ 0*€%( ÐÔ_ÔòòrationeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔmateriaeóóÔ_Ô€because€article€18€does€not€include€a€right€to€require€the€State€to€fund€publicÐ  +p&) Ðschools,€is€a€misrepresentation€of€the€author's€submissions.€Counsel€argues€that€article€18(1)€includesÐ ,`'* Ðthe€right€to€teach€religion€and€the€right€to€educate€one's€children€in€a€religious€school.€If€this€isÐ -P(+ Ðpossible€for€some€and€not€for€others€on€discriminatory€grounds,€then€article€18€is€violated€inÐ ð-@), Ðconjunction€with€article€2.€According€to€counsel,€in€order€to€give€article€2€its€full€and€properÐ ° Ðmeaning,€it€must€have€the€effect€of€requiring€non„discrimination€on€the€listed€grounds€with€respectÐ  ð Ðto€the€rights€and€freedoms€in€the€Covenant,€even€if€in€the€absence€of€discrimination,€no€violation€ofÐ à Ðthe€Covenant€existed.€If€a€violation€of€the€Covenant€was€always€required€without€the€application€orÐ €Ð Ðconsideration€of€article€2,€article€2€would€be€superfluous,€in€counsel's€opinion.òò7óó€Counsel€clarifies€thatÐ pÀ Ðhe€does€not€claim€a€violation€of€article€18€on€its€own,€but€only€in€conjunction€with€article€2,€becauseÐ ` ° Ðthe€funding€of€only€Roman€Catholic€schools€results€in€discriminatory€support€for€Roman€CatholicÐ P   Ðeducation.€Ð @  ÐÌ5.4€According€to€counsel,€the€State€party€makes€the€same€error€in€replying€to€his€claims€under€articleÐ  p  Ð27€in€conjunction€with€article€2.€He€argues€that,€since€Roman€Catholic€schools€are€the€only€religiousÐ `  Ðminority€to€receive€full€and€direct€funding€for€religious€education€from€the€Government€of€Ontario,Ð P  Ðarticle€27€has€not€been€applied,€as€required€by€article€2,€without€distinction€on€the€basis€of€religion.€Ð ð@  ÐÌ5.5€Counsel€agrees€with€the€State€party€that€the€fact€alone€that€it€does€not€provide€the€same€level€ofÐ Ð  Ðfunding€for€private€as€for€public€schools€cannot€be€deemed€to€be€discriminatory.€He€acknowledgesÐ À Ðthat€the€public€school€system€in€Ontario€would€have€greater€resources€if€the€Government€wouldÐ ° Ðcease€funding€any€religious€schools.€In€the€absence€of€discrimination,€the€withdrawal€of€such€fundingÐ  ð Ðis€a€policy€decision€which€is€for€the€Government€to€take.€Counsel€notes€that€the€amendment€of€theÐ à Ðprovision€of€the€Canadian€Constitution€Act€1867€requires€only€the€agreement€of€the€Government€ofÐ €Ð Ðthe€province€affected€and€the€federal€Government.€Such€amendments€have€been€recently€passed€inÐ pÀ ÐQuebec€and€Newfoundland€to€reduce€historical€commitments€to€publicly„funded€education€forÐ `° Ðselective€religious€denominations.€Ð P  ÐÌ5.6€Counsel€maintains€that€when€a€right€to€publicly€financed€religious€education€is€recognized€byÐ 0€ ÐStates€parties,€no€differentiation€shall€be€made€among€individuals€on€the€basis€of€the€nature€of€theirÐ  p Ðparticular€beliefs.€The€practice€of€exclusively€funding€Roman€Catholic€religious€education€in€OntarioÐ ` Ðtherefore€violates€the€Covenant.€Counsel€therefore€seeks€funding€for€all€religious€schools€which€meetÐ P Ðprovincial€standards€in€Ontario€at€a€level€equivalent€to€the€funding,€if€any,€received€by€RomanÐ ð@ ÐCatholic€schools€in€Ontario.€Ð à0 ÐÌòòState€party's€further€observationsóó€Ð À! ÐÌ6.1€In€a€further€reply,€the€State€party€emphasizes€that€the€recent€constitutional€amendments€affectingÐ  #ð! Ðeducation€in€Quebec€and€Newfoundland€do€not€bring€about€the€remedy€sought€by€the€author€ofÐ $à" Ðequivalent€funding€for€all€religious€schools.€The€changes€in€Quebec€preserve€the€denominationalÐ €%Ð # Ðstatus€of€Catholic€and€Protestant€schools€in€that€province,€and€protect€that€status€through€an€alternateÐ p&À!$ Ðconstitutional€means,€by€way€of€the€notwithstanding€clause€in€the€Charter.€The€changes€inÐ `'°"% ÐNewfoundland€demonstrate€a€clear€rejection€of€the€very€remedy€sought€by€the€author,€since€it€hasÐ P( #& Ðreplaced€its€religious€based€school€system,€where€8€different€religions€representing€90%€of€theÐ @)$' Ðpopulation€each€had€the€right€to€set€up€their€own€publicly€funded€schools,€with€a€singular€publicÐ 0*€%( Ðsystem€where€religious€observance€will€be€permitted€at€the€request€of€parents.€Ð  +p&) ÐÌ6.2€In€respect€of€counsel's€argument€concerning€article€2€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€rejects€hisÐ -P(+ Ðsuggestion€that€article€2€can€convert€laws€or€Government€actions€otherwise€consistent€with€the€rightsÐ ð-@), Ðand€freedoms€of€the€Covenant,€into€contraventions.€In€the€State€party's€opinion,€the€author€seeks€toÐ ° Ðraise€equality€arguments€by€combining€article€2€with€articles€18€and€27€respectively.€It€is€the€equalityÐ  ð Ðguarantee€in€article€26€of€the€Covenant€that€is€the€proper€context€for€raising€such€issues.€The€StateÐ à Ðparty€notes€that€article€26€has€no€equivalent€in€the€European€Convention€for€the€Protection€ofÐ €Ð ÐFundamental€Human€Rights€and€Fundamental€Freedoms.€The€State€party€argues€that€a€complainantÐ pÀ Ðwho€is€unsuccessful€under€article€26€should€not€be€entitled€to€an€identical€reexamination€of€the€issueÐ ` ° Ðsimply€by€combining€article€2€with€various€substantive€Covenant€provisions.€Ð P   ÐÌ6.3€The€State€party€further€observes€that€article€2€of€the€Covenant€requires€the€State€to€respect€andÐ 0 € Ðensure€to€all€individuals€within€its€territory€the€rights€recognized€inòò€óóthe€present€Covenant.€TheÐ  p  Ðfunding€of€denominational€separate€schools€in€Ontario€is€not€required€to€ensure€the€rights€containedÐ `  Ðin€articles€18€and€27€of€the€Covenant,€neither€is€it€related€to,€or€in€addition€to,€the€obligations€createdÐ P  Ðby€those€articles.€The€funding€arises€solely€out€of€the€constitutional€obligation€under€section€93(1)Ð ð@  Ðof€the€Constitution€Act€1867,€not€out€of€any€obligation€under,€in€conformity€with,€nor€theÐ à0  Ðaugmenting€of€any€right€in€any€of€the€articles€of€the€Covenant.€Ð Ð  ÐÌòòAuthor's€further€commentsóó€Ð ° ÐÌ7.€By€submission€of€15€March€1999,€the€author€notes€that€the€State€party's€rationale€for€theÐ à Ðdiscriminatory€treatment€of€religious€schools,€the€desire€to€foster€multiracial€and€multiculturalÐ €Ð Ðharmony€through€maximizing€public€funding€for€the€secular€school€system,€would€actually€requireÐ pÀ Ðthe€withdrawal€of€special€funding€for€Roman€Catholic€separate€schools.€He€further€points€out€thatÐ `° Ðthe€fact€that€Quebec€had€to€resort€to€the€notwithstanding€clause€in€the€Charter€in€order€to€preserveÐ P  Ðits€funding€for€separate€schools€indicates€that€this€system€is€in€violation€of€the€equality€rightsÐ @ Ðcontained€in€the€Charter,€and€by€consequence€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€The€author€refers€to€theÐ 0€ Ðconstitutional€changes€in€respect€of€the€education€system€in€Newfoundland€and€states€that€it€isÐ  p Ðindicative€of€the€fact€that€constitutional€change€in€relation€to€denominational€schools€is€possible€evenÐ ` Ðover€the€objections€of€those€with€vested€interests.€Ð P ÐÌòòState€party's€further€observationsóó€Ð à0 ÐÌ8.1€In€a€further€reply€to€the€author's€comments,€the€State€party€contests€the€author's€interpretation€ofÐ À! Ðthe€use€of€the€notwithstanding€clause€in€Quebec.€According€to€the€State€party,€the€amendment€toÐ °"  Ðsection€93€of€the€Constitution€Act,€1867,€took€away€the€constitutional€protection€for€Protestant€andÐ  #ð! ÐCatholic€denominational€schools€in€Quebec€in€order€to€replace€them€with€linguistic€school€boards.Ð $à" ÐContinued€constitutional€protection€for€the€denominational€schools,€however,€is€provided€throughÐ €%Ð # Ðthe€alternate€method€of€the€notwithstanding€clause.€According€to€the€State€party,€this€shows€that€theÐ p&À!$ Ðissue€of€denominational€school€funding€continues€to€involve€the€present€day€complex€balancing€ofÐ `'°"% Ðdiverse€needs€and€interests.€Ð P( #& ÐÌ8.2€The€State€party€notes€that€in€his€comments,€the€author€for€the€first€time€indicates€that€a€possibleÐ 0*€%( Ðremedy€for€the€alleged€discrimination€would€be€the€elimination€of€funding€for€the€Roman€CatholicÐ  +p&) Ðseparate€schools.€So€far,€the€State€party's€reply€to€the€author's€communication€has€focussed€on€hisÐ ,`'* Ðclaim€that€the€failure€to€extend€funding€constituted€a€violation€of€the€Covenant,€not€on€a€claim€thatÐ -P(+ Ðthe€failure€to€eliminate€funding€from€the€Roman€Catholic€separate€school€system€is€Ô_ÔviolativeÔ_Ô€of€theÐ ð-@), ÐCovenant.€The€State€party€notes€that€in€another€communication€(No.€816/1998,€òòÔ_ÔTadmanÔ_Ô€et€al.€v.Ð ° ÐCanadaóó)€presented€to€the€Committee€under€the€Optional€Protocol€this€question€has€been€addressedÐ  ð Ðand€therefore€it€requests€the€Committee€to€consider€jointly€the€two€communications.€Ð à ÐÌ8.3€In€case€the€Committee€does€not€join€the€consideration€of€the€two€communications,€the€State€partyÐ pÀ Ðprovides€further€arguments€concerning€this€matter.€In€this€context,€the€State€party€explains€thatÐ ` ° Ðwithout€the€protection€of€the€rights€of€the€Roman€Catholic€minority,€the€founding€of€Canada€wouldÐ P   Ðnot€have€been€possible€and€that€the€separate€school€system€remained€a€controversial€issue,€at€timesÐ @  Ðendangering€the€national€unity€in€Canada.€The€State€party€explains€that€the€funding€is€seen€by€theÐ 0 € ÐRoman€Catholic€community€as€correction€of€a€historical€wrong.€Ð  p  ÐÌ8.4€The€State€party€submits€that€there€are€reasonable€and€objective€grounds€for€not€eliminatingÐ P  Ðfunding€to€Roman€Catholic€separate€schools€in€Ontario.€The€elimination€would€be€perceived€asÐ ð@  Ðundoing€the€bargain€made€at€Confederation€to€protect€the€interests€of€a€vulnerable€minority€in€theÐ à0  Ðprovince€and€would€be€met€with€outrage€and€resistance€by€the€Roman€Catholic€community.€It€wouldÐ Ð  Ðalso€result€in€a€certain€degree€of€economic€turmoil,€including€claims€for€compensation€of€facilitiesÐ À Ðor€lands€provided€for€Roman€Catholic€schools.€Further,€the€protection€of€minority€rights,€includingÐ ° Ðminority€religion€and€education€rights,€is€a€principle€underlying€the€Canadian€constitutional€orderÐ  ð Ðand€militates€against€elimination€of€funding€for€the€Roman€Catholic€separate€schools.€EliminationÐ à Ðof€funding€for€separate€schools€in€Ontario€would€further€lead€to€pressure€on€other€CanadianÐ €Ð Ðprovinces€to€eliminate€their€protections€for€minorities€within€their€border.€Ð pÀ ÐÌòòIssues€and€proceedings€before€the€Committeeóó€Ð P  ÐÌ9.1€Before€considering€any€claim€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€Rights€CommitteeÐ 0€ Ðmust,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€rules€of€procedure,€decide€whether€or€not€it€is€admissibleÐ  p Ðunder€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.€Ð ` ÐÌ9.2€The€Committee€notes€that€the€State€party€has€challenged€the€admissibility€of€the€communicationÐ ð@ ÐòòÔ_ÔrationeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔmateriaeÔ_Ôóó.€The€Committee,€however,€considers€that€the€author's€claim€of€discrimination,€inÐ à0 Ðitself€and€in€conjunction€with€articles€18€and€27,€is€not€incompatible€with€the€provisions€of€theÐ Ð  ÐCovenant.€The€State€party€has€not€raised€any€other€objections€and€accordingly€the€Committee€findsÐ À! Ðthe€communication€admissible.€The€Committee€does€not€consider€that€there€would€be€any€difficultyÐ °"  Ðor€disadvantage€to€the€parties€in€proceeding€to€consider€this€case€on€its€own€without€joinder€asÐ  #ð! Ðrequested€by€the€State€party.€Ð $à" ÐÌ10.1€The€Human€Rights€Committee€has€considered€the€present€communication€in€the€light€of€all€theÐ p&À!$ Ðinformation€made€available€to€it€by€the€parties,€as€provided€in€article€5,€paragraph€1,€of€the€OptionalÐ `'°"% ÐProtocol.€Ð P( #& ÐÌ10.2€The€issue€before€the€Committee€is€whether€public€funding€for€Roman€Catholic€schools,€but€notÐ 0*€%( Ðfor€schools€of€the€author's€religion,€which€results€in€him€having€to€meet€the€full€cost€of€education€inÐ  +p&) Ða€religious€school,€constitutes€a€violation€of€the€author's€rights€under€the€Covenant.€Ð ,`'* ÐÌ10.3€The€State€party€has€argued€that€no€discrimination€has€occurred,€since€the€distinction€is€basedÐ ð-@), Ðon€objective€and€reasonable€criteria:€the€privileged€treatment€of€Roman€Catholic€schools€is€enshrinedÐ ° Ðin€the€Constitution;€as€Roman€Catholic€schools€are€incorporated€as€a€distinct€part€of€the€publicÐ  ð Ðschool€system,€the€differentiation€is€between€private€and€public€schools,€not€between€private€RomanÐ à ÐCatholic€schools€and€private€schools€of€other€denominations;€and€the€aims€of€the€public€secularÐ €Ð Ðeducation€system€are€compatible€with€the€Covenant.€Ð pÀ ÐÌ10.4€The€Committee€begins€by€noting€that€the€fact€that€a€distinction€is€enshrined€in€the€ConstitutionÐ P   Ðdoes€not€render€it€reasonable€and€objective.€In€the€instant€case,€the€distinction€was€made€in€1867€toÐ @  Ðprotect€the€Roman€Catholics€in€Ontario.€The€material€before€the€Committee€does€not€show€thatÐ 0 € Ðmembers€of€the€Roman€Catholic€community€or€any€identifiable€section€of€that€community€are€nowÐ  p  Ðin€a€disadvantaged€position€compared€to€those€members€of€the€Jewish€community€that€wish€to€secureÐ `  Ðthe€education€of€their€children€in€religious€schools.€Accordingly,€the€Committee€rejects€the€StateÐ P  Ðparty's€argument€that€the€preferential€treatment€of€Roman€Catholic€schools€is€nondiscriminatoryÐ ð@  Ðbecause€of€its€Constitutional€obligation.€Ð à0  ÐÌ10.5€With€regard€to€the€State€party's€argument€that€it€is€reasonable€to€differentiate€in€the€allocationÐ À Ðof€public€funds€between€private€and€public€schools,€the€Committee€notes€that€it€is€not€possible€forÐ ° Ðmembers€of€religious€denominations€other€than€Roman€Catholic€to€have€their€religious€schoolsÐ  ð Ðincorporated€within€the€public€school€system.€In€the€instant€case,€the€author€has€sent€his€children€toÐ à Ða€private€religious€school,€not€because€he€wishes€a€private€non„Government€dependent€education€forÐ €Ð Ðhis€children,€but€because€the€publicly€funded€school€system€makes€no€provision€for€his€religiousÐ pÀ Ðdenomination,€whereas€publicly€funded€religious€schools€are€available€to€members€of€the€RomanÐ `° ÐCatholic€faith.€On€the€basis€of€the€facts€before€it,€the€Committee€considers€that€the€differences€inÐ P  Ðtreatment€between€Roman€Catholic€religious€schools,€which€are€publicly€funded€as€a€distinct€partÐ @ Ðof€the€public€education€system,€and€schools€of€the€author's€religion,€which€are€private€by€necessity,Ð 0€ Ðcannot€be€considered€reasonable€and€objective.€Ð  p ÐÌ10.6€The€Committee€has€noted€the€State€party's€argument€that€the€aims€of€the€State€party's€secularÐ P Ðpublic€education€system€are€compatible€with€the€principle€of€nondiscrimination€laid€down€in€theÐ ð@ ÐCovenant.€The€Committee€does€not€take€issue€with€this€argument€but€notes,€however,€that€theÐ à0 Ðproclaimed€aims€of€the€system€do€not€justify€the€exclusive€funding€of€Roman€Catholic€religiousÐ Ð  Ðschools.€It€has€also€noted€the€author's€submission€that€the€public€school€system€in€Ontario€wouldÐ À! Ðhave€greater€resources€if€the€Government€would€cease€funding€any€religious€schools.€In€this€context,Ð °"  Ðthe€Committee€observes€that€the€Covenant€does€not€oblige€States€parties€to€fund€schools€which€areÐ  #ð! Ðestablished€on€a€religious€basis.€However,€if€a€State€party€chooses€to€provide€public€funding€toÐ $à" Ðreligious€schools,€it€should€make€this€funding€available€without€discrimination.€This€means€thatÐ €%Ð # Ðproviding€funding€for€the€schools€of€one€religious€group€and€not€for€another€must€be€based€onÐ p&À!$ Ðreasonable€and€objective€criteria.€In€the€instant€case,€the€Committee€concludes€that€the€materialÐ `'°"% Ðbefore€it€does€not€show€that€the€differential€treatment€between€the€Roman€Catholic€faith€and€theÐ P( #& Ðauthor's€religious€denomination€is€based€on€such€criteria.€Consequently,€there€has€been€a€violationÐ @)$' Ðof€the€author's€rights€under€article€26€of€the€Covenant€to€equal€and€effective€protection€againstÐ 0*€%( Ðdiscrimination.€Ð  +p&) ÐÌ10.7€The€Committee€has€noted€the€author's€arguments€that€the€same€facts€also€constitute€a€violationÐ -P(+ Ðof€articles€18€and€27,€read€in€conjunction€with€article€2(1)€of€the€Covenant.€The€Committee€is€of€theÐ ð-@), ÐÔ_Ôopinion€that€in€view€of€its€conclusions€in€regard€to€article€26,€no€additional€issue€arises€for€itsÐ ° Ðconsideration€under€articles€18,€27€and€2(1)€of€the€Covenant.€Ð  ð ÐÌ11.€The€Human€Rights€Committee,€acting€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocol€toÐ €Ð Ðthe€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€is€of€the€view€that€the€facts€before€itÐ pÀ Ðdisclose€a€violation€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€Ð ` ° ÐÌ12.€Under€article€2,€paragraph€3(a),€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€is€under€the€obligation€to€provideÐ @  Ðan€effective€remedy,€that€will€eliminate€this€discrimination.€Ð 0 € ÐÌ13.€Bearing€in€mind€that,€by€becoming€a€State€party€to€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€State€party€hasÐ `  Ðrecognized€the€competence€of€the€Committee€to€determine€whether€there€has€been€a€violation€of€theÐ P  ÐCovenant€or€not€and€that,€pursuant€to€article€2€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€has€undertaken€toÐ ð@  Ðensure€to€all€individuals€within€its€territory€and€subject€to€its€jurisdiction€the€rights€recognized€in€theÐ à0  ÐCovenant€and€to€provide€an€effective€and€enforceable€remedy€in€case€a€violation€has€beenÐ Ð  Ðestablished,€the€Committee€wishes€to€receive€from€the€State€party,€within€ninety€days,€informationÐ À Ðabout€the€measures€taken€to€give€effect€to€the€Committee's€Views.€The€State€party€is€also€requestedÐ ° Ðto€publish€the€Committee's€Views.€Ð  ð ÐÌ_____________Ð €Ð ÐÌ*/€€€The€following€members€of€the€Committee€participated€in€the€examination€of€the€presentÐ `° Ðcommunication:€Mr.€Ô_ÔAbdelfattahÔ_Ô€Amor,€Mr.€Ô_ÔNisukeÔ_Ô€Ando,€Mr.€Ô_ÔPrafullachandraÔ_Ô€N.€Ô_ÔBhagwatiÔ_Ô,€Ms.Ð P  ÐChristine€Ô_ÔChanetÔ_Ô,€Lord€Ô_ÔColvilleÔ_Ô,€Ms.€Elizabeth€Evatt,€Mr.€Louis€Ô_ÔHenkinÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Ô_ÔEckartÔ_Ô€Klein,€Mr.Ð @ ÐDavid€Ô_ÔKretzmerÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Ô_ÔRajsoomerÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔLallahÔ_Ô,€Ms.€Cecilia€Medina€Ô_ÔQuirogaÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Fausto€Ô_ÔPocarÔ_Ô,€Mr.€MartinÐ 0€ ÐÔ_ÔScheininÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Ô_ÔHipð;ðð;ðlitoÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSolariÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔYrigoyenÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Roman€Ô_ÔWieruszewskiÔ_Ô€and€Mr.€Ô_ÔAbdallahÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔZakhiaÔ_Ô.Ð  p ÐPursuant€to€rule€85€of€the€Ô_ÔCommitteÔ_Ô's€rules€of€procedure€Mr.€Maxwell€Ô_ÔYaldenÔ_Ô€did€not€participate€inÐ ` Ðthe€examination€of€the€case.€Ð P ÐÌ**/€€€The€text€of€an€individual€opinion€by€member€Martin€Ô_ÔScheininÔ_Ô€is€appended€to€this€document.€Ð à0 ÐÌ***/€The€author€was€represented€by€Mr.€Raj€Anand€from€Scott€and€Ô_ÔAylenÔ_Ô,€a€law€firm€in€Toronto,Ð À! ÐOntario,€until€1998.Ð °"  ÐÌ1/€€€A€1991€census€is€quoted€as€indicating€that€44%€of€the€population€is€Protestant,€36%€is€Catholic,Ð $à" Ðand€8%€have€other€religious€affiliations.Ð €%Ð # ÐÌ2/€€€Ô_ÔòòBlomÔ_Ô€v.€Swedenóó,€Views€adopted€on€4€April€1988,€selected€decisions€volume€2,€Ô_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/OP/2.Ð `'°"% ÐÌ3/€€€òòÔ_ÔLindgrenÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔLundquistÔ_Ô€v.€Swedenóó,€Views€adopted€on€9€November€1990€(Ô_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/40/D/298„Ð @)$' Ð299/1988).Ð 0*€%( ÐÌ4/€€€See€Ô_ÔBossuytÔ_Ô,€Guide€to€the€Ô_ÔTravauxÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔPrparatoiresÔ_Ô€of€the€Ô_ÔICCPRÔ_Ô,€1987,€at€369.Ð ,`'* ÐÌ5/€€€The€State€party€makes€reference€to€Nowak,€UN€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€Ô_ÔCCPRÔ_ÔÐ ð-@), Ðcommentary,€at€330„333.Ð ° ÐÌ6/€€€Nowak,€UN€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€Ô_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô€commentary€at€481,€504.Ð à ÐÌ7/€€€Counsel€refers€to€the€jurisprudence€of€the€European€Court€of€Human€Rights€in€relation€to€articleÐ pÀ Ð14€of€the€European€Convention€on€Human€Rights,€which€recognizes€that€a€measure€which€in€itselfÐ ` ° Ðis€in€conformity€with€the€requirements€of€the€article€enshrining€the€right€or€freedom€in€question€mayÐ P   Ðhowever€infringe€this€article€when€read€in€conjunction€with€article€14€for€the€reason€that€it€is€of€aÐ @  Ðdiscriminatory€nature.€(Judgement€of€23€July€1968,€relating€to€certain€aspects€of€the€laws€on€the€useÐ 0 € Ðof€languages€in€education€in€Belgium).Ð  p  ÐÌÌ[Adopted€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€English€text€being€the€original€version.€SubsequentlyÐ ð@  Ðto€be€issued€also€in€Arabic,€Chinese€and€Russian€as€part€of€the€Committee's€annual€report€to€theÐ à0  ÐGeneral€Assembly.]€Ð Ð  ÐÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓAppendixó óóóÐ  ð ÐÓúàÓÌÌòòIndividual€opinion€by€member€Martin€Ô_ÔScheininÔ_Ô€(concurringóó)Ð pÀ ÐÌWhile€I€concur€with€the€Committee's€finding€that€the€author€is€a€victim€of€a€violation€of€article€26Ð P  Ðof€the€Covenant,€I€wish€to€explain€my€reasons€for€such€a€conclusion.€Ð @ ÐÌ1.€The€Covenant€does€not€require€the€separation€of€church€and€state,€although€countries€that€do€notÐ  p Ðmake€such€a€separation€often€encounter€specific€problems€in€securing€their€compliance€with€articlesÐ ` Ð18,€26€and€27€of€the€Covenant.€Varying€arrangements€are€in€place€in€states€parties€to€the€Covenant,Ð P Ðranging€from€full€separation€to€the€existence€of€a€constitutionally€enforced€state€church.€As€theÐ ð@ ÐCommittee€has€expressed€in€its€General€Comment€No.€22€[48]€on€article€18,€the€fact€that€a€religionÐ à0 Ðis€recognized€as€a€state€religion€or€that€it€is€established€as€official€or€traditional€or€that€its€followersÐ Ð  Ðcomprise€the€majority€of€the€population,€"shall€not€result€in€any€impairment€of€the€enjoyment€of€anyÐ À! Ðof€the€rights€under€the€Covenant,€including€articles€18€and€27,€nor€in€any€discrimination€againstÐ °"  Ðadherents€to€other€religions€or€non„believers"€(para.€9).€Ð  #ð! ÐÌ2.€The€plurality€of€acceptable€arrangements€in€the€relationship€between€state€and€religion€relates€alsoÐ €%Ð # Ðto€education.€In€some€countries,€all€forms€of€religious€instruction€or€observance€are€prohibited€inÐ p&À!$ Ðpublic€schools,€and€religious€education,€protected€under€article€18€(4),€takes€place€either€outsideÐ `'°"% Ðschool€hours€or€in€private€schools.€In€some€other€countries€there€is€religious€education€in€the€officialÐ P( #& Ðor€majority€religion€in€public€schools,€with€provision€for€full€exemption€for€adherents€of€otherÐ @)$' Ðreligions€and€non„religious€persons.€In€a€third€group€of€countries€instruction€in€several€or€even€allÐ 0*€%( Ðreligions€is€offered,€on€the€basis€of€demand,€within€the€public€system€of€education.€A€fourthÐ  +p&) Ðarrangement€is€the€inclusion€in€public€school€curricula€of€neutral€and€objective€instruction€in€theÐ ,`'* Ðgeneral€history€of€religions€and€ethics.€All€these€arrangements€allow€for€compliance€with€theÐ -P(+ ÐCovenant.€As€was€specifically€stated€in€the€Committee's€General€Comment€No.€22€[48],€"publicÐ ð-@), Ðeducation€that€includes€instruction€in€a€particular€religion€or€belief€is€inconsistent€with€article€18€(4)Ð ° Ðunless€provision€is€made€for€non„discriminatory€exemptions€or€alternatives€that€would€accommodateÐ  ð Ðthe€wishes€of€parents€and€guardians"€(para.€6).€This€statement€reflects€the€Committee's€findings€inÐ à Ðthe€case€of€òòÔ_ÔHartikainenÔ_Ô€et€al.€v.€Finlandóó€(Communication€No.€40/1978).€Ð €Ð ÐÌ3.€In€the€present€case€the€Committee€correctly€focussed€its€attention€on€article€26.€Although€bothÐ ` ° ÐGeneral€Comment€No.€22€[48]€and€the€òòÔ_ÔHartikainenÔ_Ôóó€case€are€related€to€article€18,€there€is€aÐ P   Ðconsiderable€degree€of€interdependence€between€that€provision€and€the€non„discrimination€clauseÐ @  Ðin€article€26.€In€general,€arrangements€in€the€field€of€religious€education€that€are€in€compliance€withÐ 0 € Ðarticle€18€are€likely€to€be€in€conformity€with€article€26€as€well,€because€non„discrimination€is€aÐ  p  Ðfundamental€component€in€the€test€under€article€18€(4).€In€the€cases€ofòò€Ô_ÔBlomÔ_Ô€v.€SwedenóóÐ `  Ð(Communication€No.€191/1985)€and€òòÔ_ÔLundgrenÔ_Ô€et€al.€and€Ô_ÔHjordÔ_Ô€et€al.€v.€Swedenóó€(CommunicationsÐ P  Ð288€and€299/1988)€the€Committee€elaborated€its€position€in€the€question€what€constitutesÐ ð@  Ðdiscrimination€in€the€field€of€education.€While€the€Committee€left€open€whether€the€CovenantÐ à0  Ðentails,€in€certain€situations,€an€obligation€to€provide€some€public€funding€for€private€schools,€itÐ Ð  Ðconcluded€that€the€fact€that€private€schools,€freely€chosen€by€the€parents€and€their€children,€do€notÐ À Ðreceive€the€òòsame€levelóó€of€funding€as€public€schools€does€not€amount€to€discrimination.€Ð ° ÐÌ4.€In€the€Province€of€Ontario,€the€system€of€public€schools€provides€for€religious€instruction€in€oneÐ à Ðreligion€but€adherents€of€other€religious€denominations€must€arrange€for€their€religious€educationÐ €Ð Ðeither€outside€school€hours€or€by€establishing€private€religious€schools.€Although€arrangements€existÐ pÀ Ðfor€indirect€public€funding€to€existing€private€schools,€the€level€of€such€funding€is€only€a€fraction€ofÐ `° Ðthe€costs€incurred€to€the€families,€whereas€public€Roman€Catholic€schools€are€free.€This€differenceÐ P  Ðin€treatment€between€adherents€of€the€Roman€Catholic€religion€and€such€adherents€of€other€religionsÐ @ Ðthat€wish€to€provide€religious€schools€for€their€children€is,€in€the€Committee's€view,€discriminatory.Ð 0€ ÐWhile€I€concur€with€this€finding€I€wish€to€point€out€that€the€existence€of€public€Roman€CatholicÐ  p Ðschools€in€Ontario€is€related€to€a€historical€arrangement€for€minority€protection€and€hence€needs€toÐ ` Ðbe€addressed€not€only€under€article€26€of€the€Covenant€but€also€under€articles€27€and€18.€TheÐ P Ðquestion€whether€the€arrangement€in€question€should€be€discontinued€is€a€matter€of€public€policy€andÐ ð@ Ðthe€general€design€of€the€educational€system€within€the€State€party,€not€a€requirement€under€theÐ à0 ÐCovenant.€Ð Ð  ÐÌ5.€When€implementing€the€Committee's€views€in€the€present€case€the€State€party€should€in€myÐ °"  Ðopinion€bear€in€mind€that€article€27€imposes€positive€obligations€for€States€to€promote€religiousÐ  #ð! Ðinstruction€in€minority€religions,€and€that€providing€such€education€as€an€optional€arrangementÐ $à" Ðwithin€the€public€education€system€is€one€permissible€arrangement€to€that€end.€Providing€for€publiclyÐ €%Ð # Ðfunded€education€in€minority€languages€for€those€who€wish€to€receive€such€education€is€not€as€suchÐ p&À!$ Ðdiscriminatory,€although€care€must€of€course€be€taken€that€possible€distinctions€between€differentÐ `'°"% Ðminority€languages€are€based€on€objective€and€reasonable€grounds.€The€same€rule€applies€in€relationÐ P( #& Ðto€religious€education€in€minority€religions.€In€order€to€avoid€discrimination€in€funding€religious€(orÐ @)$' Ðlinguistic)€education€for€some€but€not€all€minorities€States€may€legitimately€base€themselves€onÐ 0*€%( Ðwhether€there€is€a€constant€demand€for€such€education.€For€many€religious€minorities€the€existenceÐ  +p&) Ðof€a€fully€secular€alternative€within€the€public€school€system€is€sufficient,€as€the€communities€inÐ ,`'* Ðquestion€wish€to€arrange€for€religious€education€outside€school€hours€and€outside€school€premises.Ð -P(+ ÐAnd€if€demands€for€religious€schools€do€arise,€one€legitimate€criterion€for€deciding€whether€it€wouldÐ ð-@), Ðamount€to€discrimination€not€to€establish€a€public€minority€school€or€not€to€provide€comparableÐ ° Ðpublic€funding€to€a€private€minority€school€is€whether€there€is€a€sufficient€number€of€children€toÐ  ð Ðattend€such€a€school€so€that€it€could€operate€as€a€viable€part€in€the€overall€system€of€education.€InÐ à Ðthe€present€case€this€condition€was€met.€Consequently,€the€level€of€indirect€public€funding€allocatedÐ €Ð Ðto€the€education€of€the€author's€children€amounted€to€discrimination€when€compared€to€the€fullÐ pÀ Ðfunding€of€public€Roman€Catholic€schools€in€Ontario.€Ð ` ° ÐÌMartin€Ô_ÔScheininÔ_Ô€(signed)